Democrats warn Trump’s DOGE cuts threaten government funding talks

Senate Democrats are warning the Trump administration's effort to claw back funds for foreign aid and public broadcasting programs threatens bipartisan negotiations to fund the government ahead of a September shutdown deadline.

Republicans are ramping up efforts to try to pass a package of more than $9 billion in funding cuts requested by President Trump last month. But the push faces staunch opposition from Democrats, who say the efforts by the executive branch to undercut previous funding decisions made on a bipartisan basis by Congress could further erode trust between the two sides in current talks.

“How are we supposed to negotiate a bipartisan deal if Republicans will turn around and put it through the shredder in a partisan vote,” Sen. Patty Murray (Wash.), the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, said from the floor Thursday. “This entire package next week should be rejected outright.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) also called it “absurd” for Republicans to expect Democrats to “play along with funding the government” if their GOP colleagues “renege on a bipartisan agreement by concocting rescissions packages behind closed doors that can pass with only their votes, not the customary 60 votes required in the appropriation process.” 

Democrats are referring to a package of funding cuts Senate Republicans hope to take up in the coming days that calls for $8.3 billion in cuts to the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and foreign aid, and more than $1 billion in cuts to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), which provides some funding to NPR and PBS.

Congress has until July 18 to pass the legislation under the special rescissions process initiated by the White House last month that allows the Senate to approve the funding cuts with a simple majority vote, bypassing likely Democratic opposition.

Most funding bills, including the measure that allocated the foreign aid and public broadcasting funding in March, need to overcome a 60-vote threshold.

Trump officials have signaled more rescissions packages could be on the way if Republicans are able to push the cuts through Congress.

But not even all Republicans are thrilled with the idea, with some worrying about how it will affect current funding negotiations.  

“I don't like rescissions,” Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), a spending cardinal, said during a meeting this week to advance funding bills. “I don't like the rescission package that we're going to be dealing with. I don't like the whole, the whole exercise of rescissions, particularly at a time when we're actually trying to advance appropriations. To me, it seems you've got a disconnect here.”

Her comments come as actions by the executive branch in recent months have already complicated bipartisan talks.

Fears rose of a potential government shutdown earlier this year as Trump battled Democrats over the administration’s efforts to freeze funding previously approved by Congress.

While Senate Democrats eventually — and reluctantly — helped pass a GOP-crafted, seven-month stopgap to prevent a shutdown in March, the party has continued to wage an aggressive campaign against the administration’s ongoing operation to reshape the federal government and cut federal spending.

As the Senate Appropriations Committee considered its first batch of government funding bills for fiscal year 2026 on Thursday, the latest actions by the Trump administration and its Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) hung over the proceeding. 

“The challenges we face and the threats to this very process are greater than ever before, with the president and administration intent on ignoring laws that we write and seizing more power for themselves,” Murray said during the hearing. 

“And of course, for the first time ever, we are operating now on a partisan full year continuing resolution for all 12 of our funding bills, which turned over more say on how our constituents taxpayer dollars get spent to unelected bureaucrats than any of us should be comfortable with in the face of these immense challenges and threats,” she added.

The committee was able to advance two funding bills, greenlighting dollars for agricultural programs, rural development and the legislative branch. But negotiators failed to advance their annual Justice Department funding bill due to a dispute over the administration’s plans to relocate the FBI’s headquarters in Washington, D.C.

Members are hopeful the committee will be able to resume consideration of the funding bill as soon as next week while negotiations continue. But there could still be trouble on the horizon as the Senate prepares to tackle the president’s rescissions request. 

Asked by reporters this week whether he expects the Senate Appropriations Committee to hold more markups for funding bills this month, Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), a senior appropriator, said, “We’ll have to see what happens on these rescission bills, right?

“Because if Republicans vote in a partisan way, to take these unilateral cuts from programs that had bipartisan support that obviously undermines the whole process, right?” Van Hollen said. “How can you trust anything that's agreed to if they turn around the next day and undo an agreement. So, that would be a huge problem.”

The package presents a major test of how easily Republicans can lock in cuts sought by Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency.

Some Republicans are optimistic about the rescission package’s chances of passage. Many in the party have long scrutinized the scope of funding for foreign aid and accused public radio and television of political bias.

But changes could be necessary to win sufficient backing from Senate Republicans.

Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, is among a group of Republicans who have shared concerns about how the public broadcasting cuts would impact rural stations. 

“We've got Native American radio stations. A number of them are in very rural areas, and they rely very heavily on this particular source of funding,” Rounds said. “And probably more than 90 percent of all their funding comes through this one source, whereas, if you’re talking about public broadcasting and so forth, in other areas, we know those areas where there is political dislike for some of the activities.”

“These Native American radio stations are not in that category,” he said. 

Rounds and other senators sharing similar concerns have floated the possibility of potential carveouts to protect some local stations as leaders make a push to approve the cuts. 

“I told them that I have to have this resolved before I can vote to move it forward,” Rounds told The Hill on Thursday.

Other Republicans are airing concerns about proposed cuts to the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) and other global health programs. 

“These are not only the right thing to do for humanitarian reasons, but they’re incredible instruments of soft power,” Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who has repeatedly said she would not vote for PEPFAR cuts, said in a hearing in the rescissions package last month.

Republicans are expecting to have a chance to make changes to the bill as part of a marathon voting session known as a “vote-a-rama” in the coming days.

But at least one GOP senator is pushing against internal “side deals” after the Senate GOP leadership recently drew headlines for making last–minute changes for certain states in Trump’s latest tax and spending cuts bill to secure its passage.

“If senators want to offer amendments within the rules, they should be able to offer amendments. What I don't want to see happen,” Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.), another spending cardinal, told reporters this week. “I want to have a full and fair amendment process.

“I want to see people being able to offer their ideas, and let's vote yea or nay in front of God and country. I don’t want to see a wrap-around amendment at the end that reflects a lot of side deals,” he added. “I'm tired of seeing people getting special deals to vote yes. I think that it’s immoral and the wrong way to legislate.”