The Senate’s narrow 51–48 approval early Thursday of the Rescissions Act of 2025 marks a rare exercise of Congress’s power to claw back unspent funds and signals a renewed push for tighter fiscal discipline. Under President Trump’s request, the legislation rescinds roughly $9 billion from last year’s appropriations—targeting $8.3 billion in international aid programs at USAID and PEPFAR, along with $1.1 billion from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which funds NPR and PBS (Wikipedia).
This vote-a-rama wrapped up after hours of amendment votes, with Democrats and two moderate Republicans—Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska—joining forces to oppose the package. Both Collins and Murkowski warned that the bill’s cuts were drawn too broadly, pointing out that the Office of Management and Budget provided only a cursory list of affected accounts, leaving lawmakers uncertain which specific health, nutrition, or maternal‑child initiatives would be slashed (AP News).
A Modest Step Toward “Fiscal Sanity”?
Senate Majority Leader John Thune celebrated the outcome as a “small but important step for fiscal sanity,” arguing that the measure highlights wasteful spending that deserves scrutiny. He praised the administration’s work to identify redundant or outdated programs and urged that future appropriations follow a similarly rigorous review process (AP News). For supporters, reclaiming even a fraction of a percent of the federal budget sets a precedent: no dollar is untouchable if it fails to advance core national interests.
Fairness Versus Function
Yet critics bristled at both the scale and the method. Senator Collins, who chairs the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, lamented that lawmakers received scant detail on how cuts would affect areas like global food security, clean water projects, or school access overseas. Murkowski echoed her concerns on the Senate floor, reminding colleagues that public broadcasting remains a lifeline for tsunami warnings and other emergency alerts in remote Alaskan communities—underscored that very day when a magnitude‑7.3 earthquake struck off the Alaska Peninsula (AP News).
Several attempts to shield specific programs fell short. Collins drafted an amendment to reduce the overall rescission to just over $6 billion, while Murkowski offered a targeted amendment to spare public media funds—but neither mustered the votes to succeed.
Washington’s Budget Process Under Scrutiny
Beyond the policy details, the debate has reignited calls to overhaul Congress’s chronically dysfunctional budget calendar. With the regular appropriations cycle repeatedly stalled, Republicans have turned to “rescission” bills—which cannot be filibustered in the Senate—to force cuts. Democrats argue this circumvents the regular order and effectively cedes spending authority to the White House. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has warned that repeated use of rescissions could weaken Congress’s power of the purse.
Meanwhile, House Speaker Mike Johnson has already signaled that more claw‑back proposals are on the way. “This isn’t the end—it’s the beginning,” he declared after the House narrowly passed an earlier $9.4 billion rescission package, including similar cuts to USAID and public broadcasting, by a 216–213 vote (ABC News).
Impact and Next Steps
The bill now returns to the House for concurrence on the Senate’s amendments—most critically, the restoration of roughly $400 million for HIV/AIDS and other global health programs exempted in the Senate version. House members must approve the reconciled text by the end of the week or risk letting the funds be reallocated as originally planned. Given the slim margins in both chambers, a handful of dissenting votes could derail the measure.
Looking ahead, this exercise may serve as a template for Congress to exercise rescissions more frequently, but it also raises the question of whether piecemeal “rescue” cuts can replace a serious commitment to annual budgeting reform. Even Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, a stalwart fiscal hawk, noted that the total reduction amounts to less than one‑tenth of one percent of the federal budget—calling it more symbolic than transformative (AP News).
Broader Political Stakes
Politically, the vote underscores divisions within the GOP: while many Republicans cheered the effort to rein in “Big Spending D.C.,” moderates worried about rural constituents losing key services, and some, like Senate Appropriations Chairwoman Patty Murray, have accused Republicans of targeting programs that save lives abroad and at home. As the October 1 government‑funding deadline looms, these fissures could complicate upcoming negotiations on the full year’s appropriations.
In the end, this $9 billion rollback may prove modest in dollar terms, but its real significance lies in the process: lawmakers have shown a willingness to upend the status quo, even at the risk of intraparty strife. Whether rescissions become a regular tool for fiscal discipline—or a flashpoint for interbranch conflict—remains to be seen.