House Passes Rescissions Bill That Would Eliminate $9.4B in USAID, Public Media Funding

The House of Representatives passed a bill yesterday that could officially rescind $9.4 billion in funding for the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and Corporation for Public Broadcasting, among others.

The bill passed with a 214-212 margin mostly along party lines. All Democrats and four Republicans — Reps. Mark Amodei of Nevada, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Nicole Malliotakis of New York and Michael Turner of Ohio — voted against the bill.

President Donald Trump formally requested the 21 rescissions that would cancel funding to numerous nonprofits that receive federal funding in accordance with the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 on June 3, giving Congress 45 days to act.

Former President Bill Clinton was the last president to have a rescission request approved, according to the Bipartisan Policy Center. However, no president — aside from Trump — has attempted to withdraw funding in this manner during this century. The Senate declined the $14.8 billion in rescissions Trump requested in 2018.

The most recent request targets both the current and past fiscal years, Russell T. Vought, director of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget, said in a letter detailing what he called “wasteful and unnecessary spending.”

“This special message emphasizes the need to cut wasteful foreign assistance spending at the Department of State and USAID and through other international assistance programs,” he said in the letter. “These rescissions would eliminate programs that are antithetical to American interests, such as funding the World Health Organization, LGBTQI+ activities, equity programs, radical Green New Deal-type policies and color revolutions in hostile places around the world. In addition, federal spending on [Corporation for Public Broadcasting] subsidizes a public media system that is politically biased and is an unnecessary expense to the taxpayer.”

As this bill heads to the Senate, which is where "The One Big Beautiful Bill" also awaits its fate, here are the programs on the chopping block.

Foreign Aid

The Trump administration tried to halt the USAID funding previously with a sweeping freeze on all federal grants and the dismantling of USAID. Litigation is ongoing involving the broad cancellation of USAID funds, but the Supreme Court supported a temporary restraining order forcing the administration to distribute money for work completed through Feb. 13.

In addition to repeatedly noting its America-first stance, the Trump administration has vowed to eliminate what it deems as “wasteful” and “unnecessary” spending. A large amount — 88% — of the rescissions package revolves around foreign aid, making up a proposed $8.3 billion in cuts.

Vought requested rescissions of more than $236 million in unattributed funding to international organizations from fiscal year 2024 and almost $327 million in fiscal year 2025 contributions. The current funding would reduce obligations to organizations such as the World Health Organization and United Nations, including the UN Human Rights Council and the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East. These cuts align with Trump administration executive orders that vow to withdraw from these groups and review its support of other international organizations.

The bill also aims to cancel $900 million — or 9% of the budget — earmarked for global health programs in fiscal year 2025. Though Vought claims the cuts spare treatment-related work, he specifically called out programs that involve “family planning,” “reproductive health,” “LGBTQI+ activities,” “equity” and “HIV/AIDS” as being on the cutting block.

“These actions are doing irreparable harm to health research and programs that form the backbone of global efforts to end HIV,” said Mitchell Warren, executive director of AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition, which is a plaintiff in the lawsuit against the Trump administration’s efforts to cancel USAID funding, said in a statement. “This is not just a budget proposal; this is a shortsighted and reckless policy roadmap that provides further proof that this administration has no regard for science, research or public health.”

Support for the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program and overseas humanitarian assistance could also lose $800 million, or 25%, of its fiscal year 2025 budget. Vought noted this gap should be filled with contributions from other countries’ governments.

The bill proposes a steep 78% cut of $80 million to the $55 million fiscal year 2025 budget for the Complex Crises Fund, which provides assistance that prevents and responds to crises in fragile countries. The Trump administration claims this account is duplicative of other funding, but also hopes to eliminate its programs that are counter to the administration’s America-first foreign policy.

The Democracy Fund supports democracy promotion activities of the Department of State and USAID, but could lose almost a quarter of its $345 million in funding.

The Economic Support Fund helps meet the economic development needs in countries of strategic importance to the United States, but is subject to a nearly $1.7 billion reduction — or nearly half of its federal contribution — for fiscal year 2025. Vought cited its use on gender- and climate-related projects — two areas where the administration is trying to curtail funding.

