Murkowski Stalls Trump’s Budget Cuts as Deadline Looms

Written by Caleb Thompson.

A critical package of federal spending cuts, championed by President Donald Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), faces mounting resistance in the U.S. Senate, with key Republican senators demanding revisions as the July 18, 2025, deadline approaches. Spearheaded by Senators Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine, the push for delays and amendments threatens to derail the $9.4 billion rescission package, which seeks to eliminate funding for programs deemed inefficient. This article examines the dynamics of the Senate’s deliberations, the proposed changes, and the broader implications for federal budget reform, drawing on recent developments to provide a comprehensive analysis.

Senate Resistance to DOGE Spending Cuts

The DOGE cuts package, passed by the House of Representatives in June 2025, aims to formalize $9.4 billion in reductions to federal programs, including foreign aid, public broadcasting, and certain health initiatives. The measure requires only a simple majority of 51 votes in the Senate to pass, but Republican unity has faltered. Senators Murkowski and Collins, both known for their moderate stances, have emerged as pivotal figures in the debate, expressing concerns about the package’s impact on vulnerable populations and essential services. Their reluctance to support the bill in its current form has raised the specter of a prolonged legislative battle.

Susan Collins, chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, has publicly advocated for significant changes to the package. In remarks to reporters, she highlighted the need to preserve funding for programs like the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) and maternal and child health initiatives, which provide critical support to malnourished pregnant women and children. Collins emphasized that these programs are vital for public health and should not be sacrificed for the sake of budget reductions. Her stance reflects a broader concern among some Republicans that the cuts, while appealing to fiscal conservatives, may undermine essential services.

Lisa Murkowski, meanwhile, has taken a more procedural approach, reportedly pushing for a “vote-a-rama,” a marathon session allowing senators to propose and vote on numerous amendments. This tactic, often used in budget reconciliation processes, could delay the package’s passage and force negotiations to address specific concerns. Murkowski’s focus appears to be on protecting programs that benefit rural communities, such as radio stations that provide emergency services in Alaska. Her insistence on revisions underscores her reputation as a senator who prioritizes constituent interests, even at the cost of party unity.

The Stakes of the July 18 Deadline

The Senate faces a tight timeline to act on the DOGE package, with Congress allotted a 45-day window to approve the cuts following the House’s passage. Failure to meet the July 18 deadline could result in the measure’s expiration, forcing lawmakers to restart the process or abandon the cuts altogether. Senate Majority Leader John Thune has expressed optimism about advancing the package, noting that it will likely move through committee and reach the floor for a vote-a-rama the following week. However, the need for amendments and the potential for Democratic opposition complicate the path forward.

Democrats, led by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, have seized on the Republican infighting to criticize the DOGE initiative. Schumer has warned that codifying the cuts would undermine bipartisan agreements on federal spending, particularly for programs that enjoy broad support. He has pointed to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office’s estimates, which suggest that similar spending reductions in other bills could leave millions uninsured and add trillions to the national deficit over a decade. This critique resonates with moderates like Collins and Murkowski, who are wary of the long-term consequences of slashing social programs.

The DOGE package itself is part of a broader effort to streamline federal operations and reduce government waste, a priority for the Trump administration. Proponents argue that the cuts target inefficient or duplicative programs, such as certain foreign aid initiatives and public media funding, which they claim do little to advance U.S. interests. Critics, however, contend that the reductions disproportionately affect low-income communities and critical health programs, exacerbating inequality and undermining public welfare. The tension between these perspectives has placed Murkowski and Collins in a delicate position, as they balance fiscal responsibility with their commitment to constituent needs.

Political Dynamics and Public Sentiment

The resistance from Murkowski and Collins reflects deeper divisions within the Republican Party, which holds a narrow 53-47 majority in the Senate. Both senators have a history of breaking ranks with their party, often prioritizing pragmatic governance over ideological purity. Murkowski, in particular, has leveraged her swing-vote status to secure concessions for Alaska, as seen in her recent support for Trump’s tax and spending bill after negotiating carve-outs for her state. Her current push for amendments to the DOGE package follows a similar playbook, aiming to mitigate the cuts’ impact on rural and vulnerable populations.

Collins, facing re-election in 2026 in a moderate state, is equally cautious about endorsing deep cuts that could alienate her constituents. Her concerns about PEPFAR and maternal health programs align with Maine’s reliance on federal funding for rural healthcare. The senators’ collaboration on issues like protecting Planned Parenthood funding from earlier GOP bills demonstrates their shared commitment to safeguarding social services, even in the face of party pressure. This history suggests that their demands for changes to the DOGE package are not mere posturing but a genuine effort to balance fiscal and social priorities.

Public sentiment, as reflected on social media platforms, reveals frustration with the delays. Some conservative commentators have labeled Murkowski and Collins as “RINOs” (Republicans In Name Only), accusing them of obstructing Trump’s agenda. Others, including Alaskan stakeholders, have praised Murkowski for defending local interests, such as rural radio stations and healthcare access. This divide mirrors broader debates about the role of government spending, with fiscal hawks advocating for aggressive cuts and moderates urging a more measured approach. The outcome of the Senate vote will likely influence public perceptions of Republican unity and Trump’s ability to enact his policy priorities.

The DOGE initiative itself has sparked controversy since its inception, with critics arguing that it prioritizes political optics over substantive reform. The department, established to identify and eliminate wasteful spending, has targeted programs like public broadcasting and foreign aid, which some view as low-hanging fruit but others see as vital for cultural and diplomatic purposes. The $9.4 billion in proposed cuts, while significant, represent a small fraction of the federal budget, raising questions about their overall impact on deficit reduction. Nevertheless, the package has become a litmus test for Republican commitment to fiscal discipline, making the Senate’s response a high-stakes moment.

Our Take

The resistance led by Senators Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins to the DOGE spending cuts package highlights the complexities of balancing fiscal reform with social responsibility. While the intent to curb government waste is commendable, the proposed reductions risk undermining programs that serve vulnerable populations, such as PEPFAR and maternal health initiatives. Murkowski’s push for a vote-a-rama and Collins’ call for significant changes reflect a principled stand against hasty cuts that could harm constituents. However, their actions also underscore the challenges of achieving consensus within a divided Republican Party. As the July 18 deadline looms, the Senate must prioritize reasoned amendments over political expediency to ensure that budget cuts do not come at the expense of public welfare. The outcome will shape not only the future of federal spending but also the public’s trust in legislative governance.