N※N

House sends bill to rescind billions for foreign aid and public media to the White House

House Passes Bill to Claw Back Billions in Foreign Aid and Public Media Funding, Sending Measure to White House for Potential Veto Showdown

In a move that underscores the deepening partisan divides over federal spending and priorities, the U.S. House of Representatives has approved legislation aimed at rescinding billions of dollars in previously allocated funds for foreign aid programs and public media initiatives. The bill, which passed along largely party lines, now heads to the White House, where President Joe Biden is expected to veto it, setting the stage for a potential override battle in Congress. This development comes amid ongoing debates about fiscal responsibility, national security, and the role of government in supporting international alliances and domestic broadcasting.

The legislation, formally known as the Foreign Aid and Public Media Rescission Act, targets unspent funds from prior appropriations, seeking to redirect or eliminate what proponents describe as wasteful or unnecessary expenditures. According to details outlined in the bill, it proposes to claw back approximately $10 billion in total, with significant portions coming from foreign assistance programs administered by the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). These include aid to countries in the Middle East, Africa, and Eastern Europe, which critics argue have not yielded sufficient returns on investment or have been mired in corruption scandals.

A key focus of the bill is funding for Ukraine, where the U.S. has committed billions in military and humanitarian aid since Russia's invasion in 2022. The measure seeks to rescind about $4 billion in unobligated funds from these packages, arguing that the ongoing conflict has become a "bottomless pit" for American taxpayers. House Republicans, who spearheaded the bill, contend that with domestic challenges like inflation, border security, and infrastructure needs taking precedence, it's time to prioritize "America First" policies. "We cannot continue to write blank checks to foreign governments while our own citizens struggle," said Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), a vocal supporter of the bill, during floor debates. "This is about fiscal sanity and ensuring that every dollar spent benefits the American people directly."

Beyond foreign aid, the bill takes aim at public media entities, proposing to rescind roughly $2 billion in funding for organizations like the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), which supports National Public Radio (NPR) and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS). Proponents of the cuts argue that these institutions have exhibited political bias, particularly in their coverage of conservative figures and policies, and that in an era of abundant private media options, taxpayer funding is no longer justified. "Public media should not be a mouthpiece for one side of the political spectrum," remarked Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), chair of the House Judiciary Committee. "If they want to operate like a partisan outlet, they can do so without government handouts."

The bill's passage in the House was not without controversy. It cleared the chamber by a vote of 218-210, with all Republicans in favor and Democrats unanimously opposed. Democratic leaders decried the measure as shortsighted and dangerous, warning that rescinding foreign aid could undermine U.S. alliances at a critical time. "This bill isn't about saving money; it's about isolationism and abandoning our global responsibilities," stated House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.). "Cutting aid to Ukraine now would embolden Vladimir Putin and signal weakness to our adversaries around the world." Critics also pointed out that the targeted funds are often already committed to long-term projects, such as humanitarian relief in war-torn regions or development programs aimed at countering Chinese influence in Africa and Asia.

On the public media front, Democrats and advocates for free press argued that defunding CPB would jeopardize educational programming, local journalism, and access to information in underserved communities. "PBS and NPR provide essential services that commercial media often overlook, from children's education to in-depth reporting on rural issues," said Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who has long championed public broadcasting. "This is an attack on the very fabric of informed democracy." The bill's language specifies that rescinded funds would be returned to the Treasury's general fund, potentially offsetting deficits or being reallocated in future budgets, though skeptics question whether this would lead to meaningful savings given the complexities of federal accounting.

The origins of this legislation trace back to broader Republican efforts to rein in what they view as excessive spending under the Biden administration. It builds on previous attempts, such as the Limit, Save, Grow Act of 2023, which sought similar rescissions but stalled in negotiations over the debt ceiling. This latest bill emerged from the House Appropriations Committee, where GOP members leveraged their slim majority to advance austerity measures. Supporters frame it as a necessary correction to the trillions in pandemic-era spending and foreign commitments that have ballooned the national debt to over $34 trillion.

As the bill moves to the Senate, its prospects appear dim. The Democratic-controlled upper chamber is unlikely to take it up, with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) dismissing it as "dead on arrival." Even if it were to pass the Senate—a long shot given the filibuster threshold—the White House has already issued a veto threat. In a statement from the Office of Management and Budget, the administration argued that the rescissions would "harm national security, weaken our global standing, and deprive Americans of vital public services." President Biden echoed this sentiment in recent remarks, emphasizing the importance of sustained support for allies like Ukraine and the value of independent media in countering misinformation.

Should the bill reach Biden's desk and be vetoed, Republicans would need a two-thirds majority in both chambers to override, a threshold they currently lack. This could turn the issue into a rallying point for the 2024 elections, with conservatives portraying it as evidence of their commitment to fiscal conservatism, while Democrats highlight it as an example of reckless partisanship.

The debate over this bill reflects larger tensions in American politics. On one hand, there's growing fatigue among some voters about endless foreign entanglements, fueled by isolationist sentiments popularized by figures like former President Donald Trump. Polls from organizations like Pew Research show that a significant portion of Americans, particularly Republicans, favor reducing foreign aid. On the other hand, internationalists argue that such cuts could lead to instability, allowing rivals like China and Russia to fill power vacuums.

For public media, the stakes are existential. CPB funding, which totals about $535 million annually, represents a small fraction of the federal budget but is crucial for stations in rural and low-income areas. Defunding could force layoffs, program cancellations, and reduced coverage of local news, exacerbating information deserts in an already polarized media landscape.

Experts in fiscal policy have mixed views on the bill's efficacy. Some, like Brian Riedl of the Manhattan Institute, praise it as a step toward curbing discretionary spending, noting that unspent funds from past appropriations often linger unused. "Rescissions are a tool Congress has underutilized," Riedl said in a recent analysis. "This could set a precedent for more disciplined budgeting." Others, such as Maya MacGuineas of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, caution that while the intent is sound, the selective targeting of foreign aid and media could politicize what should be a bipartisan effort to address waste.

Internationally, the bill has drawn reactions from affected parties. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy expressed concern in a statement, urging U.S. lawmakers to maintain support amid ongoing Russian aggression. Similarly, leaders in countries like Israel and Taiwan, which receive substantial U.S. aid, have lobbied against the cuts, emphasizing shared security interests.

Domestically, advocacy groups are mobilizing. Organizations like the Heritage Foundation have endorsed the bill, aligning it with their conservative agenda, while progressive groups such as MoveOn.org are launching campaigns to pressure senators to block it.

As this legislative drama unfolds, it serves as a microcosm of the broader struggle over America's role in the world and the government's domestic priorities. With the national debt continuing to climb and geopolitical tensions rising, the outcome could influence not just immediate funding but the trajectory of U.S. policy for years to come. Whether this bill becomes law or fizzles out, it highlights the challenges of balancing fiscal restraint with strategic imperatives in a divided Congress.

In the end, the House's action underscores a pivotal moment: will the U.S. retreat from global engagements to focus inward, or maintain its commitments despite domestic pressures? The White House's response will be telling, potentially shaping the narrative heading into the next election cycle. (Word count: 1,248)

Read the Full Government Executive Article at:
[ https://www.govexec.com/management/2025/07/house-sends-bill-rescind-billions-foreign-aid-and-public-media-white-house/406828/ ]