President Trump seeks to claw back $9.4 billion in federal spending by targeting public broadcasting and international aid, raising questions about bias and government waste while igniting partisan debate over essential services.

At a Glance

• The Trump administration has requested Congress rescind $9.4 billion in previously approved funding for public broadcasting and international aid
• The package includes $1.1 billion in cuts to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (NPR/PBS) and $8.3 billion from USAID
• The White House accuses these organizations of promoting “radical, woke propaganda” and “weaponized cultural indoctrination”
• Congress has 45 days to act on the rescission request, which requires only a simple majority in the Senate
• The impact on the national deficit would be minimal compared to other spending measures

Trump Administration Targets “Woke” Programs

The White House has formally asked Congress to rescind $9.4 billion in previously allocated funding, with public broadcasting and international aid programs squarely in the crosshairs. The rescission package specifically targets $1.1 billion from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which funds NPR and PBS, and $8.3 billion from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). According to the administration, these cuts would eliminate funding for organizations they claim have misused taxpayer dollars to promote political agendas rather than serve American interests.

Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought emphasized the administration’s position, stating the legislation “would eliminate programs that are antithetical to American interests.” The White House has accused public broadcasters of using taxpayer dollars to “spread radical, woke propaganda disguised as ‘news,'” while characterizing USAID programs as engaging in “weaponized cultural indoctrination” in foreign countries.

These strong characterizations reflect the administration’s broader effort to rein in what it views as ideologically driven federal spending.

The USAID Budget per year is $49.9 billion dollars.

If $9.4 billion in the rescission package cuts funding for all of this, then how much are they really cutting from the USAID out of that huge budget? https://t.co/9JNn47vtQ7

— Wendy Patterson (@wendyp4545) June 4, 2025

Evidence of Bias and Misuse

Supporters of the rescission package point to studies suggesting a demonstrable left-wing bias in public broadcasting. Analysis of NPR and PBS coverage has reportedly shown disproportionately negative reporting on Republican initiatives and policies compared to Democratic ones. The administration argues this imbalance demonstrates these organizations have strayed from their mandate to provide politically neutral content, instead functioning as taxpayer-funded partisan outlets that predominantly favor progressive viewpoints.

USAID has also come under scrutiny for controversial overseas programs, including some that critics say have inadvertently supported opium production and failed to prevent child exploitation in certain regions. The administration questions why American taxpayers should continue funding international initiatives with questionable effectiveness and outcomes that sometimes run counter to stated American values and interests. These concerns have fueled Republican support for the rescission package as a matter of fiscal responsibility.

Congressional Process and Political Implications

The rescission process gives Congress 45 days to act on the White House request. Unlike many Senate procedures, rescission bills require only a simple majority to pass rather than the typical 60-vote threshold, potentially easing the path to approval. The package will first be considered by relevant congressional committees before advancing to full House and Senate votes, where Republicans, including House Speaker Mike Johnson, have expressed support for the effort to reduce government spending.

However, the package’s success remains uncertain. Previous rescission requests have failed to gain traction in Congress, and this effort comes amid larger fiscal discussions, including the controversial “One Big Beautiful Bill” that could add approximately $3 trillion to the national debt. Senator Rand Paul, while supporting the rescission package, has acknowledged its relatively minimal impact on addressing the broader deficit concerns. This tension between modest spending cuts and massive spending increases has placed some Republican lawmakers in a difficult position as they weigh their votes.

Alternatives and Broader Implications

Advocates for the rescission package suggest alternatives exist for the services currently funded by these targeted programs. For emergency broadcasting needs, they point to the existing Emergency Alert System, which operates without relying on public broadcasting infrastructure. Additionally, they argue that local journalism could still thrive through market-based funding models rather than federal subsidies, potentially encouraging more politically balanced reporting by removing government influence from media funding.

Critics of the package worry about diminished access to educational programming and local news, particularly in rural areas where public broadcasting often serves communities with limited media options. International aid advocates warn that cutting USAID funding could undermine American soft power abroad and humanitarian efforts in regions facing crises. These competing concerns highlight the fundamental debate about the proper role and size of government that continues to divide American politics.