(The Epoch Times)—The U.S. Senate on July 16 voted to pass $9 billion in spending cuts requested by President Donald Trump, including cuts to National Public Radio (NPR) and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS).
The measure passed in a 51–48 vote. Two Republicans, Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), voted against the bill. Although having voted against the bill in an earlier procedural vote, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) decided to back the bill. Sen. Tina Smith (D-Minn.) missed the vote due to being in hospital.
The early morning passage of the bill came after a long voting series with a flurry of amendments from Democratic lawmakers.
The passage of the spending cuts, called rescissions, marks a major political win for Trump and Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.).
Speaking after the vote, Thune said of the rescissions bill, “It’s a small but important step toward fiscal sanity that we all should be able to agree is long overdue.”
Moments earlier, he said of what could become the first rescissions passed by Congress in 35 years, “Our country is 36 trillion dollars in debt. We can’t keep doing things the way we’ve been doing them. What we’re talking about here is 1/10th of 1 percent of all federal spending but it’s a step in the right direction.”
With its $9 billion top line in cuts, the bill represents one of the largest rescissions ever passed through the Senate under the Impoundment Control Act of 1974. It’s $400 million less than the original House-passed package, after cuts related to an anti-HIV initiative were stripped from the bill.
The Senate has historically been the most challenging hurdle for rescission bills.
Because alterations were made to the bill passed by the House on June 12, the legislation will need to return to the lower chamber for another vote.
PEPFAR and ‘Soft Power’
Most of the bill’s cuts—$7.9 billion—stem from rescissions of funding for the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). These are linked to several controversial international social projects undertaken during President Joe Biden’s administration, identified by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).
Initially, a $400 million cut to the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) program was included in the package, but this was cut in order to win over enough votes to pass the bill.
PEPFAR, initiated by President George W. Bush with the intention of ending the international HIV/AIDS pandemic by 2030, has been a flashpoint in Republicans’ fight to pass the cuts. The program focuses on HIV prevention, care, and treatment programs in partner countries, with the aim of reducing the spread of the disease.
McConnell and Collins tied their opposition, in part, to the cuts to USAID.
During a previous Senate hearing on the bill, McConnell said that such funding was important to the United States’ ability to internationally project “soft power,” power using non-military means.
“Over my years in Senate, the biggest supporters of soft power I’ve run into have been the military generals, who are fully aware of how much more costly it is to have a war than to prevent one,” McConnell said.
“Soft power, at very little expense, goes a long way.”
Collins echoed these concerns.
Office of Management and the Budget Director Russ Vought, a leading supporter of the bill within the administration, responded that the foreign aid cuts had been carefully chosen to solely target waste and abuse, telling the panel, “This is not a fade on soft power.”
“[Secretary of State Marco Rubio and I are] going line by line in each of these programs to articulate where we believe soft power could be effective, where we think that investment on the front end will keep us out of long-term, hard power conflicts of that nature,” Vought said.
Corporation for Public Broadcasting
The other $1.1 billion comes from funding cuts to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which oversees NPR and PBS.
Members of both parties have had reservations about these cuts.
“The bill will starve local and rural radio stations,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in a speech on the Senate floor ahead of the vote.
Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) initially said he was opposed to the bill due to the impact these cuts could have on his constituents, but was later brought into alignment with the legislation after negotiations with the president.
Collins and Murkowski have also expressed skepticism toward the Corporation for Public Broadcasting cuts.
House Wanted Passage ‘As Is’
Several lawmakers in the House have indicated their preference for the Senate to have passed the rescissions “as is” without substantial changes, as there is a July 18 deadline for final passage of the bill after which the same cuts cannot be reintroduced by the president.
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) has indicated multiple times that he would have preferred the Senate pass the bill without revisions.
“The Friday deadline looms. We’re encouraging our Senate partners over there to get the job done and to pass it as is,” Johnson said during a Tuesday leadership press conference.
Other Republicans in the House echoed the sentiment.
“The Senate needs to do its job and pass the entire $9.4 billion so that we can set the stage for even more rescissions,” Rep. Keith Self (R-Texas) said during a July 16 interview with Newsmax.
Responding to reports that the Senate would remove the cuts to PEPFAR funding, Rep. Brandon Gill (R-Texas) told The Epoch Times on July 15, “I think the Senate should take up the bill as we wrote it in the House. You know what we’re doing is really just codifying waste, fraud, and abuse [cuts] that the DOGE team found.”
Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-Va.) was critical of the Senate for the revisions.
“We’re aware that under normal circumstances, the Republicans in the Senate are not as fiscally as responsible as the Republicans in the House,“ Grothman told reporters. ”So this is disappointing but not surprising news.”
Safeguarding Your American Dream: Discover the Power of America First Healthcare
In today’s economy, healthcare costs remain one of the biggest threats to financial stability and family security. Americans work hard to build a better life, yet rising medical expenses can quickly erode savings, force tough trade-offs, and even push families toward debt or bankruptcy. Medical bills continue to rank as the leading cause of personal bankruptcy in the United States, with millions facing underinsurance or unexpected out-of-pocket burdens that no one plans for. Many turn to government-run marketplace plans under the Affordable Care Act, hoping for relief, only to discover that what appears affordable on paper often delivers higher long-term costs, limited real protection, and coverage that may not align with personal values or family needs.
