Senate Clears $9 Billion in Spending Cuts, Marks Win for Trump’s Fiscal Agenda

In a closely contested vote early Thursday, the U.S. Senate approved a $9 billion rescissions package aimed at slashing federal spending. The 51–48 tally delivered a symbolic victory to President Donald Trump’s push to curb government growth and reclaim budgetary control.

The amendments include sizeable reductions to foreign aid and the elimination of subsidies for National Public Radio (NPR) and PBS. Notably, two Republicans joined Senate Democrats in opposing the package: Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski and Maine’s Susan Collins.

---

From House to Senate—Trimming for Consensus

The legislation, initially passed by the House in a $9.4 billion form, underwent alterations in the Senate. To secure enough support, the Senate reinstated $400 million in aid to fight AIDS in Africa. That adjustment helped win over centrist members uneasy with sweeping cuts to international health funding.

With Senate passage secured, the package now heads back to the House for reconciliation.

---

Thune Labels Move a First Step Toward Fiscal Discipline

Senate Majority Leader John Thune praised the vote as a modest but meaningful push toward responsible budgeting. He stressed the importance of trimming “wasteful spending” as Congress seeks to rein in perennial annual deficits that now climb into the trillions.

“This is a small but important step toward fiscal sanity,” Thune declared, adding that the Senate must “do its part” in eliminating excess expenditures.

---

Collins and Murkowski Raise Transparency and Public Radio Concerns

Though Collins supports the general concept of rescissions, she withheld her vote, citing a lack of transparency in the White House’s proposals. The final package, she argued, lacked detailed language breaking down specific programs or impacts, especially in areas like development assistance.

“We don’t know how those cuts will affect vital programs covering education, water sanitation, and food security,” she said, criticizing the sparse text offered to lawmakers.

Murkowski echoed similar concerns. She called for a return to more deliberative legislative processes, warning that Congress was yielding too much control to the White House. Both senators also focused on cuts to public broadcasting—arguing they could devastate rural radio service.

Murkowski flagged a timely argument: earlier in the day, tsunami warnings had been issued across parts of Alaska. In her view, local NPR stations play a lifeline role in disseminating emergency alerts to remote communities.

“Today of all days, we should vote down these cuts to public broadcasting,” she urged, tying the vote to real-world consequences in her home state.

---

Intra-GOP Tensions Surface over Magnitude of Cuts

Some Republican colleagues expressed confusion over the objections raised by Murkowski and Collins. Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) observed that the proposed cuts amount to less than 0.1% of the federal budget—and questioned the resistance to reductions that seemed modest in context.

“This should be a chip shot,” Johnson said, suggesting that trust in OMB Director Russ Vought’s judgment should prevail over internal objections.

Meanwhile, Senator Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.), who led the measure’s push in the Senate, defended the process as entirely consistent with congressional prerogatives. He framed the debate as part of what lawmakers are supposed to do—scrutinize, negotiate, and rework spending measures.

“This highlights wasteful spending,” Schmitt said. “As we move into appropriations season, let’s focus more sharply on saving money.”

---

What’s at Stake and What Comes Next

The rescissions package’s passage represents more than fiscal symbolism: it signals Congress’s willingness—or at least a Republican majority’s willingness—to confront entrenched spending and reclaim control over budget priorities.

Still, approval in the Senate does not guarantee full enactment. The House could push back on the reinstatement of the $400 million in global health funding or make further adjustments before final reconciliation.

For Murkowski and Collins, their dissent underscores a more cautious or regionally attuned perspective—especially in states where public broadcasting plays an outsized role in delivering information and services. Their votes also reveal tensions within the GOP between hardline fiscal cuts and preserving essential local services.

If the trimmed package becomes law, its cuts will begin to take effect across federal agencies, particularly within international assistance programs and public service media. That will raise both practical and political questions about how those sectors are protected or restructured.

In the months ahead, the full appropriations process will test whether this $9 billion cut is a mere opening salvo—or a new baseline for more aggressive reductions in federal spending.