Senate GOP Dissent Jeopardizes Trump’s $9.4B Spending Cut Push

President Trump’s push to slash $9.4 billion in federal spending is hitting a snag in the Senate, where some Republicans are balking at the proposed cuts. The package, driven by Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), targets $8.3 billion from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and $1 billion from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which funds NPR and PBS. While DOGE’s mission to eliminate waste has been a GOP rallying cry, the reality of these cuts is exposing fault lines within the party.

Senators like Susan Collins of Maine, Mike Rounds of South Dakota, and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska are voicing concerns. Collins is particularly worried about reductions to the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), a program with bipartisan support for its global health impact. Rounds, meanwhile, is focused on the potential harm to rural radio stations, especially those serving Native American communities, which rely on public broadcasting funds for critical information during emergencies. Murkowski, a longtime defender of public media, bluntly stated her dissatisfaction with the bill’s current form.

The dissent could force changes to the package, with Senate Republican leadership, led by Majority Leader John Thune, planning a marathon amendment session next week. This ‘vote-a-rama’ aims to address concerns and avoid surprises, but any changes would require the bill to return to the House before reaching Trump’s desk. Senator Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma expressed optimism about resolving issues beforehand, but the clock is ticking with a Friday deadline looming.

Not everyone is wavering. Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana called it ‘gut check time,’ urging his colleagues to back the cuts, which he noted represent less than half a percent of the federal budget. For Kennedy, it’s a test of whether Republicans truly stand for fiscal restraint or are swayed by what he cheekily calls ‘spending porn.’

Behind the numbers, this debate reveals a deeper tension: balancing ideological commitments with practical consequences. Cutting foreign aid and public broadcasting may sound good on paper, but when it impacts real communities—whether AIDS patients abroad or rural listeners at home—the calculus gets messy.