The Trump White House is preparing to send Congress a formal rescission package slashing $9.3 billion in previously approved federal spending. The proposal zeroes in on funding for public broadcasting and international aid, reflecting a broader push to rein in government overreach and redirect taxpayer dollars to core national interests.
Led by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), under Elon Musk’s advisory role, the plan seeks to eliminate $1.03 billion allocated to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which finances NPR and PBS. The administration argues that taxpayer subsidies for media outlets with perceived ideological bias are outdated and unnecessary in the digital age.
The largest portion of the rescission targets $8.3 billion in U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) funding. Programs under scrutiny include those related to global climate initiatives, gender equity promotion, and foreign infrastructure development—projects critics say do little to serve American citizens.
The New York Post reported on the memo in which hite House budget director Russ Vought stated: “Since day one, the Trump Administration has targeted waste, fraud, and abuse in Federal spending through executive action, DOGE review, and other efforts by departments and agencies. Congress has expressed strong interest in supporting those efforts, and requested the Administration transmit rescissions to the Hill for swift approval.”
Additional proposed cuts affect other international programs, including the State Department, the U.S. Institute of Peace, the Inter-American Foundation, and the U.S. African Development Foundation. These agencies are frequently criticized for duplicative missions and inefficient use of federal funds.
Once submitted, Congress will have 45 days to consider the package. A simple majority vote in both chambers is required to approve the rescissions. While the move enjoys broad support among fiscal conservatives, some moderate Republicans have raised concerns about domestic fallout and diplomatic implications.
Public broadcasting advocates have already begun lobbying efforts to preserve their funding, arguing that these services provide critical access to educational and cultural programming. However, proponents of the cuts counter that such content should be funded privately, not subsidized by taxpayers.
Public broadcasting groups are already lobbying to keep their funding, claiming these cuts threaten access to educational and cultural programming. Conservative lawmakers backing the rescissions argue it’s time to stop forcing taxpayers to subsidize partisan media and foreign projects that offer little return for American families.
