Last week, House Republicans narrowly passed President Donald Trump’s so-called rescissions package. The bill would rescind $9.3 billion in previously appropriated funding, including $1.1 billion from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and $8.3 billion in foreign aid. The resolution’s choppy passage in the lower chamber mirrors the lack of smooth sailing the cuts face in the Senate as the GOP juggles competing priorities with little room for error.
If the rescissions bill passes, it will be a paradoxically brave and cowardly moment for Senate Republicans.
The House bill, which snuck over the line on a 214-212 vote, passed under a special process outlined in the Impoundment Control Act of 1974. In brief, the law tells the president that he can’t unilaterally nix money that Congress has appropriated. Instead, he must submit recommendations for rescission to the House and the Senate. Congress has 45 days to sign off on those cuts once submitted, otherwise the administration is still legally obligated to spend that money.
That tight timeline is made slightly easier by this process’ being exempt from the usual filibuster rules, meaning Senate Republicans need only a simple majority to pass the bill. Unfortunately for Senate Majority John Thune, R-S.D., and his leadership team, there are enough question marks among his caucus to make getting to 51 yes votes difficult. And with the Senate’s rewrite of Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill Act taking up most of their focus, it’s going to be hard to find time to wrangle them all on board.
Sen. Susan Collins of Maine has spoken out about Trump’s requested cuts from spending on HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment. According to the memo the White House sent Congress detailing its proposal, the administration wants to rescind $1.1 billion in Global Health Programs funding at the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development. That includes the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, through which most U.S. spending on global HIV/AIDS funding is funneled.
“I will not support a cut in PEPFAR, which is a program that has saved literally millions of lives and has been extremely effective and well-run,” Collins told reporters earlier this month. It’s an accurate assessment of the program, which was launched under President George W. Bush. Collins has a lot of sway as chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, especially as negotiations over fiscal year 2026 spending continue. The White House has tried to assuage the concerns of her and other moderate Republicans, saying that HIV/AIDS treatment would continue but that prevention programs would be on the chopping block.
Another Republican, Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, is standing against cuts to the CPB, which provides funding for PBS, NPR and their affiliates. “Not only would a large portion of Alaska communities lose their local programming, but warning systems for natural disasters, power outages, boil water advisories, and other alerts would be severely hampered,” Murkowski said in a statement last month. “What may seem like a frivolous expense to some has proven to be an invaluable resource that saves lives in Alaska.” That’s already two votes against the bill, and Thune can afford to lose only four. Among those to keep an eye on: Sen. Roger Wicker of Mississippi, who says he doesn’t think the Senate needs to be spending time on this package; Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, who thinks the cuts are too small to really make a difference in overall spending; and Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the former GOP caucus leader whose support for foreign aid spending broadly and USAID specifically makes him a wild card. While the rescissions process has the upside of avoiding the filibuster, it also has an unusual downside: If Congress rejects this package, according to the law’s text, Trump can’t send another request for the exact same cuts for this fiscal year. Their rejection would also be further proof that there’s little appetite among lawmakers for even a small slice of the Department of Government Efficiency’s cuts. Tellingly, the White House’s plan B if that’s happens is to simply continue breaking the law and illegally withhold those funds. But Collins, Murkowski and other moderates have been known to fall in line when their backs are against the wall. If the rescissions bill passes, it will be a paradoxically brave and cowardly moment for Senate Republicans. The White House will be able to take a victory lap, with the first of DOGE’s cuts codified, and Congress will have reaffirmed its place in the appropriations process. Institutionalists would be free to pat themselves on the back for keeping the system working as it should on paper. But any self-congratulations should be muted by the weight of knowing that they’ve made the world a worse place in the name of political expedience.
Hayes Brown is a writer and editor for MS NOW. He focuses on politics and policymaking at the federal level, including Congress and the White House. 
