GOP struggles to make up time on 2026 government funding work
With about 20 legislative days on the House calendar ahead of a Sept. 30 government shutdown deadline, top GOP negotiators now expect it will take them beyond August to send all 12 funding bills out of committee.
'Our schedule will take us into early September, which is something we wanted to try and avoid, but I think that's where we're at,' House Appropriations Committee Tom Cole (R-Okla.) told reporters on Tuesday.
The hold up comes as both chambers are falling behind in hashing out their full-year government bills, making a stopgap funding bill of some kind practically unavoidable to keep the lights on past September.
House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) on Tuesday expressed confidence to reporters that House Republicans would be able to 'have well over 60 percent of all government funding' sent to the Senate for consideration before lawmakers 'break for August.'
'So no change to the recess schedule right now. We're holding the calendar,' he said, as the House prepares to take up its annual defense funding bill, which calls for more than $830 billion in discretionary funding for fiscal 2026.
But even if the bill passes, the House is staring down a tall challenge to get its remaining funding bills across the floor before the September shutdown deadline.
So far, House Republicans have advanced five of their annual appropriations bills out of committee, with plans to mark up two more bills funding the departments of Energy, Housing and Urban Development, and Transportation on Thursday.
House GOP appropriators said Tuesday that they're seeking $45 billion in cuts to federal funding from current levels, with a nearly 6 percent cut for non-defense programs. But they acknowledge their overall proposed funding topline doesn't go as far as the cuts proposed in President Trump's fiscal 2026 budget.
'We're getting pretty much what he wanted on defense, on veterans and on homeland, which are the three areas that he wanted, increase,' Cole told reporters.
'We cut every other bill. Did we cut as much as they wanted at [the Office of Budget and Management]? No, not in every instance, but we certainly looked at what they've given us thus far and tried to make informed decisions,' Cole said.
In its budget request from earlier this year, the Trump administration sought to cut nondefense discretionary spending by $163 billion, or about 23 percent, while boosting dollars for defense programs and immigration enforcement.
However, the budget request factors in the latter increases as part of the funding boosts greenlit in Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' that Republicans recently passed separate from the annual appropriations process.
In total, House GOP negotiators set their proposed funding topline for fiscal 2026 at about $1.598 trillion, calling for about $892.5 billion for defense programs and $705.6 billion for nondefense programs.
Republicans aren't expecting many, if any, Democratic votes to get the bills across, as their colleagues across the aisle have come out strongly against the funding cuts proposed in the bills and a slew of partisan riders in areas like abortion and diversity efforts seen as 'poison pills.'
But despite the level of cuts proposed thus far by the House committee, the bills could still ruffle feathers with some hardline conservatives.
Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-Ga.), a member of the appropriations committee and the House Freedom Caucus, said Tuesday that he 'liked the president's budget' and that he thinks Republicans 'should hold to those levels.'
In a letter addressed senior House appropriators earlier this year, members of the hardline conservative caucus pressed for funding negotiators to write bills 'consistent' with Trump's budget request and to 'reduce non-defense, non-veterans, discretionary spending to pre-COVID levels.'
In remarks to reporters on Tuesday, Cole defended the committee's spending bills for cutting spending' and said 'there's no reason why Republicans can't vote for bills that cut spending.'
'Our bills are cutting spending, and these bills, by the way, have to be in a bargaining position where they're gonna have to pass the Senate for Democratic votes,' he said.
'So, this is not reconciliation,' he said, referring to the restrictive process Republicans used this month to pass a major package advancing Trump's tax priorities without Democratic support in the Senate. 'You can't play the game exactly the same way, but these bills all cuts spending.'
At the same time, the Senate Appropriations Committee is expected to mark its 12 funding bills to an even higher topline, as Republicans have already begun negotiating with Democrats to craft bipartisan bills that can meet the upper chamber's 60-vote threshold needed to advance most legislation in the Senate.
However, only two bills have been reported out of the Senate committee so far, and zero bills have passed the floor.
