Trump Pushes Sweeping Cuts to Foreign Aid and Public Broadcasting Funding
The Trump administration has reignited the debate around federal support for public media and international assistance, putting forth a $9.4 billion rescissions package that targets foundational efforts like the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), the State Department, USAID, and core global health programs. The move—presented to Congress on June 3, 2025—has set off alarms among progressive lawmakers, public media leaders, and advocates for global health and LGBTQ rights who see these cuts as a direct risk to marginalized populations and essential services at home and abroad. These latest proposals also reflect broader ambitions of cost-cutting exemplified by the now-defunct Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which sought to downsize federal involvement in key civic and humanitarian efforts.
According to recent reporting, the $9.4 billion rescission request aims to claw back $8.3 billion from foreign aid programs and over $1.1 billion from public broadcasting, including support for NPR and PBS. At stake are U.S.-led global health responses, including the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), as well as domestic investments in local journalism and cultural programming that strengthen democracy and foster community connection. The timing is notable, with Speaker Mike Johnson (R) promising swift action and hinting at further cuts—an approach that, while appealing to some fiscal conservatives, has already provoked significant pushback from both Democratic and moderate Republican senators concerned about the package’s breadth and depth.
“Local stations are the bedrock of trusted news and educational content for millions of Americans, especially in rural communities. These cuts would decimate that fabric at a time when access to reliable information is more important than ever.”
Moving forward, the stakes are high for advocates of independent journalism, international development, and public accountability who warn the signal sent by these proposals—beyond their immediate fiscal implications—is one of retrenchment from global leadership and a weakening of the domestic public sphere. Yet, there remains determined optimism among policy champions and community leaders that collective activism and legislative negotiation can hinder the full brunt of these cuts, protecting the shared civic infrastructure that supports equity, health, and informed citizenship.
The GOP Rescissions Pathway—Who Gets Hit and Who Pushes Back
The Trump administration’s rescissions package, officially submitted to Congress in early June, is part of a larger campaign to remove what the White House describes as ‘unnecessary government spending’. In practice, this means deep reductions to foreign aid, the defunding of NPR and PBS, and new challenges for already stressed humanitarian and cultural programs. The proposed legislation would, in its current form, eliminate $8.3 billion in overseas aid (primarily managed by the State Department and USAID), and $1.1 billion from public media through the CPB—institutions that operate on funding cycles designed specifically by Congress to insulate them from short-term political pressures.
These cuts build on a recent string of executive actions: on May 1, President Trump signed Executive Order 14290 with the stated aim of ending federal funding for what he calls ‘biased media,’ targeting NPR and PBS by threatening CPB’s continued support. Just days prior, PBS and NPR initiated legal action, challenging the administration’s moves as unconstitutional restrictions on free speech and violations of the CPB’s foundational statute. The lawsuits not only contest the cuts themselves, but also the parallel attempt to remove CPB board members seen as unsympathetic to the administration’s priorities.
Beneath the headlines, the scale of the cuts is staggering: the administration has already reduced over 90% in USAID-managed foreign aid contracts, part of an overall $60 billion rollback in U.S. global assistance. Both AP and Axios coverage confirm that this wave of cuts impacts not only multi-year international health and education investments, but also emergency funding for crises like HIV/AIDS and disaster relief—a blow to longstanding bipartisan initiatives like PEPFAR.
“This is not about eliminating waste; it’s about targeting programs that have proven, generational impact,” noted a Democratic Senate aide involved in the negotiations. “PEPFAR alone has saved millions of lives and continues to be a bulwark against global pandemics.”
Public media’s defenders, meanwhile, warn that cutting off CPB funding could devastate rural and small-market stations that depend most on federal support, undermining access to educational children’s programming, emergency alerts, and trusted news—particularly in media deserts where local outlets have vanished. By including advanced appropriations that Congress had previously established to shield the CPB from partisan interference, the administration is testing the very mechanisms designed to keep vital public resources safe from political winds. As the legal battles unfold and Congress begins its review, the outcome is far from certain, but the sense of urgency among those who depend on these programs is unmistakable.
Historical Precedents, Policy Shifts, and the Path Forward
Efforts to curtail federal support for public broadcasting and international aid are not new—but never before have they converged at such scale and with such pointed rhetoric. The CPB, established in 1967 as part of the Great Society reforms, was intentionally funded by Congress on an advance cycle to insulate it from political meddling. Public media is widely credited with fostering civic literacy, especially in underserved areas. Its mandate extends beyond news, providing critical culture, children’s education, and emergency management—functions that commercial competitors rarely fulfill, especially in low-profit rural or economically disadvantaged regions.
On the international side, programs like PEPFAR and USAID have enjoyed decades of bipartisan support for their roles in combating epidemics, addressing poverty, and supporting refugees—building goodwill, stability, and global health outcomes. Yet Trump’s ‘America First’ approach has methodically shrunk these commitments. As early as January, the administration imposed a 90-day pause on foreign development assistance and began formal withdrawal from the World Health Organization, amplifying concerns over America’s retreat from a cooperative international role. According to public records, these executive orders have already led to substantial disruptions in global health programs.
“Strong public institutions are the fabric of our democracy. Weakening them—whether at home or abroad—means communities are less healthy, less informed, and less resilient,” argued a former CPB chair. “Now is the time for the public and lawmakers to stand up for what matters.”
Practically, the cuts mean public radio and TV stations nationwide could face layoffs, programming reductions, or even closures. International nonprofits anticipate steep drops in funding for lifesaving work. The progressive response has centered on organizing coalitions of lawmakers, local leaders, and advocacy groups to defend the gains made over decades, emphasizing both the economic and human stakes. While the path through Congress is uncertain, the fight underscores a broader debate over public values, national priorities, and the role of collective action in sustaining populations at home and advancing dignity abroad. The progressive community, for all its deep concerns, holds faith that public awareness and mobilization can steer the debate toward more inclusive, equitable solutions.