House Approves $9.4B Federal Spending Cut, Impacting PBS and NPR Funding

Republicans Push for Efficiency as House Bill Moves Toward Senate Approval

In a narrow vote on Thursday, the House of Representatives passed a bill designed to cut $9.4 billion in federal spending, including significant reductions to public broadcasting funding.

The legislation, which serves to codify several actions already taken by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), signals a strong push from Republicans to streamline government operations and reduce perceived waste.

The bill, commonly referred to as the rescissions package, seeks to rescind approximately $8.3 billion allocated to the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), as well as $1.1 billion earmarked for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB).

The CPB’s budget directly supports National Public Radio (NPR) and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), both of which are facing financial cuts under this new measure.

A Narrow Passage: The House Vote and Political Divisions

The bill passed with a close 214-212 vote, sending it to the Senate for further consideration.

If it advances in the Senate, only a simple majority is required to send it to President Trump’s desk for approval.

The vote saw a mix of support and opposition from both parties.

Four Republicans—Mark Amodei (Nevada), Brian Fitzpatrick (Pennsylvania), Nicole Malliotakis (New York), and Mike Turner (Ohio)—joined 208 Democrats in voting against the bill. A

dditionally, six lawmakers, including four Democrats and two Republicans, did not cast votes.

Amid the political pressures, Representatives Nick LaLota of New York and Don Bacon of Nebraska initially voted against the bill but later reversed their positions, succumbing to pressure from GOP leadership.

This shift reflected the growing influence of the party’s fiscal conservatives who have long pushed for significant cuts to federal spending.

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) expressed his support for the bill, praising DOGE for its ongoing efforts to identify inefficiencies in government spending.

“What we’re trying to do is ensure that every dollar spent by the federal government is used efficiently and effectively,” Johnson said during a press briefing.

He also added, “Republicans will continue to deliver real accountability and restore fiscal discipline.”

Department of Government Efficiency: A Push for Streamlining Federal Operations

The Department of Government Efficiency, often referred to as DOGE, has been working diligently to identify and eliminate wasteful government spending.

DOGE’s scrutiny of federal agencies and programs is based on the premise of optimizing the use of taxpayer dollars.

The department has been empowered to review federal expenditures and propose rescissions of funds that are deemed unnecessary or inefficient.

The bill is part of a broader Republican strategy aimed at controlling the size and scope of government spending, a strategy that has been championed by fiscal conservatives who argue that government inefficiencies lead to unnecessary taxpayer burdens.

By addressing these inefficiencies, the GOP believes it can help balance the federal budget and reduce the deficit.

However, Democrats have strongly opposed the cuts, particularly the impact on children’s programming.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) criticized the bill, holding up an Elmo doll during his speech to highlight the potential harm to educational programs for children. “It actually represents an attack on children.

This is extraordinary to me,” Jeffries said. “We’re on the floor of the House of Representatives, not debating legislation that is designed to make this country and our economy more affordable, but actually debating legislation that targets Elmo and Big Bird and Daniel Tiger and Sesame Street.”

The debate reflects the broader ideological divide in Congress, with Republicans focusing on fiscal restraint and government efficiency, while Democrats defend public services that they argue serve essential educational and cultural purposes, particularly for vulnerable communities.

A Draft White House Memo and Criticism of NPR and PBS

A memo from the White House, which was first reported in April, outlined the administration’s rationale for the rescissions package.

The memo, crafted by White House budget director Russ Vought, targets “waste, fraud, and abuse in Federal spending” and specifically calls out the Corporation for Public Broadcasting for what it describes as a “lengthy history of anti-conservative bias.”

The memo also highlighted controversial statements made by NPR CEO Katherine Maher, who had once referred to President Trump as a “fascist” and a “deranged racist.”

While Maher later expressed regret for her comments, the memo cited this incident as one of the justifications for reducing funding to NPR.

Additionally, the memo pointed to recent PBS programs that featured transgender characters, which have been a source of contention among conservative lawmakers.

Conservatives have long targeted funding for PBS, viewing the public broadcasting network as promoting content that is out of step with their values.

The push to reduce funding to NPR and PBS is seen by many as part of a broader effort to curb what they perceive as liberal bias in public media.

Trump’s Endorsement and GOP Backing

President Trump has publicly supported the rescissions package, calling it a “no-brainer” and encouraging all House Republicans to vote in favor of it.

His endorsement underscores the administration’s commitment to reducing federal spending and eliminating what it considers unnecessary expenditures.

Once the rescission bill is transmitted to Congress, lawmakers will have 45 days to act on it, in accordance with the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, which governs the process for rescinding previously appropriated federal funds.

This mechanism allows Congress to cancel funds that had been approved in the federal budget but have not yet been spent.

Backlash from Elon Musk and Congressional Response

In the wake of public criticism from high-profile figures like Elon Musk, the GOP leadership has been under increasing pressure to take more aggressive action on government efficiency.

Musk, a vocal critic of government inefficiency, had publicly complained that Congress had failed to codify many of the initiatives championed by DOGE, despite promises to do so.

This led to a renewed push within the Republican Party to ensure that these efficiency measures were enshrined into law.

The Trump administration’s focus on government efficiency is framed within a broader strategy to reduce the national deficit and shrink the federal budget.

The rescissions package is a part of the president’s broader fiscal agenda, which also includes the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, a massive piece of legislation aimed at cutting $1.25 trillion in spending over the next decade.

A Broader Agenda: The One Big Beautiful Bill Act

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which passed the House last month, includes a series of technical legislative fixes and policy changes designed to streamline federal operations and reduce government spending.

This legislation aims to bring about long-term savings by reducing funding for mandatory programs like Medicaid and implementing a series of fiscal reforms.

Republicans are hoping that both the rescission package and the broader spending cuts in the megabill will pave the way for a more efficient federal government.

While the measures have been widely praised by fiscal conservatives, they have faced opposition from Democrats, who argue that the cuts disproportionately harm vulnerable populations, particularly children and low-income families.

Conclusion: The Future of Federal Spending and Efficiency

The passage of the rescissions package in the House of Representatives marks a significant step in the Republican Party’s ongoing efforts to reduce federal spending and eliminate waste.

The bill’s focus on cutting funding for public broadcasting, including PBS and NPR, reflects the party’s broader agenda to curb what it perceives as government inefficiency and liberal bias in public media.

As the bill moves to the Senate, it remains to be seen whether it will pass in its current form.

If approved, it will be a major victory for fiscal conservatives who have long called for government efficiency reforms.

However, the cuts to public broadcasting and other vital services are likely to continue to spark debate, particularly as Democrats push back against what they see as harmful reductions to critical programs that serve vulnerable communities.

The outcome of this legislation will likely shape the future of federal spending for years to come, with significant implications for both public policy and the broader political landscape.

As the Senate deliberates the bill, all eyes will be on how lawmakers navigate the complex balance between fiscal restraint and the protection of essential public services.