The Claim

Secured congressional passage of a $9 billion rescissions package, permanently canceling wasteful spending — like the wasteful taxpayer funding of NPR and PBS.

The Claim, Unpacked

What is literally being asserted?

That Congress passed, at the administration’s request, a rescissions package totaling $9 billion. That the rescinded funds constitute “wasteful spending.” That NPR and PBS funding exemplifies this waste.

What is being implied but not asserted?

The phrase “permanently canceling wasteful spending” implies a meaningful fiscal accomplishment — that a significant chunk of government waste has been eliminated. The em dash before “like the wasteful Green New Scam” (the section title’s version) or “like the wasteful taxpayer funding of NPR and PBS” implies these programs were the main targets or at least representative of what was cut. The framing suggests this was a major step toward fiscal responsibility.

What is conspicuously absent?

Six critical facts: (1) The $9 billion is 0.13% of total FY2025 federal spending ($7.0 trillion) and 0.49% of the FY2025 deficit ($1.8 trillion). (2) Approximately 88% of the rescinded funds ($7.9 billion) came from foreign aid and international programs, not domestic “waste.” (3) The bill contained zero rescissions of Inflation Reduction Act clean energy programs or anything related to the “Green New Deal” — the only remotely climate-related item was $125 million for the Clean Technology Fund, an international program. (4) The administration had already unilaterally frozen or impounded most of these same funds months before Congress voted, making the congressional action largely a retroactive ratification. (5) The CPB defunding eliminated emergency alert infrastructure serving rural communities. (6) Two Republican senators — Appropriations Chair Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski — voted against the bill, with Collins citing its lack of program-level detail.

Evidence Assessment

Established Facts

Congress did pass the Rescissions Act of 2025 (H.R. 4), which was signed into law on July 24, 2025. The House passed the bill 214-212 on June 12, 2025. The Senate passed an amended version 51-48 on July 17, 2025, and the House agreed to the Senate amendments on July 18. This was the first successful presidential rescission package since 1992. ¹

The CBO scored the bill at $8.9 billion in outlay reductions over FY2025-2035. The original presidential request included 22 rescissions totaling $9.4 billion. The Senate removed a $400 million PEPFAR rescission, bringing the enacted total to approximately $9 billion in budget authority. CBO’s estimate of actual outlay reduction was $8.9 billion. ²

Approximately 88% of the rescissions came from foreign aid and international programs, not domestic spending. The breakdown: $2.5 billion from Development Assistance, $1.65 billion from the Economic Support Fund, $800 million from Migration and Refugee Assistance, $500 million from Global Health Programs, $496 million from International Disaster Assistance, $460 million from Europe/Eurasia/Central Asia Assistance, $437 million from International Organizations and Programs, $361 million from Peacekeeping Contributions, and smaller international accounts. The only domestic rescission was $1.07 billion from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. ³

The bill contained zero rescissions of IRA clean energy programs or anything related to the “Green New Deal.” A full-text analysis of the enrolled bill confirms it rescinds only foreign affairs/international development accounts and CPB funding. The only remotely climate-related item was $125 million for the Clean Technology Fund — an international climate finance program — representing 1.4% of the total package. IRA clean energy tax credit modifications came through the entirely separate One Big Beautiful Bill Act (H.R. 1), not this legislation. ⁴

The CPB defunding effectively eliminated the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. The $1.07 billion rescission cancelled $535 million in advance appropriations for each of FY2026 and FY2027. CPB announced on August 1, 2025 that it would begin winding down operations, with the majority of staff positions eliminated by September 30, 2025. Almost half of CPB-funded stations are rural, and many rely on federal funding for 25% or more of their revenue. The defunding also terminated the $136 million Next Generation Warning System grant program for emergency alerts in rural and disaster-prone areas. ⁵

$9 billion represents 0.13% of total FY2025 federal outlays and 0.49% of the FY2025 deficit. CBO reported total FY2025 outlays of $7.0 trillion and a deficit of $1.8 trillion. Even measured against the primary deficit (excluding interest), the rescissions represent approximately 1% of the $913 billion figure. ⁶

Strong Inferences

The administration had already impounded most of these same funds before Congress voted, making the rescission largely a retroactive ratification. Executive Order 14169, signed January 20, 2025, ordered a 90-day “pause” on all U.S. foreign development assistance. By March 2025, Secretary Rubio had terminated 83% of USAID programs (approximately 5,200 contracts). The GAO and multiple courts found these impoundments unlawful under the Impoundment Control Act. The congressional rescission vote in July provided statutory authorization for cuts the executive branch had already made unilaterally months earlier. ⁷

