7.11.25 - FAQs on “rescissions”

After a grueling few weeks (and months), I hope folks were able to get some rest and connect with loved ones over the holiday weekend. Longtime readers know this newsletter has focused heavily on the Republican megabill since January (see our last update on the final bill here).  While I expect there will be more to say as that bill takes effect, I plan to shift focus now to the next big items moving through Congress. 

The Senate will vote next week on whether to claw back $9.4 billion in federal funding that Congress previously approved, a process known as “rescissions.” Unlike most bills, rescissions packages need just 51 Senate votes to pass—yes, another fast-track Senate process that begins with “re-” to learn, just a week post-reconciliation! I’ll break this one down as simply as I can below. 

What is the “rescissions” process? 

Every year, Congress must craft government funding (“appropriations”) bills that provide resources for federal agencies to do their work and keep the government open. These bills require 60 Senate votes to pass—which, in recent years, has meant that they must be bipartisan, as no party has held a 60+ Senate majority in some time. Like any bill, the President must sign government funding legislation into law. 

The rescissions process provides a pathway for a President to rescind some of that already-approved funding. 

How does the rescissions process work? 

I’ll make up an example to illustrate this at a high level. Say Congress reached a bipartisan funding agreement to give Agency A $10 million to build Cat’s Dream House. The President signs that agreement into law, but then decides he doesn’t want Cat to have her dream house. 

The President must alert Congress that he wants to rescind that $10 million for Cat’s Dream House from Agency A. Congress then has 45 days to approve that rescission, during which the administration can hold back (i.e., not spend) that $10 million. Again, the Senate just needs a simple majority vote to approve the rescission. 

Congress may approve the whole rescission request or parts of it—e.g., they could say they’ll only claw back $6 million of the $10 million the President asked to rescind, leaving $4 million for Cat’s Dream House. Congress could also reject the rescissions package; this happened during the first Trump administration. If Congress fails to act within the 45-day window, the administration is obligated to spend the funding, meaning Cat’s Dream House is a go. 

What funding does the Trump administration want to rescind? 

The $9.4 billion rescissions request includes the following funds:

• $3.7 billion for the now-dismantled U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)

• $4.7 billion for foreign assistance, including global health programs like the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) and contributions to United Nations bodies like UNICEF

• $1.07 billion for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which funds PBS and NPR

What effects could these rescissions have? 

Clawing back funding for public broadcasting could shut down public radio and TV stations, threatening life-saving emergency broadcasts that rural communities in particular depend on during disasters, such as the recent flash floods in Texas. Public broadcasting alerts have been critical when cell and Internet service has gone down, such as during Hurricane Helene in North Carolina. 

Rescinding global health funding will similarly be life-threatening. PEPFAR alone is estimated to have saved 26 million lives. Ending the program could lead to an additional 2-4 million deaths in sub-Saharan Africa annually.

Beyond the direct impacts on people who will suffer because of these cuts, the very act of rescinding money Congress approved on a bipartisan basis could jeopardize efforts to reach a government funding agreement ahead of the end of the fiscal year (September 30). 

To go back to my tortured metaphor: say I only agreed to vote for an appropriations bill because I secured $10 million for Agency A to build Cat’s Dream House. If the administration is going to claw back that money—and my colleagues in Congress are willing to go along with it—why would I make a deal with them again in the future? Why would I have faith that the wins I secure are, in fact, going to be secure? 

Indeed, the administration has said it plans to send more rescissions requests to Congress after this one—meaning, this isn’t the only pot of funding it wants to take away from communities. 

Is this all the federal funding the administration has refused to spend? 

No. The House and Senate Appropriations Committees (Democrats) estimate that the administration is currently holding back more than $425 billion from the American people. Again, Congress has already approved these resources on a bipartisan basis. This covers funding for teacher training, libraries, electric vehicle charger installations, and much more. 

What happens next? 

The House approved the rescissions package on June 12. That 45-day clock to approve the package runs out on Friday, July 18. While the Senate plans to vote this week, some senators have reservations about pieces of the package—namely, the aforementioned cuts to PEPFAR and, especially, public broadcasting in the wake of the Texas flash floods. 

Notwithstanding the President’s threats to senators who vote to preserve that broadcasting, the Senate could amend the package to remove or pare back the proposed cuts. This would necessitate the bill going back to the House to approve the Senate-amended version right before the deadline. Sound familiar? 

In the event the package is rejected or Congress misses the deadline, the administration will be obligated to spend the funding. We’ll keep you posted as this process unfolds. 

If you’d like a live update for your group or coalition, reach out to catherine@progressivecaucuscenter.org. Thanks!