The bill would wipe out the entire $125 million U.S. contribution to the Clean Technology Fund, which invests in Green New Deal projects in developing countries, as well as nearly $437 million for international organizations including the UN, UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF), UN Development Program, Montreal Protocol and UN Population Fund.

“In the past, these voluntary contributions have compounded the excessive burden of America's disproportionately high contributions,” Vought said. “Enacting this rescission would encourage international organizations to be more efficient, down-scope their sprawling missions, and seek contributions from other member nations and donors, putting American taxpayers first.”

Development assistance for programs designed to end extreme poverty and promote resilient, democratic societies could lose $2.5 billion, or 64% of total funding in this category.

The entire $460 million contribution that promotes economic and political stability for previously communist countries in Europe, Eurasia and Central Asia would be erased.

About 12%, or $496 million, of the budget for international disaster assistance, which responds to natural disasters, conflicts and other emergencies around the world with humanitarian assistance, would be eliminated.

USAID operating expenses, which include salaries and other direct costs for USAID direct hires and staff overseas, would be reduced by $125 million or about 7%.

Transition initiatives totaling $57 million for select priority countries where the U.S. must engage quickly as a contingency response component of U.S. foreign assistance during conflict and political transitions would be reduced. That’s a 76% decrease of the $75 million budget.

The Inter-American Foundation, a government agency that provides grants to organizations in Latin America and the Caribbean, and the African Development Foundation, a government agency that delivers grants directly to African businesses to support economic growth, would have their appropriations lessened by $27 million and $22 million, respectively. That’s a 57% reduction for the former and a 49% reduction for the latter, which Vought also claimed has duplicative activities managed by other agencies, such as the Department of State.

Oxfam America, a nonprofit that receives federal funding and is part of a lawsuit against the Trump administration for its funding freeze, encouraged the House to vote against the bill.

“We are already seeing women, children and families left without food, clean water and critical services after earlier aid cuts, and aid organizations can barely keep up with rising needs,” Abby Maxman, president and CEO of Oxfam America, said in a statement. “Instead of upholding the U.S. government’s longstanding commitment to support those who need lifesaving aid most, the current administration — made up of a handful of the world's richest people and with the complicity of Congress — [is] eliminating programs for communities already facing poverty, hunger and crisis.”

More than a quarter, or $15 million, of the $55 million appropriated to the  funding for the U.S. Institute of Peace — an independent nonprofit Congress created in 1984 to promote peace by preventing, mitigating and resolving violent conflict abroad — would dry up. The nonprofit funds a variety of conflict mitigation and intervention programs that don’t align with administration’s priorities. Last month, a federal judge blocked the Trump administration’s attempts to dismantle the nonprofit.

Public Media

The remaining 11% — or $1.1 billion — of the recissions package affects public media nonprofits. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting receives its funding two years in advance, so the administration hopes to claw back its $535 million in annual federal funding for fiscal years 2026 and 2027.

”These funds would be used to subsidize a public media system that is politically biased and an unnecessary expense to the taxpayer,” Vought said in his letter.

Congress authorized the Corporation for Public Broadcasting as a private, nonprofit corporation in 1967. It now funds more than 1,500 locally managed and operated public television and radio stations, including PBS and NPR.

On May 1, Trump tried to end funding for PBS and NPR via executive order, but the Corporation for Public Broadcasting pushed back, citing it is not subject to the president’s authority as an independent nonprofit.

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting also noted that his fiscal year 2026 budget proposal eliminates all funding for public media except $30 million in closeout costs for the organization.

“Federal funding is essential to public media,” Patricia Harrison, president and CEO of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, said in a statement. “Every dollar from [the Corporation for Public Broadcasting] brings nearly seven more from state, local and private donors — the kind of return any taxpayer would insist upon.”

“If rescission passes and local stations go dark, millions of Americans will no longer have access to locally owned, independent, nonprofit media and will bear the risk of living in a news desert, missing their emergency alerts, and hearing silence where classical, jazz and local artists currently play,” Katherine Maher, president and CEO of NPR, added in a statement.