Latest news with #RosaDelauro
The Hill
4 days ago
- Business
- The Hill
Congress approves public media and foreign aid cuts: What to know
Congress this week approved a bill that claws back about $9 billion in foreign aid and public broadcasting funds, as Republicans look to begin locking in cuts pursued by his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). The package includes about $8 billion in cuts for the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and other foreign aid, as well as more than $1 billion in cuts to the Corporation of Public Broadcasting (CPB), which provides some funding to NPR and PBS. Here are five things to know about the bill. NPR and PBS brace for cuts The bill yanks back more than $1 billion in advanced funding appropriated for CPB over fiscal years 2026 and 2027. Many Republicans say the cuts are long overdue, singling out NPR and PBS, for what they perceive as political bias. But some are concerned about how the cuts would impact smaller stations. In the previous fiscal year, NPR received upwards of $13 million from CPB, the corporation's grants and allocations data shows. More than $70 million went to PBS based in Arlington. About one percent of NPR's current operating budget comes directly from the federal government, compared to 15 percent for PBS, multiple outlets report. At the same time, however, fees from member stations, which rely on a larger share of CPB funding on average, make up about 30 percent of NPR's funding. PBS says it also receives annual programming dues from stations to carry national programming. About 35 percent of the annual funding for PBS News Hour, the organization said, comes from CPB and national programming funds it described as 'a combination of CPB appropriation funds and annual programming dues paid to PBS by stations re-allocated to programs like ours.' Public media faces fiscal 'cliff' in October Opponents of the cuts have already sounded alarm about the fiscal 'cliff' that some stations will face as a result of the latest legislation come October, the start of fiscal year 2026. 'It is a cliff,' Rep. Rosa Delauro (Conn.), the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, told The Hill Thursday. 'They're already speaking about it, frightened to death, particularly in rural communities that they're not going to have access to important information or alerts about weather situations, information that they need to know, education for their kids, because they're not in communities where there are multiple sources of information.' In a statement responding to passage of the cuts on Friday, CPB president Patricia Harrison said 'many local public radio and television stations will be forced to shut down.' 'Cutting federal funding could also put Americans at risk of losing national and local emergency alerts that serve as a lifeline to many Americans in times of severe need,' Harrison also said. Senators on both sides of the aisle have raised similar concerns. Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) said at the Hill Nation Summit on Wednesday that the cuts could put rural radio stations in her home state out of business, calling them 'the lifeblood of these communities when it comes to emergency alerts.' Sen. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), one of two Republicans in the upper chamber to vote against the bill, pointed to a recent earthquake in her home state. Seven-point-three [magnitude] earthquake off of Alaska and tsunami warnings. You know how I got this information? From public broadcasting,' she said on the Senate floor. Less than 5 percent of the nonprofit corporation's funding goes toward its operations, while more than 70 percent 'goes directly to local public media stations,' CPB states on its website. And almost half of its 'total 544 radio and TV grantees are considered rural.' However, many Republicans have downplayed the cuts. 'There's so many means for communications now that we didn't have in the 1960s. Everyone has it on their phone,' Rep. Mark Alford (R-Missouri) told The Hill this week. 'Everyone, pretty much, has a smartphone, even in rural districts that that I represent, there's all types of access for information that we didn't have in the 1960s' 'I don't think the American taxpayer should be funding journalism,' Alford, who is also a former television news anchor, also said, while arguing there's a 'liberal, progressive bent towards NPR and PBS.' Foreign aid The request initially sent by the White House called for $8.3 billion in cuts to USAID and other foreign aid. But the White House ended up agreeing to exempt the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), which was established under former President George W. Bush in 2003 and totaled about $400 million, after those cuts became a critical point of contention for moderate GOP lawmakers. The administration said the bill targets items like migration and refugee assistance that 'could be more fairly shared with non-U.S. Government donors,' USAID efforts officials say have been used to 'fund radical gender and climate projects,' and development assistance they argued 'conflict with American values' and 'interfere with the sovereignty of other countries,' among other rescissions. Republicans in both chambers have overwhelmingly cheered the cuts. But a few have also voiced concerns about the proposal in recent weeks, sounding alarm over what they see as a lack of information about the accounts being targeted. Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins (R-Maine) specifically singled out a proposed $2.5 billion in cuts to the Development Assistance account. She noted in a statement that the account 'covers everything from basic education, to water and sanitation, to food security,' but said lawmakers still lacked key details as to how those programs would be affected. More cuts could be coming Republicans see the bill as a critical 'test run' for the party, as Trump administration officials have already indicated they aim to send multiple special requests to Congress to claw back more funding if the first package makes it through. White House budget chief Russell Vought said Thursday that another rescissions package is 'likely to come soon,' though he stopped short of offering specifics as to what programs could be on the chopping block. 'Have nothing to announce, but we've been talking about it, and there's certainly an enthusiasm, although,' Vought said. 'I spent a good hour with Senate Republicans, there is still a great enthusiasm for these rescissions bills, because Congress wants to be a part of voting for these cuts and making them permanent.' Hardline conservatives have ramped up calls in recent months for the president to use the rare 'rescissions' tool – which unlocks a process that Republicans can use to secure funding cuts with GOP-only votes – as the party looks to codify DOGE cuts amid legal challenges over the administration's efforts to reshape the federal government. Implications for Sept. 30 Fewer than 20 legislative days stand between Congress and a looming Sept. 30 deadline to prevent a government shutdown. Both chambers are running behind in marking up and pushing their annual funding bills across the floor — increasing the likelihood Congress will have to resort to a stopgap measure to keep the lights on and buy time for lawmakers to finish their funding work. Senate Democrats have already warned the passage of the recent rescissions package threatens already fragile bipartisan funding talks. And some Republicans are also eager to begin shifting more focus to crafting and approving new funding levels for fiscal 2026. Asked about the administration's plans to send Congress additional requests for cuts, Murkowski, a senior GOP appropriator, said, 'I do not think that should be our path.' 'It's not legislating. It's basically the White House saying this is what we want you to do. Take it or leave it,' she told reporters this week.