Appropriators on both sides are hopeful to push more legislation out of committee in the coming weeks, but Democrats have warned a Republican effort to claw back funding previously approved by Congress for foreign aid and public broadcasting could jeopardize bipartisan spending talks.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's tariff pressure pushes Asia toward American LNG, but at the cost of climate goals
HANOI, Vietnam (AP) — Asian countries are offering to buy more U.S. liquefied natural gas in negotiations with the Trump administration as a way to alleviate tensions over U.S. trade deficits and forestall higher tariffs. Analysts warn that strategy could undermine those countries' long-term climate ambitions and energy security. Buying more U.S. LNG has topped the list of concessions Asian countries have offered in talks with Washington over President Donald Trump's sweeping tariffs on foreign goods. Vietnam's Prime Minister underlined the need to buy more of the super-chilled fuel in a government meeting, and the government signed a deal in May with an American company to develop a gas import hub. JERA, Japan's largest power generator, signed new 20-year contracts last month to purchase up to 5.5 million metric tons of U.S. gas annually starting around 2030. U.S. efforts to sell more LNG to Asia predate the Trump administration, but they've gained momentum with his intense push to win trade deals. Liquefied natural gas, or LNG, is natural gas cooled to a liquid form for easy storage and transport that is used as a fuel for transport, residential cooking and heating and industrial processes. Trump discussed cooperation on a $44 billion Alaska LNG project with South Korea, prompting a visit by officials to the site in June. The U.S. president has promoted the project as a way to supply gas from Alaska's vast North Slope to a liquefication plant at Nikiski in south-central Alaska, with an eye largely on exports to Asian countries while bypassing the Panama Canal Thailand has offered to commit to a long-term deal for American fuel and shown interest in the same Alaska project to build a nearly 810-mile (1,300-kilometer) pipeline that would funnel gas from The Philippines is also considering importing gas from Alaska while India is mulling a plan to scrap import taxes on U.S. energy shipments to help narrow its trade surplus with Washington. 'Trump has put pressure on a seeming plethora of Asian trading partners to buy more U.S. LNG,' said Tim Daiss, at the APAC Energy Consultancy, pointing out that Japan had agreed to buy more despite being so 'awash in the fuel' that it was being forced to cancel projects and contracts to offload the excess to Asia's growing economies. 'Not good for Southeast Asia's sustainability goals,' he said. LNG deals could derail renewable ambitions Experts say LNG purchasing agreements can slow adoption of renewable energy in Asia. Locking into long-term deals could leave countries with outdated infrastructure as the world shifts rapidly toward cleaner energy sources like solar or wind that offer faster, more affordable ways to meet growing power demand, said Indra Overland, head of the Center for Energy Research at the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs. Building pipelines, terminals, and even household gas stoves creates systems that are expensive and difficult to replace—making it harder to switch to renewables later. 'And you're more likely then to get stuck for longer,' he said. Energy companies that profit from gas or coal are powerful vested interests, swaying policy to favor their business models, he said. LNG burns cleaner than coal, but it's still a fossil fuel that emits greenhouse gases and contributes to climate change. Many LNG contracts include 'take-or-pay' clauses, obliging governments to pay even if they don't use the fuel. Christopher Doleman of the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis warns that if renewable energy grows fast, reducing the need for LNG, countries may still have to pay for gas they no longer need. Pakistan is an example. Soaring LNG costs drove up electricity prices, pushing consumers to install rooftop solar panels. As demand for power drops and gas supply surges, the country is deferring LNG shipments and trying to resell excess fuel. The LNG math doesn't add up Experts said that although countries are signaling a willingness to import more U.S. LNG, they're unlikely to import enough to have a meaningful impact on U.S. trade deficits. South Korea would need to import 121 million metric tons of LNG in a year — 50% more than the total amount of LNG the U.S. exported globally last year and triple what South Korea imported, said Doleman. Vietnam — with a trade surplus with the U.S. twice the size of Korea's — would need to import 181 million metric tons annually, more than double what the U.S. exported last year. Other obstacles stand in the way. The Alaska LNG project is widely considered uneconomic. Both coal and renewable energy in Asia are so much cheaper that U.S. gas would need to cost less than half its current price to compete. Tariffs on Chinese steel could make building building gas pipelines and LNG terminals more expensive, while longstanding delays to build new gas turbines mean new gas power projects may not come online until 2032. Meanwhile, a global glut in LNG will likely drive prices lower, making it even harder for countries to justify locking into long-term deals with the United States at current higher prices. LNG deals raise energy security concerns Committing to long-term U.S. LNG contracts could impact regional energy security at a time of growing geopolitical and market uncertainties, analysts said. A core concern is over the longterm stability of the U.S. as a trading partner, said Overland. 