The House of Representatives has passed a contentious $9.4 billion spending bill aimed at slashing federal funds for foreign aid and public broadcasting, a move seen as part of President Donald Trump’s broader agenda to realign U.S. government spending priorities. The legislation, which cleared the House on a narrow 214-212 vote, would significantly reduce funding to the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), with the latter receiving over $1 billion in cuts. The measure has ignited heated debates about the role of government in global initiatives and the editorial independence of public media outlets.
Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and Majority Whip Tom Emmer, R-Minn., were observed closely watching the pivotal moments on the House floor where the bill nearly failed due to six Republican holdouts. Two of the dissenting Republicans, Reps. Nick LaLota, R-N.Y., and Don Bacon, R-Neb., ultimately voted to support the measure, enabling its passage. The bill’s passage represents a significant shift in how the Republican Party is approaching federal spending cuts, with the Trump administration viewing it as a test of GOP unity on contentious fiscal issues.
Republican leaders have framed the cuts as a response to what they describe as ‘woke’ spending, with a significant portion of USAID funds allegedly allocated to programs they consider ideologically objectionable. This includes $1 million for voter ID initiatives in Haiti and $3 million for Iraqi Sesame Street. The debate over these specific allocations has underscored the broader ideological rift within the party over how public funds should be spent, particularly in the context of international development and public broadcasting.
Conversely, some moderate Republicans have raised concerns about the potential impact of the legislation on critical disease prevention research in Africa and the broader implications for local news outlets that rely on public broadcasting for information in underserved areas. Critics argue that the full elimination of federal funding for public broadcasting could disproportionately harm small local news organizations that provide essential coverage in regions without other reliable news sources. These concerns suggest that the legislation, while reflecting the conservative stance of its sponsors, is not without its critics within the GOP ranks and broader community.
As the bill moves to the Senate for consideration, its fate remains uncertain. The legislation, known as a rescissions package, allows the Trump administration to potentially block congressionally approved funding it disagrees with. Once transmitted to Capitol Hill, lawmakers have 45 days to approve the rescissions proposal, otherwise it is considered rejected. The process will require a simple majority in both the House and Senate, though Republicans’ thin majorities in both chambers may pose challenges. If passed, the bill could signal the beginning of a series of rescissions packages aimed at implementing spending cuts identified by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a concept first proposed by Elon Musk.