Senators challenge Trump's proposed cuts to foreign aid and public media in contentious hearing

WASHINGTON — A Senate panel challenged on a bipartisan basis the merits of cancelling billions of dollars in spending for foreign aid and public media as part of a contentious hearing Wednesday examining the White House's request for the cuts.

The House has already voted to claw back $9.4 billion as requested by President Donald Trump. Now, the Senate is preparing to take up the package with a July 18 deadline for action. If the Senate declines to approve a measure by then, the Trump administration must obligate and spend the funds in question.

Russell Vought, director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, defended the proposed cuts, which are part of the administration's efforts to follow through on work done by the so-called Department of Government Efficiency when it was overseen by billionaire ally Elon Musk.

''A vote for rescissions is a vote to show that the United States Senate is serious about getting our fiscal house in order,'' Vought told the lawmakers.

But senators from both parties voiced concerns about the president's request. Their skepticism suggests that some aspects of the package could be altered through the amendment process, or that perhaps the bill will falter entirely.

Maine Sen. Susan Collins, the Republican chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, questioned the proposed cuts to both public media and a program that combats the global HIV epidemic. Holding up a bottle of vitamins for pregnant moms and a package of peanut butter-based food supplements for malnourished children, Collins said it was hard to discern based on the information given lawmakers whether such aid would continue.

''These are not only the right thing to do for humanitarian reasons, but they are incredible instruments of soft power,'' Collins said.

Vought said lifesaving aid would continue and that the administration was focused on clawing back the ''funding of liberal (non-profit organizations) doing activities that the American people wouldn't support.''

Meanwhile, the ranking Democrat on the panel, Washington Sen. Patty Murray, called on senators to reject the request entirely, saying it would undermine the committee's influence.

''If we do not reject this recissions package outright and seriously defend the authority of Congress and the work of this committee, we will find very quickly our bills become a loss less important and our time is consumed by more and more rescissions packages,'' Murray said.

Collins and other lawmakers with a large rural constituency voiced concern about what cancelling nearly $1.1 billion for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting would mean for public media stations throughout the country. Some of the money is assigned to National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting System to support national programming. But Collins said most goes to locally-owned public radio and television stations.

''The vast majority of this funding, more than 70%, actually flows to local television and radio stations,'' Collins said.

The White House says the public media system is politically biased and an unnecessary expense. Vought said he would work with lawmakers through separate legislation to try and find a way to help local stations survive. At the same time, he said they would also have time to adjust to the cut because the rescission covers the coming two budget years, not the current one.

''We have given an opportunity to work through these things and allow them to plan accordingly so that they can continue to serve the communities you represent,'' Vought said.

The hearing comes amid increased tensions between the White House and Congress over the administration's moves to cancel or hold back funds that were approved on a bipartisan basis. Just this week, attorneys general from more than 20 states and Washington, D.C. filed a federal lawsuit challenging billions of dollars in spending cuts made by the Trump administration that would fund everything from crime prevention to food security to scientific research.

The lawsuit filed in Boston is asking a judge to limit the Trump administration from relying on an obscure clause in the federal regulation to cut grants that don't align with its priorities. Since January, the lawsuit argues that the administration has used that clause to cancel entire programs and thousands of grants that had been previously awarded to states and grantees.

Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., was one of the lawmakers who objected to how the administration has gone about its cost-cutting efforts.

''There's plenty of nonsense masquerading as American aid that shouldn't receive another bit of taxpayer funding, but the administration's attempt to root it out has been unnecessarily chaotic,'' McConnell said. ''Instead of creating efficiencies, you've created vacuums for adversaries like China to fill.''

Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Mo., defended the administration's efforts. He called the proposed cuts ''surgical" and said that funding has gone to programs that lawmakers never would have allowed if they had known about the details of the spending.

''Reining in power that the administration state has seized is critical as we stare down a $37 trillion debt. It is critical in restoring trust in government,'' Schmitt said.

In response to Democratic questioning, Vought committed to lawmakers that if the Senate does not approve the rescissions package to cancel the funds, the administration would release the money. That was an assurance sought by Democratic Michigan Sen. Gary Peters.