The Dictatorship
6 things to know about the GOP spending cuts package that just passed
Earlier this month, many congressional Republicans made clear that they had serious concerns about the party’s far-right domestic policy megabill, shortly before those same GOP lawmakers went ahead and voted for it anyway.
This week, it happened again, as a variety of Senate Republicans voiced concerns about a highly controversial $9 billion spending-cut bill, only to do what Donald Trump directed them to do soon after. NBC News reported:
The Republican-led Senate Republicans voted Thursday morning to pass a package of spending cuts requested by President Donald Trump, sending it to the House. The rescissions package cancels previously approved funding totaling $9 billion for foreign aid and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which funds NPR and PBS. Republicans passed it through a rarely used process to evade the 60-vote threshold and modify a bipartisan spending deal on party lines.
In a floor fight that happened shortly after 2 a.m. ET, the measure passed on in 51-48 vote. Two Senate Republicans — Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska — voted with the unanimous Democrats against the package. (Democratic Sen. Tina Smith of Minnesota missed the vote due to hospitalization, though she’s expected to be fine, and her vote wouldn’t have affected the final outcome.)
The Senate vote came less than a week after the president not only demanded that Republicans approve the legislation, but also vowed to withhold future endorsements for any GOP members who defied his instructions.
As legislative fights go, this one is a little different from most — on Capitol Hill, it’s common for lawmakers to approve funding measures, but it’s far more unusual to see members UN-APPROVE funding measures — so let’s unpack why these developments are so important.
What’s a “rescissions” package? When Congress appropriates funds, the White House is obligated to spend the tax dollars accordingly. Presidents, at least for now, do not have the legal option of simply ignoring lawmakers’ wishes and impounding the money, though Richard Nixon tried and failed to do so.
But there is a legal mechanism in place that allows the White House to send Congress requests to undo funds that were appropriated but not spent. These are called “rescissions” packages. Once they arrive on Capitol Hill, lawmakers have 45 days to either approve the packages and un-spend the money, or ignore the president’s request, which in turn would force the administration to do what Congress directed in the first place.
What’s in Trump’s “rescissions” package? While other presidents have had small and unremarkable rescissions requests, Trump’s version was far more ambitious: It sought to codify cuts from Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), cutting roughly $1 billion from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which helps fund local public television and radio stations around the country, and roughly $8 billion from the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).
While $9 billion might not seem like an enormous amount of money given the size of the federal budget and the overall U.S. economy, these specific cuts would, if approved, have a significant impact. Not only are there communities nationwide that rely on public broadcasting — for things such as weather forecasts and emergency alerts — but as BLN’s Michael Steele recently explainedthe USAID cuts raise life-or-death questions for many desperate people worldwide.
What about the power of the purse? A bedrock feature of the Constitution is that Congress controls the nation’s purse strings. Trump and his team have made no secret of the fact that they hope to shift at least some of these powers to the White House, and pry authority away from lawmakers, as part of a larger power grab. A great many Republicans appear eager to go along with these efforts, surrendering congressional power to the president — again.
Why didn’t Senate Democrats use a filibuster to block the package? Because they couldn’t: The legislative process on rescissions packages does not require the bills to meet a 60-vote threshold.
Why are Democrats insisting this will change spending negotiations going forward? This is an underappreciated element of the broader fight: For generations, Democrats and Republicans have advanced spending deals through bipartisan negotiations and compromises in which both parties end up with some of what they want. But if we’re entering an era in which presidents can decide to reject certain congressionally approved investments, and a narrow congressional majority can endorse such efforts after the fact, then members — especially those in the minority — have no reason to even try to reach bipartisan deals, since they’ll have no guarantees that the money will actually be spent.
Indeed, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries made this point explicitly during an interview with BLN’s Chris Hayes this week.
What happens now? The House passed its version of the bill in mid-June, but Senate Republicans made some changes — specifically, they agreed to remove $400 million in cuts to PEPFAR, the foreign aid program to combat HIV/AIDS — which means the package will need to be voted on again in the lower chamber.
The timing is highly relevant: Under the procedural rules for this effort, Congress will need to pass the rescissions package by midnight Friday or the effort will fail. Most observers agree, however, that House Republicans will follow Trump’s demands before the deadline.
If the president’s gambit succeeds, as now appears very likely, it will almost certainly open the door to a series of related efforts. Watch this space.
This post updates our related earlier coverage.
