Senate Narrowly Approves $9 Billion Spending Cut Package, Marking Victory for Fiscal Conservatives

In a narrow 51-48 vote early Thursday morning, the U.S. Senate passed a $9 billion federal spending rescission package, handing President Donald Trump a notable policy win in his broader effort to reduce government expenditures. The legislation, which features major cuts to foreign aid and the elimination of funding for National Public Radio (NPR) and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), now heads back to the House of Representatives for final approval.

The bill was approved after weeks of debate and internal party disagreement, with two Republican senators—Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine—breaking ranks to vote alongside Democrats against the measure.

The Senate version of the bill trims $400 million in global AIDS funding that was initially slashed in the House version, which totaled $9.4 billion. The reinstatement of the AIDS funding, particularly for programs in Africa, was a concession aimed at securing enough support for passage in the Senate.

A Small Step Toward Fiscal Discipline

Republican leaders hailed the passage as a significant step toward restoring fiscal discipline in Washington. Senate Majority Leader John Thune emphasized the importance of beginning to rein in government overspending after years of mounting federal deficits that have averaged around $2 trillion annually.

“This is a necessary first move to cut back on wasteful programs,” Thune stated. “I’m grateful for the administration’s efforts to identify unnecessary spending. The Senate has an obligation to act responsibly with taxpayer dollars.”

Sen. Eric Schmitt of Missouri, the primary sponsor of the bill in the Senate, described the measure as part of a broader push to reduce government overreach and waste. He argued that the package, while modest in size, signals a shift in attitude toward greater fiscal responsibility.

“We’re doing our job here—reviewing what’s truly essential and trimming the rest,” Schmitt said. “This legislation sends a message that we’re serious about reducing waste and being better stewards of public funds.”

GOP Division Over Process and Priorities

Despite general Republican support, the bill sparked notable pushback from within the party. Senator Collins, who chairs the Senate Appropriations Committee, expressed discomfort with the lack of clarity provided by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). She supported the concept of rescissions but said this particular package lacked transparency and detail.

“The proposal was extremely vague,” Collins told reporters. “The documentation didn’t explain which specific programs would face cuts. For instance, there’s a $2.5 billion reduction in development aid—but how that impacts water, sanitation, food security, and education remains entirely unclear.”

Murkowski echoed similar concerns, criticizing the legislative process itself. She warned that Congress appeared to be following the Trump administration’s directives without properly exercising its own oversight responsibilities.

“This is not how we should be conducting the people’s business,” Murkowski said on the Senate floor. “We need to return to regular order and carefully review how these cuts will affect our communities.”

Public Broadcasting and Emergency Services Under Scrutiny

A major sticking point for Murkowski and Collins was the package’s proposed elimination of federal support for NPR and PBS. Both senators highlighted the crucial role public broadcasting plays in their largely rural states, particularly in disseminating emergency alerts and educational programming.

Murkowski cited a real-time example: tsunami warnings issued in Alaska just hours before the vote. She used the incident to underscore the importance of preserving funding for rural public radio stations, which serve as the primary source of emergency communications for many communities.

“The tsunami warning has now been canceled,” she said, “but the warning to this chamber should remain. On a day like today, gutting public broadcasting funding is not just unwise—it’s dangerous.”

Although Collins prepared an amendment to reduce the total cuts to $6 billion, she ultimately did not present it herself. Senator Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) introduced the proposal on her behalf. Murkowski also offered a separate amendment aimed at preserving some funding for public broadcasting, though both attempts fell short.

Disagreements on the Size of Cuts

Other Republican senators questioned the resistance to what they viewed as a relatively small spending reduction. Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin downplayed concerns, noting the rescissions amounted to less than one-tenth of 1% of the federal budget.

“This should be a no-brainer,” Johnson remarked. “We’re not slashing vital programs here—we’re simply trimming excess.”

Still, the divide revealed deeper tensions over how the GOP balances fiscal conservatism with constituent needs and legislative norms.

What’s Next?

With Senate approval secured, the rescissions package now returns to the House, where lawmakers will need to reconcile the revised version with their earlier bill. If passed, it would mark the most substantial rescissions package in recent memory and a significant political win for Trump’s agenda.

As Congress heads into the next appropriations cycle, both supporters and opponents of the package say the vote could influence how lawmakers approach spending negotiations in the coming months.