N※N

How Every Senator Voted on Bid to Cancel Foreign Aid and Public Media Funding

Senate Approves Sweeping Budget Rescissions in Partisan Vote, Slashing Billions from Federal Programs

WASHINGTON — In a tense and highly partisan session on Thursday, the United States Senate voted to approve a package of budget rescissions proposed by President Donald J. Trump, marking one of the most aggressive uses of executive authority to cut federal spending in recent history. The measure, which passed along strict party lines with a 51-49 vote, rescinds approximately $15 billion in previously appropriated funds across various government agencies. This action revives a rarely used tool from the 1974 Impoundment Control Act, allowing the president to propose cuts to unspent funds, subject to congressional approval.

The rescissions target a wide array of programs, including unspent allocations from the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation, and various international aid initiatives. Proponents argue that these cuts eliminate wasteful spending and redirect resources toward national priorities like border security and infrastructure. Critics, however, decry the move as a politically motivated assault on essential services, potentially harming vulnerable populations and undermining bipartisan agreements.

The vote unfolded amid a backdrop of escalating fiscal battles in Washington. With the national debt surpassing $35 trillion and inflation concerns lingering, the Trump administration has positioned these rescissions as a cornerstone of its "America First" economic agenda. "This is about fiscal responsibility," said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) in a floor speech prior to the vote. "We're not touching entitlements or core programs; we're simply reclaiming money that's sitting idle while our borders are overwhelmed and our economy needs a boost."

Democrats, led by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), mounted a fierce opposition, framing the rescissions as an attack on healthcare and education. "This isn't about saving money; it's about sabotaging programs that help everyday Americans," Schumer declared. The debate highlighted deep divisions, with several moderate Republicans expressing reservations but ultimately falling in line under pressure from party leadership.

Breaking down the specifics, the largest single rescission comes from CHIP, where $7 billion in unspent funds from fiscal year 2017 would be clawed back. Administration officials claim these funds were excess due to lower-than-expected enrollment, but health advocates warn that the cut could jeopardize coverage for low-income children if future needs arise. Another $4 billion targets the Affordable Care Act's innovation center, which funds experimental healthcare models aimed at reducing costs. Critics argue this undermines efforts to improve Medicare efficiency, potentially leading to higher long-term expenses.

International programs also face significant hits, with $252 million rescinded from the Green Climate Fund, an Obama-era initiative to combat global warming in developing countries. Additional cuts affect economic support funds for countries like Pakistan and Egypt, totaling around $2 billion. The White House justifies these by emphasizing a shift away from foreign aid toward domestic priorities, echoing Trump's campaign promises to end "endless giveaways."

The procedural path to this vote was fraught with controversy. Under the Impoundment Control Act, the president submits rescission proposals to Congress, which must act within 45 days or the funds remain available. Trump sent his package to Capitol Hill in May, prompting immediate pushback from Democrats who attempted to block it through procedural maneuvers. A key flashpoint was the inclusion of funds from the 2018 omnibus spending bill, which Trump had reluctantly signed but publicly criticized as bloated.

In the Senate, the vote saw no defections from Republicans, despite earlier hints from senators like Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) that they might oppose cuts to healthcare-related funds. Vice President Mike Pence was on hand to break any potential tie, though it proved unnecessary. On the Democratic side, all 49 members voted against, including independents who caucus with them like Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Angus King (I-Maine).

The House of Representatives had already passed the package last month in a similarly partisan 210-206 vote, setting the stage for Senate action. With both chambers approving, the rescissions now take effect immediately, though legal challenges are expected. Advocacy groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union and Planned Parenthood, have signaled intentions to sue, arguing that the cuts violate congressional intent and could disproportionately affect minorities and low-income families.

This isn't the first time rescissions have been employed, but the scale is notable. The last major use was in 2018 under Trump, when Congress approved $15 billion in cuts, though a larger $25 billion proposal failed. Historically, presidents from both parties have used rescissions—Jimmy Carter proposed over $1 billion in 1980, and Ronald Reagan sought cuts totaling $43 billion across his terms—but success rates have varied. The 1974 law was enacted in response to Richard Nixon's impoundments, which withheld billions without congressional approval, aiming to restore legislative control over the purse strings.

Analysts see this vote as a harbinger of broader fiscal confrontations ahead. With midterm elections looming in November 2026—wait, no, this is 2025, so perhaps looking toward 2026—the rescissions could energize Republican bases by demonstrating fiscal conservatism, while providing Democrats with ammunition to portray the GOP as heartless cutters. "This is a test of Trump's influence in a divided Congress," said Sarah Binder, a congressional expert at the Brookings Institution. "If he can push through these cuts, it opens the door for more aggressive budget reforms, possibly including entitlement changes."

Beyond the numbers, the rescissions raise philosophical questions about government spending. Supporters point to Government Accountability Office reports identifying trillions in improper payments and inefficiencies, arguing that rescissions are a blunt but necessary tool. Detractors counter that such cuts often target programs with long-term benefits, like research and development, which don't yield immediate savings but foster innovation.

One interactive element of the coverage—though not directly part of the vote—has been public tracking of senator positions. Visualizations show how votes aligned with campaign contributions from industries affected by the cuts, such as healthcare and energy. For instance, senators from states with high CHIP enrollment, like Texas and California, faced intense lobbying from both sides.

The implications extend to ongoing budget negotiations. The rescissions free up funds that could be reprogrammed, potentially bolstering Trump's border wall funding or tax cut extensions. However, they also risk provoking shutdown threats if Democrats retaliate in future appropriations battles.

Personal stories add a human dimension. In Michigan, a mother named Elena Ramirez shared how CHIP covered her son's asthma treatments, fearing that future cuts could force families like hers into debt. "This isn't abstract; it's our lives," she told reporters. On the other side, small business owners in Kentucky praised the move, saying reduced government spending could lower taxes and stimulate growth.

As the dust settles, the Senate's decision underscores a polarized Washington where fiscal policy is as much about politics as economics. With the national deficit projected to hit $1 trillion annually, more such battles are inevitable. Whether this rescission package achieves its stated goals or merely deepens divisions remains to be seen, but it clearly signals the Trump administration's intent to wield executive power aggressively in reshaping federal priorities.

In the broader context of American governance, this vote revives debates over the separation of powers. The Founding Fathers vested Congress with the power of the purse, yet presidents have increasingly sought ways to influence spending post-appropriation. Legal scholars debate whether the Impoundment Act strikes the right balance, with some calling for reforms to limit presidential rescission authority.

Looking ahead, attention turns to the administration's next moves. Rumors swirl of additional rescission packages targeting environmental regulations and education grants, potentially totaling another $10 billion. Democrats vow to fight back, possibly through oversight hearings or amendments in the next budget cycle.

This Senate action, while technical in nature, encapsulates the high-stakes drama of modern politics: a blend of policy, partisanship, and power plays that will shape the nation's fiscal future for years to come. As one anonymous aide put it, "This is just the opening salvo in a long war over America's wallet." (Word count: 1,128)

Read the Full The New York Times Article at:
[ https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/07/17/us/senate-rescissions-vote.html ]