Steve Benen is a producer for “The Rachel Maddow Show,” the editor of MaddowBlog and an BLN political contributor. He’s also the bestselling author of “Ministry of Truth: Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans’ War on the Recent Past.”
The Dictatorship
Iran moves to take permanent control of Strait of Hormuz, a vital shipping choke point
Iran announced on Thursday that it was drafting a “protocol” that would allow it to “monitor transit” by oil tankers through the Strait of Hormuzthe strategic waterway Tehran has shut downsending oil and gas prices soaring in the U.S. and across the world.
Kazem Gharibabadi, Iran’s deputy foreign minister for legal and international affairs, said tanker traffic through the narrow route “should be supervised and coordinated” between Iran and Oman, the two countries that border the strait, according to a translation of a report from Iran’s state news agency cited by CNBC.
“Of course, these requirements will not mean restrictions, but rather to facilitate and ensure safe passage and provide better services to ships that pass through this route,” Gharibabadi said according to the report.
President Donald Trump has suggested that the U.S. may leave it to other countries to end Iran’s de facto blockade of the strait, which it enforces by firing missiles at tankers. Trump has called on European nations to do so, but experts say Europe lacks the military resources to halt Iranian attacks on tankers for the long term.
Iranian and Omani officials did not respond to requests for comment from MS NOW.
For decades, the strait has been an international waterway, controlled by no country, that ships from all nations could transit.

Gregory Brew, a senior Iran and oil analyst at the Eurasia Group, said that if Iran manages to take control of the Strait of Hormuz permanently, it would be a “colossal win” for the country.
“It’s a massive strategic win, given that Iran has demonstrated that it can close the strait,” Brew told MS NOW. “It’s a huge financial win.”
Brew added that if Iran gains long-term control of the straitit would be more powerful than it was before the Trump administration attacked it. Iran’s parliament passed a law to begin charging “tolls” of up to $2 million per ship, which could mean as much as $100 billion in annual revenue — or the equivalent of Iran’s current annual oil export earnings.
“It’s not innocuous,” Brew said, referring to the protocol announced on Thursday. “Iran has passed legislation and is now claiming to be coordinating with Oman in establishing joint management of the Strait of Hormuz.”
Brew predicted that Oman, which has less oil and wealth than other Gulf nations, may be willing to accept a temporary arrangement that could help end the conflict.
“The Omanis are probably hedging; they’ve always tried to manage their relationship with Iran, and they lose relatively little by cooperating with Iran right now to ease pressure on the strait,” Brew said. “The bigger question is whether they continue to cooperate after the war.”
Ted Singer, a former senior CIA official who oversaw the agency’s operations in the Middle East, said Iranian officials are likely trying to see what they can achieve.
“I wouldn’t see this as a fork in the road,” Singer told MS NOW.
Singer, who served as a CIA station chief in five different countries over a 35-year career, said Iranian officials could be trying to stoke division between gulf countries.
“The Iranians are good at doing more than one thing at a time,” he said. “Why not stake out a maximalist position on tolls, then toss out options to roil the waters?”
The United Arab Emirates, for example, is adamantly opposed to Iran taking control of the strait.
“The Iranians play multi-dimensional chess,” said Singer, now a senior adviser to the Chertoff Group, a security consulting firm run by Michael Chertoff, who served as secretary of Homeland Security in the George W. Bush administration.
“Try to create division between Oman and the rest of the Gulf countries,” Singer said. “Why not fiddle around with this and see if something sticks?”

David Rohde
David Rohde is the senior national security reporter for MS NOW. Previously he was the senior executive editor for national security and law for NBC News.
Ian Sherwood is the director of international newsgathering for MS NOW, a former executive editor for NBC News and a former deputy Washington bureau chief for the BBC.
The Dictatorship
Thursday’s Mini-Report, 4.2.26
Today’s edition of quick hits.
* Targeting Iranian infrastructure: “President Trump celebrated the destruction of a bridge near Tehran on Thursday, warning on social media that there was ‘much more to follow.’ The attack on the B1 bridge between Tehran and the nearby city of Karaj killed eight people and wounded 95, according to Fars, a semiofficial Iranian news agency.”
* I don’t think the speech worked: “The price of oil rose sharply and stocks wavered on Thursday after President Trump, in an address from the White House the day before, said the war against Iran was ‘nearing completion’ but failed to offer a concrete timeline and committed to more attacks. In the 19-minute address, Mr. Trump said U.S. forces would hit Iran ‘extremely hard over the next two to three weeks.’”
