In a big legislative win for former President Donald Trump, the U.S. House of Representatives approved a contentious $9 billion rescission package, labeled the “DOGE Cuts.” The bill, which would cut foreign aid and public broadcasting budgets, is the first successful application of the federal rescission process in over two decades and is being celebrated by Trump supporters as a return to fiscal responsibility. Critics argue that it’s a symbolic gesture with devastating effects and minimal budgetary consequences.
The bill was passed in the House in the early Friday hours with a vote of 216–213, following a 51–48 Senate passage late on Thursday. The legislation is now headed to Trump’s desk to be signed, where he will most certainly sign it right away.
What Are the “DOGE Cuts”?
Officially known as the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) Cuts Package, this $9 billion rescission package is a hypothetical cancellation of previously approved federal expenditures. Although rescission power is constitutional, i.e., a technique presidents use to recapture unspent money, it has not been used well since the late 1990s.
The DOGE Cuts Package includes:
$8 billion cutbacks in foreign assistance, namely USAID and development programs in poor nations.
$1.1 billion in cuts to public broadcasting, including NPR, PBS, and related grants through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
This push to reduce government spending is being led by Trump’s former Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Russ Vought, who said of the passage that “a critical step toward restoring fiscal sanity in Washington.”
A Symbolic but Strategically Important Victory
In real terms, $9 billion is a mere 0.1% of the federal budget, which stands at more than $6.75 trillion. But even more significant than the money saved is the restoration of rescission authority. Trump and his allies want to make this obscure mechanism a routine way to bypass the usual appropriations process.
“This is a new budget tool,” said Vought in a statement. “We’re not simply cutting fat—we’re establishing a new standard. We’ll be back for more.”
Although the cuts are small, the process implications are large. The success of the DOGE package already is giving conservative juices the flow, with talk about using rescission as a matter of course to restrain federal spending a notion not seriously considered in decades.
Bipartisan Divisions and the Final Vote
The DOGE Cuts were an entirely partisan battle in Congress. In the Senate, it passed 51–48 after some significant concessions:
A planned $400 million cut from the PEPFAR HIV/AIDS program a long-standing U.S. global health program was dropped in the face of bipartisan opposition.
Certain maternal health and nutrition programs were protected by last-minute Senate amendments.
Two moderate Republicans in the House Mike Turner (OH) and Brian Fitzpatrick (PA) switched sides and voted against the bill on its implications for public media and diplomatic foreign relations. Among Republican Senators, Senators Susan Collins (ME) and Lisa Murkowski (AK) became the only senators to join all of the Democrats voting against the measure.
But despite the thin margins, Republican leaders were all together on the bigger political message: Trump is reclaiming federal spending and the GOP is getting into line.
What’s at Stake?
Democrats and advocacy groups warned that these cuts have disproportionate impacts on vulnerable populations here and around the world.
Public Media Cuts
The $1.1 billion reduction in public broadcasting has been a cause for concern for reporters and rural emergency service supporters. Rural communities in Alaska, for instance, are highly reliant on NPR warnings about tsunamis and other significant public service announcements. Reducing or eliminating that funding could pose a risk to such life-saving communications.
Foreign Aid Cuts
Experts warn that retracting $8 billion in foreign assistance would demoralize American diplomacy and destabilize aid-reliant regions. The opponents hold that the programs forestall global crises that often bleed into U.S. interests, such as refugee flows, pandemics, and terrorism.
Global Health
Though the end bill iteration preserved PEPFAR money, the majority of public health officials remain concerned with Trump’s long-term budgetary priorities. Maternal and child nutrition programs were spared in this version, but could be open to rescission in the future.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries denounced the bill as:
This has nothing to do with fiscal responsibility. This has to do with punishing public institutions and withdrawal from the world. These cuts are short-sighted and irresponsible.”
The Politics Behind the DOGE Cuts
Aside from fiscal policy, the DOGE Cuts have quickly become a loyalty test among the GOP. According to Business Insider, Republican lawmakers have faced internal pressure to support Trump’s agenda or risk losing endorsements ahead of the 2026 midterms.
Some Republican strategists see the cuts as part of a broader effort to reorient government spending priorities moving funds from institutions that are perceived as liberal (like NPR or USAID) to domestic infrastructure or border control.
“The politics of this are obvious,” said a top Republican aide. “Trump wants to articulate what ‘America First’ looks like in terms of budgeting, and if that means cutting PBS to help pay for ICE, so be it.”
What Happens Next?
With Trump to sign the bill into law, this will officially be the first successful exercise of rescission power in Clinton-era years. The White House, Axios reports, already is developing a second round of cuts to target climate programs, cultural grants, and even some Pentagon spending viewed as “wasteful.”.
Russ Vought has become one of the chief architects of Trump’s second-term budget proposal and suggested even more ambitious proposals in the future.
“We are just getting started,” Vought said Friday to reporters. “This is the first bite. The real feast is coming.”
Although the $9 billion DOGE Cuts are dwarfed by the massive federal budget, they symbolize a new era of Washington fiscal politics a one in which Trump and his allies are not afraid to defy established bipartisan norms to pursue a narrower, ideologically driven budget agenda.
Whether this approach brings long-term benefits or backfires remains to be seen. But for now, Trump has notched a major win and the game of governing by rescission has only just begun.