Cut It Now or Cut It Later? The Rescissions Bill’s Ugly Mirror

The House narrowly voted to claw back funding for aid and public media, but the close vote signals something interesting

What was meant to be the “safe,” easy first step in codifying the DOGE cuts ended up nearly failing, a sign that voters and members on both sides may be circling back to the consequences.

Just days after voting to slash future funding for public broadcasting and international aid in the One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB) budget bill, House Republicans returned to the floor to go one step further, stripping that funding immediately. It was bold, brutal, and just barely passed.

But this time, some Republicans who had supported long-term cuts couldn’t bring themselves to vote for the instant version. What changed? Apparently, only the optics.

---

The Rescissions Bill: Immediate Cuts, Strategic Intent

Passed on June 12 by a razor-thin 214–212 vote, the rescissions bill targets funds already allocated to:

• USAID — including global health and PEPFAR programs.

• NPR and PBS — long-standing targets of right-wing accusations of “liberal bias.”

Unlike the One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB), which delays funding cuts until the next budget year, the rescissions bill claws back money this year, with direct, immediate consequences.

That difference was enough to make some GOP lawmakers sweat.

A Cut That Should Have Been Easy, But Wasn’t

Republicans marketed the rescissions bill as the first safe test case, targeting funding for what they called low-hanging fruit, such as PBS, NPR, and select foreign aid. It was supposed to be uncontroversial and start the momentum for future DOGE codification.

But the almost-failure—passing by just two votes (214‑212)—shows that even “safe” cuts are politically fragile.

That’s no mandate; it’s a warning sign, and that warning becomes louder when you consider the margins.

A Vote Balanced on Absence, Not Consensus

The bill only passed because two Democrats weren’t there:

• Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D‑TX) was recovering from emergency surgery.

• Rep. Al Green’s seat (TX‑9) remains vacant following his death earlier this year.

See our recent reporting on the TX-9 seat here:

Delayed Democracy: How 800,000 Texans Lost Their Voice in Congress

Had both been present and voting no, the vote would have landed at 214–214, forcing a tiebreaker that would have fallen to Vice President J.D. Vance.

This wasn’t a confident march forward. It was a policy knife’s edge balanced precariously on absence, timing, and silence.

This less-than-enthusiastic vote suggests future attempts to codify DOGE cuts immediately will be unsuccessful. Why the GOP leadership did not delay the vote to whip up more support is unclear. Perhaps they wanted a quick win while two seats were empty, but the long-term optics look bleak for Trump’s agenda.

Resistance, But Carefully Worded

A handful of Republicans broke ranks to oppose the bill, but their opposition came with a clear theme: cautious, procedural language instead of outright rejection.

Rep. Mark Amodei (R‑NV) voted no, but framed his concern this way: “Before we trigger major consequences for our local public broadcasting stations … we need more discussion — rather than railroading folks over the East Coast’s editorials.”

Rather than condemning the bill, he requested more “debate,” signaling discomfort without direct defiance.

Similarly, Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA) and Rep. Mike Turner (R-OH) raised concerns over cuts to global aid and PEPFAR, but chose vague language, such as “needs further evaluation.”

Even Rep. Nicole Malliotakis (R‑NY) cited “timing concerns,” not substantive opposition.

They want credit for opposing the fallout, without actually standing against the cause.

That’s not dissent. It’s damage control.

A Strategic Backdoor to Make Cuts Stick

This vote wasn’t just about dollars. It was part of a three-part strategy to enshrine the Trump administration’s DOGE cuts, even if the courts rule against executive overreach:

1. Executive action — The Trump administration ordered defunding via DOGE.

2. Long-term budget cuts — The OBBB eliminates future funding.

3. Rescissions bills — Designed to kill current funding immediately.

If courts block the executive action? No problem. Congress has already eliminated the funding.

This is legislative insurance, and this was just the first test.

See our reporting on the OBBB here:

ICYMI: The One Big Beautiful Budget Breakdown

The Message Behind the Vote

If a lawmaker supported the OBBB but voted no on this rescission, what message are they sending? “I support the cuts in principle… just not when they actually happen?”

That’s not leadership. That’s cowardice, and the public sees through it.

This was supposed to be the easy one, the first swing, designed to build momentum for deeper DOGE codification, but it was barely a win, and that says everything.

What’s Next?

Now that the Recission bill has narrowly passed the House, it will move to the Senate. The outlook there is unclear as the Senate has not yet voted on the larger OBBB, which approves the future budget cuts.

Debate and opposition to the cuts in the OBBB should signal opposition to the recissions as well. However, in terms of political theater, there is every reason to expect the same wishy-washy language and limp concerns to be expressed.

Call and Remember

If your representative voted yes on this bill, or flip-flopped without explanation, it’s time to speak up.

Call the U.S. Capitol Switchboard: (202) 224‑3121

Ask to be connected to your representative by ZIP code.

Sample Script:

“Hi, I’m a constituent from [Your Town]. I’m calling to express outrage that Representative [Name] voted to cut funding for NPR, PBS, and global aid immediately just days after voting for future cuts in the budget bill. This rescission shows cowardice and cruelty. I will remember this vote, and I will share it with others.”

Remember in 2026:

Every member of the House will face re-election. Ask them: “Why did you vote to slash aid today when you already cut it for next year? Why did you oppose cutting funding now, but support cutting it in the future?” Make them explain their reasoning.

Don’t accept silence as an answer.

Bibliography:

• “Big Bird Goes Down as House Passes First DOGE Cuts.” The Daily Beast, June 12, 2025.

• “House Approves DOGE‑Inspired Cuts to Foreign Aid, PBS, NPR.” The Washington Post, June 12, 2025.

• “Here’s the $9.4 Billion in DOGE Cuts That Trump Wants Congress to Approve.” Business Insider, June 3, 2025.

• “Congress Takes the First Step in Making DOGE Cuts Permanent.” Business Insider, June 12, 2025.

• “House Passes Bill to Claw Back $9.4 B in Federal Spending, Codify Cuts to PBS and NPR.” New York Post, June 12, 2025.