* Reversing one of Noem’s worst ideas: “Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin on Wednesday rescinded a rule that DHS expenditures over $100,000 be personally approved by his office, ending a widely criticized policy implemented by his predecessor Kristi Noem that critics said put a particular burden on the Federal Emergency Management Agency ’s work aiding disaster response and recovery.”
* The latest on the ballroom: “Donald Trump’s handpicked National Capital Planning Commission voted Thursday to authorize the president’s plan to erect a gilded 90,000-square-foot White House ballroom in place of the historic East Wing, which was destroyed last fall to make way for the ballroom.”
* Remember when Congress, by constitutional mandate, had the power of the purse? “President Donald Trump said Thursday he will soon sign an order to pay all Department of Homeland Security employees who have gone without paychecks during the record-long partial government shutdown that has reached 48 days.”
* A year after “Liberation Day,” there’s fresh tariff news: “President Donald Trump announced Thursday he will levy tariffs as high as 100 percent on some name-brand pharmaceuticals and is adjusting tariffs on products that contain steel and aluminum, the administration’s first move to expand duties since the Supreme Court dealt his trade agenda a blow in February.”
* The latest from Artemis II: “NASA’s latest update about the Artemis II moon mission shows a breathtaking view of Earth as the Orion capsule with four astronauts on board orbits tens of thousands of miles above. Hitching a ride beyond Earth’s atmosphere atop NASA’s powerful Space Launch System rocket, the three Americans and one Canadian selected for the mission are preparing to begin heading toward the moon.”
See you tomorrow.
Steve Benen is a producer for “The Rachel Maddow Show,” the editor of MaddowBlog and an MS NOW political contributor. He’s also the bestselling author of “Ministry of Truth: Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans’ War on the Recent Past.”
The Dictatorship
Judge weighs legality of Trump’s planned arch near Arlington National Cemetery
A federal judge is weighing whether the Trump administration can legally build a 250-foot arch just across the Potomac River from the Vietnam and Lincoln memorials, as three veterans who fought in Vietnam have argued the project would violate federal law and permanently alter one of the country’s most sacred landscapes.
Judge Tanya Chutkan declined on Thursday to issue a preliminary injunction, instead asking the parties to report by 5 p.m. on Friday whether they can agree to halt groundbreaking while the case proceeds. If no agreement is reached, she will ask the executive branch to provide supplemental sworn declarations disclosing any awards, grants, contracts, permits or other relevant information related to the arch’s construction.
The suit was brought by three Vietnam War veterans and an architectural historian, who argued the project would obstruct views of the Vietnam War and Lincoln memorials from Arlington National Cemetery. The plaintiffs contended the planned arch would violate federal laws governing historic sites and monuments, and the White House cannot lawfully proceed without congressional authorization.
The plaintiffs cited Trump’s various Truth Social posts and public statements to support their claim that construction is underway, pointing to design specifications, a target completion date of July 4 and renderings backed by a White House fact sheet. They also argued the National Park Service must sign off on any use of the land before construction begins.
President Donald Trump told reporters in January that his proposed arch “will be the most beautiful in the world,” and is already “being built.” He also shared renderings of the arch on his Truth Social account.
The government’s attorney, Bradley Craigmyle, argued that Trump’s media and social media statements constitute hearsay. Chutkan pushed back sharply, saying Trump’s posts are admissible as statements by a party. Throughout the hearing, Craigmyle argued the project is in the conceptual phase despite the president’s statements.
Today’s hearing comes as the National Capital Planning Commission voted 9-1, with two abstentions, to approve construction for Trump’s 90,000-square foot ballroom at the White House, clearing the final procedural hurdle for the project. Chutkan referenced the ballroom case during the hearing, saying, “If we haven’t had the whole White House ballroom situation, this might be a little more academic than it is now.”
Selena Kuznikov contributed to this article.
Peggy Helman is a desk associate at MS NOW.
-
Politics1 year agoFormer ‘Squad’ members launching ‘Bowman and Bush’ YouTube show
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoLuigi Mangione acknowledges public support in first official statement since arrest
-
Politics1 year agoFormer Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron launches Senate bid
-
The Dictatorship7 months agoMike Johnson sums up the GOP’s arrogant position on military occupation with two words
-
Politics1 year agoBlue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoPete Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon goes from bad to worse
-
Uncategorized1 year ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
Politics12 months agoDemocrat challenging Joni Ernst: I want to ‘tear down’ party, ‘build it back up’