CBS News
09-07-2025
- Politics
- CBS News
Congressional Democrats push for new watchdog to oversee Trump's White House
Senate Democrats are planning to introduce new legislation to create a new watchdog office to monitor the conduct and actions of President Trump's White House and future administrations. The bill, which will be formally announced Wednesday by a group of congressional Democrats, requires an inspector general to oversee the Executive Office of the President. The legislation has been attempted previously, but has new urgency, according to its authors. "Inspectors general conduct important independent oversight throughout different agencies in the executive branch. But the same is not true when it comes to the President and the White House — where there is no inspector general," said Sen. Adam Schiff, a California Democrat who is sponsoring the bill. "That should change, regardless of who is in office." Schiff said an inspector general overseeing the White House offices and staff would "ensure that no President or administration is above the law." "Inspectors general hold federal agencies accountable by rooting out fraud and abuse, and this legislation would implement the same oversight of our nation's highest office," said Schiff, a longtime Trump foe who has helped investigate the president – drawing stiff criticism from Mr. Trump. Ethics and watchdog groups have long advocated for an inspector general to monitor White House staff and offices. Rep. Rosa Delauro, a Connecticut Democrat who is also sponsoring the legislation, had proposed a similar bill in 2017 during Mr. Trump's first term. Delauro said, "This is a vital check on executive power that is long overdue." Congressional Democrats have criticized Mr. Trump for years over alleged conflicts between his business interests and his role as president — a charge the Trump administration has long denied, saying his assets are managed by his children. The bill faces long odds in a GOP-controlled House and Senate, and Republican leadership is unlikely to bring the bill to a vote. DeLauro's 2017 bill did not advance beyond the House Oversight Committee. And this latest Democratic effort to subject the White House to greater outside inspection and scrutiny is bound to be seen by the administration and its supporters as a partisan political move. Dozens of inspectors general work throughout the federal government to audit, inspect and investigate agencies, aiming to root out waste, fraud and misconduct. In recent years, inspectors have uncovered wait time issues at veterans' medical centers, luxurious parties funded by taxpayers and criminal sexual misconduct by agency employees. The watchdogs typically serve across administrations and are rarely fired. But the White House and its staff have not been monitored by such an office. The Executive Office of the President has hundreds of employees, including key aides such as the president's press secretary, chief of staff and national security adviser. "The Executive Office of the President — the epicenter of federal policymaking and governance — lacks this key form of internal oversight, allowing corrupt actors at the highest levels of government to evade public accountability," said Debra Perlin, a vice president with the Washington, D.C.-based Citizens for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington. Mr. Trump has fueled concerns about the ability of agency watchdogs to monitor administration policies, decisions and employees. Mr. Trump fired more than a dozen federal inspectors general in the opening days of his second term, triggering an ongoing federal civil suit by the ousted officials, who allege the firings were not lawful. The administration also fired the former head of the Office of Special Counsel, Hampton Dellinger, which monitors employees across federal agencies. Dellinger — who dropped his legal fight against his firing after an appeals court sided with Mr. Trump — told "60 Minutes" earlier this year: "I'm not looking to promote a president's agenda or thwart it. I'm just trying to make sure the laws are followed." The administration has argued the president has the right to remove inspectors general. Mr. Trump called firing the watchdogs "a very standard thing to do." Mr. Trump has also appointed some loyal surrogates to other watchdog positions in his administration, raising questions about their independence. The president chose right-wing podcast host and MAGA loyalist Paul Ingrassia to lead the Office of Special Counsel.
