House Targets NPR, PBS, USAID in DOGE Spending Slash!

Written by Elizabeth Harper.

The House of Representatives has taken a significant step toward implementing a $9.4 billion spending reduction package, advancing a measure that targets federal funding for National Public Radio (NPR), the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). This proposal, driven by the Trump administration, reflects a broader effort to curb federal expenditures deemed misaligned with national priorities. With a final House floor vote expected soon, the package has sparked intense debate over the role of public broadcasting and foreign aid in the federal budget.

Details of the $9.4 Billion Rescissions Package

The spending cut package, introduced by House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, allocates $8.3 billion in reductions to USAID, an agency the Trump administration has criticized for supporting international programs that allegedly offer minimal benefit to American interests. Additionally, the package slashes $1.1 billion from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), which provides federal funding to NPR, PBS, and their affiliated local stations. These cuts align with President Trump’s executive order, signed in May 2025, titled “Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Biased Media,” which directed the CPB to cease funding NPR and PBS due to perceived ideological bias in their programming.

The House’s procedural “rule vote” passed largely along party lines, setting the stage for debate and a chamber-wide vote later this week. However, the inclusion of unrelated provisions, such as minor adjustments to Trump’s comprehensive tax and immigration legislation, has raised concerns about the package’s coherence. This legislative maneuver, often used to expedite complex bills, underscores the strategic complexity of advancing the administration’s fiscal agenda in a narrowly divided House.

The rescissions process, governed by federal law, grants Congress 45 days to approve or reject the proposed cuts. If approved, the reductions would take effect in October 2025, potentially reshaping the operational landscape for public broadcasting and foreign aid programs. The package’s focus on NPR, PBS, and USAID reflects a broader Republican push to eliminate funding for entities viewed as politically contentious or fiscally redundant.

Impact on Public Broadcasting

The proposed $1.1 billion cut to the CPB, which represents two years of funding, threatens the financial stability of NPR, PBS, and approximately 1,500 local public media stations across the United States. Public broadcasting relies on federal support for roughly 15% of its budget, with the remainder derived from private donations, sponsorships, and member station dues. While larger stations in urban areas may weather the cuts through robust donor bases, rural stations, particularly in states like Alaska, Montana, and North Dakota, face existential risks. These stations often serve as the sole source of local news, emergency alerts, and educational programming in areas with limited broadband access or commercial media presence.

Public media leaders have warned that the cuts could dismantle a critical infrastructure that serves 98% of Americans. For example, Alaska Public Media operates 26 stations across remote regions, providing lifesaving emergency broadcasts during natural disasters. Similarly, PBS stations deliver educational content like “Sesame Street” and “NOVA,” which are particularly vital in underserved communities. The loss of federal funding could force station closures, reduce programming quality, and disrupt satellite connections and content distribution systems, according to industry executives.

The Trump administration and Republican lawmakers argue that public broadcasting has become obsolete in a media landscape filled with diverse, privately funded options. They contend that taxpayer dollars should not subsidize organizations accused of promoting liberal agendas. This perspective was amplified during a March 2025 House Oversight subcommittee hearing, where NPR CEO Katherine Maher and PBS CEO Paula Kerger faced allegations of bias in their coverage of issues like race, gender, and COVID-19. Despite these claims, a Pew Research poll conducted in 2025 found that 43% of Americans support continued federal funding for public media, with only 24% favoring cuts, highlighting a divide in public sentiment.

USAID and Foreign Aid Under Scrutiny

The $8.3 billion cut to USAID represents a significant portion of the agency’s 2024 budget of $36 billion, which supports global health, humanitarian aid, and development programs. The Trump administration has criticized USAID for funding initiatives, such as those supporting LGBTQ communities and reproductive health, that it views as disconnected from American priorities. Programs like the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), which has saved millions of lives by addressing HIV/AIDS, are also at risk, prompting objections from some Republican senators, including Susan Collins of Maine, who has vowed to protect PEPFAR funding.

USAID’s role in purchasing U.S. agricultural products for food aid has garnered support from farm-state Republicans, who argue that cuts could harm American farmers. However, fiscal hawks, such as Senator Rand Paul, view the reductions as a modest step toward addressing the $36 trillion national debt, though they acknowledge the cuts’ limited impact on overall federal spending. The debate over USAID funding reflects broader tensions within the Republican Party between isolationist tendencies and commitments to global engagement.

The proposed cuts have also drawn criticism from Democrats, who argue that slashing USAID’s budget undermines America’s global leadership and humanitarian commitments. A 2025 report from the Center for Global Development noted that USAID programs foster stability in fragile regions, reducing the need for costly military interventions. The report emphasized that food aid and health initiatives strengthen diplomatic ties, a point echoed by Senate Democrats in a letter urging the preservation of CPB and USAID funding.

Legislative and Political Dynamics

The advancement of the rescissions package highlights the influence of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), led by Elon Musk until his departure in May 2025. DOGE identified the targeted programs as part of a broader effort to eliminate “wasteful” spending, a priority for the House Freedom Caucus and other conservative lawmakers. House Speaker Mike Johnson has championed the package, describing the cuts as “common sense” and criticizing NPR and PBS for alleged ideological bias. However, opposition from moderate Republicans, such as Representative Mark Amodei, who emphasized public media’s role in rural communities, suggests potential challenges in securing unanimous GOP support.

The package’s passage through the House is likely, given the Republican majority, but its fate in the Senate is less certain. With a 53-47 Republican majority, the bill requires only a simple majority to pass, bypassing the typical 60-vote filibuster threshold. Yet, defections from senators like Collins and Mike Rounds, who represent states reliant on public radio, could complicate approval. If Congress fails to act within 45 days, the funds will be released to the agencies, preserving the status quo.

The rescissions package is part of a larger fiscal strategy that includes Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill,” a 1,116-page tax and immigration measure moving through budget reconciliation. This process, which allows passage with a simple majority, has enabled Republicans to advance ambitious reforms, including tax cuts and deportation funding, while incorporating the rescissions package’s provisions. However, the inclusion of unrelated measures has drawn criticism for complicating legislative transparency and public understanding of the cuts’ implications.

Our Take

The House’s advancement of the $9.4 billion rescissions package represents a bold but contentious move to reshape federal spending priorities. The targeting of NPR, PBS, and USAID reflects a strategic effort to eliminate programs perceived as misaligned with the administration’s vision. While the cuts to public broadcasting address longstanding Republican concerns about bias, they risk undermining a vital public service that delivers trusted news and educational content, particularly in rural areas. Similarly, the reductions to USAID, while appealing to fiscal conservatives, could weaken America’s global influence and humanitarian efforts, with ripple effects on diplomatic and economic interests.

In my view, the proposed cuts are a double-edged sword. Eliminating funding for NPR and PBS may resonate with those who view public media as redundant, but it overlooks the unique role of local stations in fostering informed communities. The cuts to USAID, meanwhile, appear shortsighted, as programs like PEPFAR demonstrate tangible benefits for both global stability and American interests. Lawmakers must weigh these trade-offs carefully, prioritizing fiscal responsibility without sacrificing the public goods that these institutions provide. The upcoming House vote and Senate deliberations will be critical in determining whether this package achieves its goals or falters under bipartisan resistance.