Senate Narrowly Passes $9 Billion Spending Cut Package, Marking Win for Fiscal Conservatives

In a narrow 51-48 vote, the U.S. Senate approved a $9 billion federal spending rescission package early Thursday morning, delivering a symbolic yet significant victory for President Donald Trump’s efforts to reduce government expenditures. The legislation, which includes controversial cuts to foreign aid and eliminates federal subsidies for National Public Radio (NPR) and PBS, has reignited debate over fiscal priorities and transparency in Washington.

The measure passed largely along party lines, though two key Republican senators—Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine—broke ranks and voted against it, aligning with Democrats who opposed the proposal.

Before reaching the Senate floor, the package had cleared the House in a slightly larger $9.4 billion form. In order to gather enough support for final passage, Senate negotiators scaled back the total by restoring $400 million in AIDS funding targeted for African countries.

A Shift Toward Fiscal Restraint?

Senate Majority Leader John Thune praised the passage of the bill as an early step toward restoring fiscal discipline in Congress, which has routinely run annual deficits hovering near $2 trillion in recent years.

“This vote is about reining in waste and taking the first of many necessary steps toward fiscal responsibility,” Thune said. “The American people are tired of reckless spending, and this shows we’re listening. It’s not a massive cut, but it’s meaningful.”

The cuts are wide-ranging and include reductions to overseas development programs, environmental initiatives, and government-sponsored broadcasting. The elimination of federal support for public broadcasting—particularly NPR and PBS—proved especially contentious among moderate Republicans and rural-state senators.

Internal GOP Division

Senator Susan Collins, who chairs the Senate Appropriations Committee, voiced strong concerns about how the cuts were structured and communicated. While she acknowledged that rescissions can be useful budget tools, she criticized the proposal’s lack of detail.

“We received very little information from the Office of Management and Budget,” Collins said. “They handed us vague language and expected us to simply approve it without knowing which programs would be gutted. That’s not responsible governance.”

She specifically noted the proposed $2.5 billion cut to the Development Assistance account, which funds global efforts on education, water and sanitation, and food security.

“We have no clarity on which of these essential services would be impacted. That’s a problem,” Collins said.

Senator Murkowski echoed these concerns and emphasized the importance of Congress asserting its own legislative authority rather than merely rubber-stamping proposals from the executive branch.

“We cannot allow the legislative process to become a rubber stamp for the White House,” Murkowski said. “We must retain the power of the purse and ensure we’re making informed, transparent decisions on behalf of the American people.”

Broadcasting Cuts Spark Backlash

Murkowski and Collins were particularly critical of the proposed cuts to public broadcasting, citing the importance of local radio stations in rural areas—especially in emergency situations.

Just hours before the vote, tsunami warnings were issued across Alaska, and Murkowski used the moment to drive home the essential role of public radio in disseminating urgent information.

“The warnings may have been lifted, but the message to this chamber is clear: slashing funds for public broadcasting could jeopardize life-saving communication in rural communities like mine,” she said.

While both senators sought to amend the bill to preserve some of the funding, only Murkowski’s amendment was formally introduced. Collins had planned to offer her own proposal to trim the overall cuts to just over $6 billion, but ultimately chose not to present it on the floor. Instead, Senator Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) introduced the amendment on her behalf.

Critics Question the Pushback

Some GOP senators were baffled by the resistance to what they characterized as modest cuts. Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) downplayed the size of the rescissions package, noting it represented a tiny fraction of total federal spending.

“This is less than one-tenth of one percent of the federal budget,” Johnson said. “These should be easy votes. I trust the administration to avoid cutting critical programs.”

Senator Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.), who led the legislative push in the Senate, defended the package and said it served as a wake-up call for lawmakers to scrutinize future appropriations more carefully.

“This bill sends a message,” Schmitt said. “It’s time to start asking where every dollar goes. This should encourage us to look more closely at waste and inefficiency moving forward.”

With the Senate’s version passed, the bill now returns to the House for reconciliation. Lawmakers will have to resolve differences between the two versions before it can be signed into law.

As the federal government continues to grapple with soaring deficits and growing public scrutiny of government spending, this package could set the tone for more contentious budget battles in the months ahead.