'The U.S. is not a very predictable entity. And to rely on energy from there is a very risky proposition,' he said. LNG only contributes to energy security when it's available and affordable, says Dario Kenner of Zero Carbon Analytics. 'That's the bit that they leave out ... But it's pretty important,' he said. This was the concern during the recent potential disruptions to fuel shipments through the Strait of Hormuz and earlier during the war in Ukraine, when LNG cargoes originally destined for Asia were rerouted to Europe. Despite having contracts, Asian countries like Bangladesh and Sri Lanka were outbid by European buyers. 'Events in Europe, which can seem very far away, can have an impact on availability and prices in Asia,' Kenner said. Asian countries can improve their energy security and make progress toward cutting carbon emissions by building more renewable energy, he said, noting there is vast room for that given that only about 1% of Southeast Asia's solar and wind potential is being used. 'There are genuine choices to meet rising electricity demand. It is not just having to build LNG,' he said. ___ Jintamas Saksornchai in Bangkok contributed to this report. ___ Associated Press climate and environmental coverage receive support from several private foundations. See more about AP's climate initiative here. The AP is solely responsible for all content. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
San Francisco Chronicle
25 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Trump's tariff pressure pushes Asia toward American LNG, but at the cost of climate goals
HANOI, Vietnam (AP) — Asian countries are offering to buy more U.S. liquefied natural gas in negotiations with the Trump administration as a way to alleviate tensions over U.S. trade deficits and forestall higher tariffs. Analysts warn that strategy could undermine those countries' long-term climate ambitions and energy security. Buying more U.S. LNG has topped the list of concessions Asian countries have offered in talks with Washington over President Donald Trump's sweeping tariffs on foreign goods. Vietnam's Prime Minister underlined the need to buy more of the super-chilled fuel in a government meeting, and the government signed a deal in May with an American company to develop a gas import hub. JERA, Japan's largest power generator, signed new 20-year contracts last month to purchase up to 5.5 million metric tons of U.S. gas annually starting around 2030. Liquefied natural gas, or LNG, is natural gas cooled to a liquid form for easy storage and transport that is used as a fuel for transport, residential cooking and heating and industrial processes. Trump discussed cooperation on a $44 billion Alaska LNG project with South Korea, prompting a visit by officials to the site in June. The U.S. president has promoted the project as a way to supply gas from Alaska's vast North Slope to a liquefication plant at Nikiski in south-central Alaska, with an eye largely on exports to Asian countries while bypassing the Panama Canal Thailand has offered to commit to a long-term deal for American fuel and shown interest in the same Alaska project to build a nearly 810-mile (1,300-kilometer) pipeline that would funnel gas from The Philippines is also considering importing gas from Alaska while India is mulling a plan to scrap import taxes on U.S. energy shipments to help narrow its trade surplus with Washington. 'Trump has put pressure on a seeming plethora of Asian trading partners to buy more U.S. LNG,' said Tim Daiss, at the APAC Energy Consultancy, pointing out that Japan had agreed to buy more despite being so 'awash in the fuel' that it was being forced to cancel projects and contracts to offload the excess to Asia's growing economies. 'Not good for Southeast Asia's sustainability goals,' he said. LNG deals could derail renewable ambitions Experts say LNG purchasing agreements can slow adoption of renewable energy in Asia. Locking into long-term deals could leave countries with outdated infrastructure as the world shifts rapidly toward cleaner energy sources like solar or wind that offer faster, more affordable ways to meet growing power demand, said Indra Overland, head of the Center for Energy Research at the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs. Building pipelines, terminals, and even household gas stoves creates systems that are expensive and difficult to replace—making it harder to switch to renewables later. 