In a bold move that could derail government operations, President Donald Trump is pressing congressional Republicans to slash $9.4 billion in previously approved spending without Democratic support, risking a potential shutdown by the end of September.
According to NBC News, this escalating conflict centers on Trump's push for spending cuts, opposed fiercely by Democrats, with a critical deadline of Sept. 30 looming for a new funding agreement.
Earlier this year, Trump and his party successfully modified government funding through a party-line megabill signed into law just last week. This legislation significantly boosted spending for the military and immigration enforcement. However, the current controversy stems from Trump's latest request to rescind substantial amounts of already allocated funds.
The proposed rescissions package, developed with input from the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), targets $8.3 billion in foreign aid and $1.1 billion from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which supports PBS and NPR. This package narrowly passed the House last month with a tight vote of 214-212. Now, the focus shifts to the Senate, where Republicans hold 53 seats but face uncertainty about securing enough votes for passage.
In the Senate, rescinding approved spending can be achieved with a simple majority vote through a rarely used process, unlike government funding bills, which require 60 votes to overcome a filibuster under Senate rules. While Republicans could theoretically pass the $9.4 billion in cuts with just their votes, some GOP senators are pushing for modifications to the package. If changes are made, the package would need to return to the House for another vote, complicating the timeline.
Democrats, led by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, have vehemently opposed the rescissions package, primarily because it was crafted without their involvement. Schumer has warned that if Republicans proceed with these cuts, Democrats will refuse to support a new government funding deal, heightening the risk of a shutdown by Sept. 30. His threat to block an appropriations agreement requires at least 41 of the 47 Senate Democrats to stand united, though past efforts in March to achieve such unity during a shutdown dispute fell short.
“If Republicans cave to Donald Trump and gut these investments agreed to by both parties, that would be an affront — a huge affront — to the bipartisan appropriations process,” Schumer declared.
“It is absurd to expect Democrats to play along with funding the government if Republicans are just going to renege on a bipartisan agreement by concocting rescissions packages behind closed doors that can pass with only their votes, not the customary 60 votes required in the appropriation process,” he added. His stance underscores the deep divide between the parties on this issue.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune expressed disappointment at Schumer's position, stating, “I’m disappointed to see Schumer implicitly threaten to shut down the government.” “But I’m hopeful that that is not the position of the Democrat Party, the Democrat conference here in the Senate, and that we can work together in the coming weeks to pass bipartisan appropriations bills,” Thune continued. He plans to bring the rescissions package up for discussion next week, allowing for an open amendment process to address concerns.
Some Republican senators have voiced specific worries about the impact of the proposed cuts, particularly on certain programs. Sen. Mike Rounds highlighted the severe effect on rural radio stations, saying, “We have to have a fix, for sure, on those rural radio stations. Basically, 90% or more of their resources are taken away by the rescissions package.” He also noted, “The Office of Management and Budget has agreed to work with us, and now we’re in that process of finding the appropriate path forward where they do not lose their funding.”
Sen. Thom Tillis offered a mixed perspective, stating, “I’m fine with the majority of it.” He added, “We’re just looking at any of the national security impacts, any nexus there that would raise concern.” Meanwhile, Sen. Susan Collins criticized cuts to specific initiatives like the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), saying, “I believe it needs some significant changes,” and questioning why such a program would face reductions.
The broader implications of this conflict worry some lawmakers and observers who fear lasting damage to the legislative process. Sen. Tammy Baldwin cautioned, “If Trump and the Republican majority can undermine the appropriations process by rescinding bipartisan funding on a simple majority vote, that presents real challenges to the appropriations process.” She emphasized, “Moving forward, it’s our job in the next few days to make sure that Republicans know that this would be a major trust factor in moving forward with our appropriation bills.”
Analyst Bobby Kogan also raised alarms about the potential fallout, stating, “This all risks a lot more shutdowns. Republicans are looking at breaking appropriations deals on both sides of the ledger: spending more on the things they like and less on the things they don’t like.” He further warned, “If you can break bipartisan appropriations deals with partisan rescissions packages, that is going to be the end of bipartisan appropriations.” His comments reflect a growing concern about the erosion of collaborative governance.
Congress faces a tight deadline of July 18 to send the rescissions package to Trump’s desk, or it will automatically dissolve. Additionally, the Sept. 30 deadline to avoid a government shutdown adds urgency to resolving these disputes. Some Republicans privately worry that pushing forward with party-line cuts could irreparably harm the traditional bipartisan approach to funding agreements. As discussions continue, the coming weeks will be critical in determining whether Congress can avert a shutdown. The open amendment process in the Senate next week may provide an opportunity to address some concerns and build consensus. However, with deep partisan divisions and high stakes, the path to a resolution remains uncertain.