The “wasteful spending” characterization obscures the nature of what was actually cut. The programs rescinded included international disaster relief, refugee assistance, global health programs (though PEPFAR was protected), peacekeeping contributions, and development assistance. These are policy disagreements about the appropriate level of U.S. international engagement, not clear-cut “waste” in the sense of fraud, duplication, or inefficiency. Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins — a Republican — voted against the bill and stated it “has a big problem — nobody really knows what program reductions are in it.” ⁸

The “Green New Scam” framing in the broader claim context is a misdirection. The White House article’s section headers and nearby claims reference the “Green New Scam” as part of the rescissions narrative. However, the only connection between this bill and clean energy was $125 million for the Clean Technology Fund — 1.4% of the total package. The substantive attack on IRA clean energy provisions occurred through the separate reconciliation bill (One Big Beautiful Bill Act), which cut projected new clean power capacity by 53-59% through 2035 according to the Rhodium Group. Conflating the two creates a false impression that this particular bill addressed domestic clean energy “waste.” ⁹

What the Evidence Shows

The core factual claim is accurate: Congress did pass a rescissions package of approximately $9 billion, and it was signed into law. This was a genuine legislative accomplishment — the first successful presidential rescission since 1992 — and involved a real exercise of congressional authority.

But the framing does substantial work to misrepresent what the bill actually did. The “permanently canceling wasteful spending” language implies fiscal discipline, yet the $8.9 billion in savings represents a rounding error against a $7 trillion federal budget and $1.8 trillion deficit. Calling this “wasteful” is an assertion, not a fact — the rescinded programs include international disaster relief, refugee assistance, and emergency alert infrastructure for rural Americans. Whether these programs are “wasteful” is a policy judgment, and one that even Republican Appropriations Chair Collins disputed.

The mention of “NPR and PBS” — while technically accurate (CPB funding was rescinded) — spotlights about 12% of the package’s value while ignoring that 88% came from foreign aid. And the “Green New Scam” framing that appears in the broader White House article is flatly disconnected from the bill’s contents: the Rescissions Act contained no IRA clean energy rescissions and only $125 million related to international climate finance.

Perhaps most significantly, the claim frames this as “securing congressional passage” as though it represents the administration convincing Congress to exercise its fiscal authority. In reality, the administration had already unilaterally frozen the same funds months earlier — courts had found this impoundment unlawful — and the congressional vote served primarily to retroactively legitimize executive overreach. The power of the purse was not exercised by Congress so much as handed back to Congress for a rubber stamp after the executive had already spent months ignoring it.

The Bottom Line

The factual core holds: Congress passed a $9 billion rescissions bill, the first in over three decades. This is a real legislative event. But the claim’s framing is misleading on multiple levels. The money involved represents a negligible fraction of federal spending. The characterization of “wasteful spending” papers over genuine policy trade-offs in foreign aid, global health, and public broadcasting. The “Green New Scam” framing bears no meaningful relationship to the bill’s contents. And the congressional “passage” was less an exercise of fiscal discipline than a post-hoc ratification of funds the administration had already impounded in defiance of existing law. The claim gets the facts approximately right while constructing an entirely misleading narrative around them.

Footnotes

1. H.R. 4, Rescissions Act of 2025. Congress.gov. https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/4 ↩

2. CBO Cost Estimate, H.R. 4, Rescissions Act of 2025. Congressional Budget Office, June 2025. https://www.cbo.gov/publication/61473 ↩

3. “Congress Approves $9 Billion Rescissions Package.” American Action Forum. https://www.americanactionforum.org/insight/congress-approves-9-billion-rescissions-package/ ↩

4. Full text analysis, H.R. 4 (Enrolled). GovTrack. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/119/hr4/text ↩

5. “CPB to Shut Down After Public Media Loses Federal Funding.” NPR, August 1, 2025. https://www.npr.org/2025/08/01/nx-s1-5489808/cpb-shut-down-public-broadcasting-trump ↩

6. Monthly Budget Review: Summary for Fiscal Year 2025. Congressional Budget Office. https://www.cbo.gov/publication/61307 ↩

7. “Senate Clears Amended Bill to Claw Back Billions in Foreign Aid and Public Media Funding.” Government Executive, July 2025. https://www.govexec.com/management/2025/07/senate-clears-amended-bill-claw-back-billions-foreign-aid-and-public-media-funding/406793/ ↩

8. “Senate Approves Trump’s Request to Cancel $9 Billion.” PBS NewsHour, July 2025. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-live-senate-considers-trumps-request-to-cancel-9-billion-in-previously-approved-spending ↩

9. “What Passage of the ‘One Big Beautiful Bill’ Means for US Energy and the Economy.” Rhodium Group. https://rhg.com/research/assessing-the-impacts-of-the-final-one-big-beautiful-bill/ ↩