America First Healthcare stands out as a private insurance agency dedicated to helping conservatives and families secure better coverage and better rates through customized, values-aligned options. By conducting free insurance reviews, the agency uncovers hidden gaps in existing policies and connects clients with private alternatives that emphasize personal responsibility, small-government principles, and genuine affordability—often delivering up to 20% savings while providing stronger protection for the American Dream.
The allure of marketplace plans is easy to understand: open enrollment periods, premium tax credits for many households, and the promise of “comprehensive” benefits mandated by law. Yet recent data reveals a different reality, especially after the expiration of enhanced premium subsidies at the end of 2025. Enrollment for 2026 dropped by more than one million people compared to the prior year, with many shifting to lower-tier bronze plans to keep monthly premiums manageable.
These plans feature significantly higher deductibles—averaging around $7,500 nationally—and greater cost-sharing requirements. Families who once paid modest amounts after subsidies now face average premium increases of $65 or more per month, even as they accept plans that leave them responsible for thousands in upfront costs before meaningful coverage kicks in.
High deductibles create a dangerous barrier to care. Studies show that people in such plans are less likely to seek timely treatment for chronic conditions, attend preventive screenings, or fill necessary prescriptions. A seemingly minor illness or injury can balloon into major expenses when patients delay care until problems worsen. For a family of four, a single hospitalization, cancer diagnosis, or unexpected surgery can easily exceed the deductible, triggering coinsurance and out-of-pocket maximums that still leave substantial bills. One recent analysis noted that some proposed changes could push family deductibles toward $31,000 in future years, further exposing households to financial risk.
Beyond the numbers, marketplace plans often carry structural limitations. Coverage for certain critical services may include waiting periods or narrower networks that restrict access to preferred doctors and specialists. Preventive care is required to be covered without cost-sharing, but everything else—lab work, imaging, specialist visits, or ongoing treatment—typically waits until the deductible is met. This reactive model contrasts sharply with the proactive, holistic approach many families prefer, especially those focused on wellness, early intervention, and maintaining health to enjoy life rather than merely reacting to illness.
Values alignment represents another growing concern. Government-influenced plans operate within a framework shaped by federal mandates and political priorities that may not reflect conservative principles of limited government, personal freedom, and ethical stewardship. Families who want to direct their healthcare dollars toward providers and benefits that honor traditional values sometimes find marketplace options feel misaligned, forcing a compromise between affordability and conviction.
Private alternatives, by contrast, offer year-round flexibility without the restrictions of open enrollment windows. Independent agents can shop across a wider range of carriers to design plans tailored to specific family needs—whether that means lower deductibles for frequent medical users, broader provider networks, or add-ons that support wellness and preventive services from day one. Clients frequently report more stable premiums that do not automatically escalate each year, along with genuine cost savings once the full picture of deductibles, copays, and coverage depth is considered.
Take the experience of real families who made the switch. Amanda C. shared that her new plan felt “way better” than what she had through the marketplace. Johnny Y. noted his previous coverage kept increasing annually until he found a more stable private option. Sofia S. expressed delight with her plan and began recommending it to others. These stories echo a common theme: when families move beyond one-size-fits-all government marketplaces, they often discover customized protection that better safeguards both health and finances.
Founder Jordan Sarmiento’s own journey underscores the stakes. In 2021, a six-day hospitalization generated a $95,000 bill. Under a well-structured private “Conservative Care Coverage” plan, his out-of-pocket responsibility would have been just $500. That stark difference illustrates how thoughtful planning and private options can prevent a medical event from becoming a financial catastrophe.
Practical steps exist for anyone questioning their current coverage. Start with a no-obligation review of your existing policy to identify gaps—high deductibles, limited critical-care benefits, or escalating premiums. Compare total projected costs (premiums plus potential out-of-pocket expenses) rather than monthly premiums alone. Consider family health history, anticipated needs, and lifestyle priorities. Private agencies can present side-by-side options that include stronger wellness incentives, broader access, and plans built on shared values of self-reliance and freedom.
In an era when healthcare inflation continues to outpace general cost-of-living increases, relying solely on marketplace solutions carries growing risk. Families who proactively explore private alternatives frequently achieve meaningful savings while gaining peace of mind that their coverage truly works when needed most.
America First Healthcare makes this exploration straightforward through its free review process. Families and individuals receive personalized guidance to close coverage holes, reduce unnecessary expenses, and secure plans that align with conservative principles—protecting wallets, health, and the American Dream without government overreach. Many who complete a review discover they can enjoy better benefits for less, often saving up to 20% while gaining the customization and stability that marketplace plans struggle to deliver.
Ultimately, protecting your family’s future requires looking beyond the marketing of “affordable” government options. By understanding the long-term costs hidden in high deductibles, shifting coverage tiers, and values mismatches, Americans can make empowered choices. Private, values-driven insurance offers a smarter path—one that rewards diligence, supports wellness, and delivers real security. For those ready to move beyond the limitations of traditional marketplace plans, a simple review can reveal options designed to serve families, not bureaucracies. The American Dream thrives when individuals and families retain control over their healthcare decisions, and thoughtful private coverage plays a vital role in making that possible.