In an age of unprecedented national debt, $9.4 billion is just a drop in a bucket, coming in at about 27 bucks per American. But still — still! — it might not pass the U.S. Senate, where it’s headed after the House of Representatives’ yes vote on Thursday. That’s because with just a three-vote majority, even reaching 51 votes is difficult when members are on completely different pages.
The proposed cuts would put a legislative stamp on some of the more spectacular cuts made by the Department of Government Efficiency, including to USAID, NPR, and PBS. That means these cuts target deeply partisan programs staunchly defended by Democrats.
No one knows how many ‘tweaks’ it would take to win over Collins. But Trump has leverage elsewhere.
President Donald Trump’s 2018 rescission proposal failed in a Republican Senate despite that package merely reclaiming leftover funds. So what now?
Here are the key players to watch next week.
Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.): In large swaths of the country, NPR and PBS are reliably partisan mouthpieces for some of the more radical aspects of the Democrats’ agenda — and reliable opponents of Republican politics.
If you want to hear about “the new civil rights battle” over the plight of undocumented trans prostitutes of color and size in Worchester, tune into Boston’s NPR affiliate. But that’s not always the case.
Rounds’ state of South Dakota is a rural state in Tornado Alley. That means its public radio stations cover things like local sports and state meetings, but also extreme weather events in which seconds of extra warning time can save lives. This makes the Senate majority leader’s junior colleague more defensive of public radio than, say, the Republican from South Carolina.
Because of these concerns, Rounds is one of just two Republican senators who have publicly voiced skepticism of the specific rescissions package passed by the House of Representatives. That doesn’t mean he can’t be brought around, however.
Rounds’ concerns are targeted and are not the experience of those Republicans who instead see NPR funding as contributing to attack ads against them, so a fix could also be targeted and come as either an exception (hard to do, because then everyone wants one) or a specific grant to fund weather reporting on rural stations.
No one in Texas or Indiana needs to contribute taxes to telling South Dakota reservations about the latest triangle on the LGBTQA flag, but more specific grants could take care of all of those states’ needs.
South Dakota is a deeply red state, and that means Trump carries a lot of water. Watch for Rounds being able to get to a yes, with the right promises.
Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine): Collins is a reliably liberal Republican, which makes more sense when you realize she represents a state that went to former Vice President Kamala Harris by eight points. She’s also a professional appropriator, meaning she takes the Senate’s power to spend far more seriously than she takes its duty to responsible fiscal stewardship. One of the top reasons she voted against the 2018 package was her concern that a simple majority could rescind funds appropriated by 60 votes or more.
She hasn’t signaled any change of heart — and now she chairs the Senate Appropriations Committee.
This time, her stated concern centers on funding for PEPFAR, the U.S. program that supports AIDS relief in Africa. That may sound reasonable at first. But the argument falls apart once you realize what PEPFAR often funds in practice.
Those stories about U.S. taxpayer dollars buying condoms in the Congo or funding outreach programs embedded with sex workers in Thailand? That’s PEPFAR money at work.
Not all the money funds these sorts of things, of course, and AIDS is still a very deadly and serious disease in undeveloped countries. To that end, Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought promised last week to tweak the defunding to appease worried Republicans with a focus on lifesaving funds more than the “prevention” that has gone so far astray from American intentions.
Vought warned, however, that PEPFAR “is something that our budget will be very trim on, because we believe that many of these nonprofits are not geared towards the viewpoints of the administration.” “We’re $37 trillion in debt,” he added. “So at some point, the continent of Africa needs to absorb more of the burden of providing this health care.”
No one knows how many “tweaks” it would take to win over Collins. But Trump has leverage elsewhere.
Lobster fishermen matter a great deal in Maine, and the president has stood firmly with that industry. He could also offer relief on trade barriers or tariffs — though he may want to save that for a bigger prize: the all-important reconciliation deal.
Still, Collins’ professed ethical objections to spending cuts make a yes vote unlikely, no matter what’s on the table.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska): Murkowski is another liberal Republican and appropriator. She’s even a close pal of Collins! She held her nose last time around and voted “yes” on Trump’s 2018 rescission under urging from the then-Senate majority leader, but before their conversation on the Senate floor, and literally on her way to the vote, she told CNN, “I don’t support any of this.”
Keep in mind this was for money that was not used, targeting government functions that were fully funded. The fight in 2025 is a step up altogether, and Murkowski is a big fan of American money going to foreign projects.
Above all things, however, Murkowski is transactional, and there are a lot of things the White House could do to make things more palatable to the senator from Alaska, from military infrastructure and coastline development to simply spending more on projects in her state.
She was a very tepid yes last time around, and the president has lost the man who brought her over the top, but Trump is in a different place too — returned to office with a national mandate and a real coalition backing him. She’s a potential yes but will have to be brought there — with money.
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.): This brings us to our last senator: that former majority leader who convinced his friend Murkowski to vote yes in 2018. To cut right to it, McConnell has changed. Not in his general love for war, sending money abroad, appropriations, and resistance to campaign finance reform, mind you, but in his now open dislike for the 47th president of the United States.
McConnell made clear, even after Trump’s popular re-election, that he sees his legacy in protecting the status quo on America’s foreign policy. That includes preserving USAID and the great soft-power value it was supposed to give us before that sector of government was co-opted and subverted by hard-line Democratic activists.
More to the point, McConnell hates Trump. The man in the Oval Office represents a well-deserved repudiation of everything the man from Kentucky stands for, and he knows it. That doesn’t mean he’s willing to be the vote to shut down rescissions — and he’s kept that card close to his chest — but it sure leans that way.
McConnell is the type of politician who likes to let other people do the fighting for him, but in his twilight years, he is more apt to let ’er rip on the new sort of Republicans. He’s a wild card, but don’t bet much on his coming to a yes, at least nothing it would hurt to lose.
The Senate is a mercurial body, made up of personalities that are interesting to track and fun to guess on. This is a flexible and nimble White House with an excellent legislative affairs team (take a look at the president’s Thursday re-invitation of Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and his wife to the White House picnic for the most recent evidence). Even then, cutting partisan corruption from a bloated budget is tough work when it comes to convincing Republicans.
If this package passes, expect many more rescission packages to follow. If not, keep an eye on Vought and his allies. The executive will be making cuts — we’re just not sure yet if Congress will play its part.
Sign up for Bedford’s newsletter
Sign up to get Blaze Media senior politics editor Christopher Bedford’s newsletter.
Opinion & analysis, Politics