N※N

House passes Trump plan to cut foreign aid, public media | Honolulu Star-Advertiser

House Passes Trump's Sweeping Plan to Slash Foreign Aid and Public Media Funding

In a landmark vote that underscores the deepening partisan divides in Washington, the U.S. House of Representatives has approved a controversial budget proposal spearheaded by former President Donald Trump, aimed at drastically reducing foreign aid expenditures and eliminating federal funding for public media outlets. The measure, passed late Thursday evening along strict party lines, represents a bold step toward fulfilling Trump's long-standing promises to redirect taxpayer dollars away from international commitments and what he has repeatedly labeled as "biased" domestic institutions. This development comes amid heightened tensions over fiscal policy, with Republicans hailing it as a victory for American taxpayers, while Democrats decry it as a reckless assault on global stability and free speech.

The bill, formally titled the "America First Budget Realignment Act," seeks to cut foreign aid by an estimated 40% over the next fiscal year, targeting programs administered through the State Department and USAID. Proponents argue that these reductions will free up billions of dollars to bolster domestic priorities such as border security, infrastructure, and veteran services. Trump, who has been vocal in promoting the plan through social media and public rallies, described the cuts as essential to ending what he calls "endless giveaways to ungrateful nations." In a statement released shortly after the vote, Trump declared, "For too long, we've been the world's piggy bank. This bill puts America first, second, and third – no more handouts to countries that hate us."

Details of the foreign aid cuts reveal a targeted approach, sparing certain allies like Israel, which would see its military assistance preserved or even slightly increased under the plan. However, aid to Ukraine, a flashpoint in recent geopolitical debates, faces severe reductions, potentially halving the current $60 billion annual commitment. Programs supporting humanitarian efforts in Africa and Latin America, including those addressing famine, disease outbreaks, and refugee crises, are slated for deep cuts. Critics, including international relations experts, warn that such moves could undermine U.S. influence abroad, embolden adversaries like Russia and China, and exacerbate global instability. "This isn't isolationism; it's abdication," said Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), a vocal opponent, during floor debates. "We're turning our back on allies and vulnerable populations at a time when the world needs American leadership more than ever."

Equally contentious is the provision to defund public media entities, including the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), which supports NPR, PBS, and local stations across the country. The plan proposes zeroing out the CPB's $445 million annual federal allocation, effectively forcing these outlets to rely solely on private donations and sponsorships. Trump and his allies have long accused public broadcasters of liberal bias, pointing to coverage of issues like immigration and climate change as evidence of an anti-conservative slant. "Why should hardworking Americans fund fake news?" Trump tweeted earlier this week, echoing sentiments from Republican lawmakers who argue that public media has strayed from its educational mandate into partisan territory.

Supporters of the defunding, such as House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), emphasized fiscal responsibility in their arguments. "In an era of record deficits, we can't afford to subsidize media that doesn't represent all Americans," Johnson stated post-vote. The move aligns with broader Republican efforts to reform or eliminate institutions perceived as ideologically opposed, including previous attempts during Trump's first term to slash CPB funding, which were ultimately thwarted by bipartisan opposition.

The House vote, which passed 218-210 with no Democrats crossing the aisle and only a handful of Republicans defecting, sets the stage for a fierce battle in the Senate. Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has already vowed to block the bill, calling it "a dangerous fantasy that ignores reality." Senate Republicans, needing to navigate a slim majority, may push for amendments to soften some cuts, particularly on foreign aid, to secure moderate votes. If the bill advances, it could head to President Biden's desk – assuming the timeline aligns with the current administration – where a veto is all but certain. However, with the 2024 election looming and Trump positioning himself as a frontrunner for the GOP nomination, the plan serves as a preview of potential policy shifts under a second Trump term.

To understand the broader context, it's worth examining the historical underpinnings of these proposals. Foreign aid has been a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy since the Marshall Plan post-World War II, designed to promote democracy, economic development, and security alliances. Critics of cuts argue that aid represents less than 1% of the federal budget but yields outsized returns in soft power and preventing conflicts that could draw in American troops. For instance, aid to Ukraine has been credited with stalling Russian advances, preserving European stability without direct U.S. military involvement. Reducing this support, experts say, could lead to escalated aggression from Moscow, potentially requiring costlier interventions later.

On the public media front, the CPB was established in 1967 under President Lyndon B. Johnson to foster non-commercial broadcasting that educates and informs, free from market pressures. Outlets like PBS have produced acclaimed programs such as "Sesame Street" and "Frontline," reaching underserved rural and low-income audiences. Defunding advocates counter that in the digital age, with abundant private media options, taxpayer support is obsolete. Yet, defenders highlight that public media fills critical gaps, providing local news in areas where commercial outlets have shuttered, and offering unbiased reporting amid misinformation proliferation.

Reactions to the House passage have been swift and polarized. Advocacy groups like Amnesty International condemned the foreign aid cuts as "a moral failure that will cost lives," urging public mobilization. Media watchdogs, including the Committee to Protect Journalists, expressed alarm over the public broadcasting defunding, warning it could stifle diverse voices and weaken journalistic independence. On the other side, conservative think tanks like the Heritage Foundation praised the bill as a "much-needed correction to bloated government spending," predicting it will resonate with voters frustrated by high inflation and perceived waste.

Economically, the plan's implications are multifaceted. Proponents estimate savings of up to $50 billion annually, which could be reallocated to tax cuts or debt reduction. However, economists caution that curtailing foreign aid might harm U.S. exports, as aid often ties to purchases from American companies, and could disrupt global supply chains. For public media, the funding loss might lead to station closures, job losses for thousands of employees, and reduced educational content, particularly in rural states where PBS affiliates are lifelines for community information.

As the bill moves forward, it encapsulates the ongoing ideological clash in American politics: a tug-of-war between global engagement and domestic retrenchment, between public investment in information and privatization of media. Trump, ever the showman, has framed this as a populist crusade, rallying his base with promises of reclaiming sovereignty. "We're building a stronger America by stopping the bleed," he said in a recent speech. Opponents, meanwhile, see it as a step toward authoritarianism, eroding institutions that hold power accountable.

The debate is far from over. Senate hearings are expected next week, where witnesses from diplomatic corps and media executives will testify. Public opinion polls show a divided electorate: a recent Pew survey indicated 55% support for reducing foreign aid, but only 40% favor defunding public media, with independents split. Whatever the outcome, this legislation marks a pivotal moment, potentially reshaping U.S. priorities for years to come and influencing the narrative of the upcoming presidential race.

In the end, the House's approval of Trump's plan signals not just policy shifts but a broader philosophical battle over America's role in the world and the value of publicly supported truth-seeking. As one anonymous congressional aide put it, "This isn't about dollars; it's about defining what America stands for." With the world watching, the stakes couldn't be higher.

Read the Full Honolulu Star-Advertiser Article at:
[ https://www.staradvertiser.com/2025/07/18/breaking-news/house-passes-trump-plan-to-cut-foreign-aid-public-media/ ]