'And you're more likely then to get stuck for longer,' he said. Energy companies that profit from gas or coal are powerful vested interests, swaying policy to favor their business models, he said. LNG burns cleaner than coal, but it's still a fossil fuel that emits greenhouse gases and contributes to climate change. Many LNG contracts include 'take-or-pay' clauses, obliging governments to pay even if they don't use the fuel. Christopher Doleman of the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis warns that if renewable energy grows fast, reducing the need for LNG, countries may still have to pay for gas they no longer need. Pakistan is an example. Soaring LNG costs drove up electricity prices, pushing consumers to install rooftop solar panels. As demand for power drops and gas supply surges, the country is deferring LNG shipments and trying to resell excess fuel. The LNG math doesn't add up Experts said that although countries are signaling a willingness to import more U.S. LNG, they're unlikely to import enough to have a meaningful impact on U.S. trade deficits. South Korea would need to import 121 million metric tons of LNG in a year — 50% more than the total amount of LNG the U.S. exported globally last year and triple what South Korea imported, said Doleman. Vietnam — with a trade surplus with the U.S. twice the size of Korea's — would need to import 181 million metric tons annually, more than double what the U.S. exported last year. Other obstacles stand in the way. The Alaska LNG project is widely considered uneconomic. Both coal and renewable energy in Asia are so much cheaper that U.S. gas would need to cost less than half its current price to compete. Tariffs on Chinese steel could make building building gas pipelines and LNG terminals more expensive, while longstanding delays to build new gas turbines mean new gas power projects may not come online until 2032. Meanwhile, a global glut in LNG will likely drive prices lower, making it even harder for countries to justify locking into long-term deals with the United States at current higher prices. LNG deals raise energy security concerns Committing to long-term U.S. LNG contracts could impact regional energy security at a time of growing geopolitical and market uncertainties, analysts said. A core concern is over the longterm stability of the U.S. as a trading partner, said Overland. 'The U.S. is not a very predictable entity. And to rely on energy from there is a very risky proposition,' he said. LNG only contributes to energy security when it's available and affordable, says Dario Kenner of Zero Carbon Analytics. 'That's the bit that they leave out ... But it's pretty important,' he said. This was the concern during the recent potential disruptions to fuel shipments through the Strait of Hormuz and earlier during the war in Ukraine, when LNG cargoes originally destined for Asia were rerouted to Europe. Despite having contracts, Asian countries like Bangladesh and Sri Lanka were outbid by European buyers. 'Events in Europe, which can seem very far away, can have an impact on availability and prices in Asia,' Kenner said. Asian countries can improve their energy security and make progress toward cutting carbon emissions by building more renewable energy, he said, noting there is vast room for that given that only about 1% of Southeast Asia's solar and wind potential is being used. 'There are genuine choices to meet rising electricity demand. It is not just having to build LNG,' he said. Jintamas Saksornchai in Bangkok contributed to this report. ___ Associated Press climate and environmental coverage receive support from several private foundations. See more about AP's climate initiative here. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
Forbes
26 minutes ago
- Forbes
House Passes $9bn Claw Back Of Public Broadcasting And Foreign Aid Funds
The House voted to approve the White House's request to scrap $9 billion in previously approved funding for foreign aid and public broadcasting early on Friday, sending the matter to President Donald Trump's desk, after a delay caused by a clash in the narrowly divided chamber over the Epstein files issue. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, R-La., hailed the package's passage as a win for "fiscal ... More responsibility and government efficiency." Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved The rescissions package, which will claw back the already-approved funding, was passed mostly along party lines with a 216-213 vote, a day after the Senate cleared it. However, two GOP members, Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Pa., and Mike Turner, R-Ohio, voted against the measure along with all Democrats. The legislation will now be sent to Trump's desk, who hailed its passage on Truth Social, saying: 'REPUBLICANS HAVE TRIED DOING THIS FOR 40 YEARS, AND FAILED….BUT NO MORE. THIS IS BIG!!!' The president's post attacked public broadcast funding, saying the $9 billion cuts include 'ATROCIOUS NPR AND PUBLIC BROADCASTING, WHERE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS A YEAR WERE WASTED.' The rescissions package will allow the Trump administration to claw back $1.1 billion in funding from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which helps fund public broadcasters like PBS and NPR, and approximately $8 billion from foreign aid programs, including allocations to USAID. The Senate had passed the package early on Thursday in a 51-48 vote, with two Republican Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine, voting against it. After the bill's passage, Mike Johnson tweeted: 'President Trump and House Republicans promised fiscal responsibility and government efficiency. Today, we're once again delivering on that promise…The American people will no longer be forced to fund politically biased media and more than $8 billion in outrageous expenses overseas.'
