Congress claws back $9 billion in spending.

I’m Isaac Saul, and this is Tangle: an independent, nonpartisan, subscriber-supported politics newsletter that summarizes the best arguments from across the political spectrum on the news of the day — then “my take.”

Are you new here? Get free emails to your inbox daily. Would you rather listen? You can find our podcast here.

Today’s read: 14 minutes.

We’re coming live to Southern California.

A couple of years ago, we launched our Tangle Live event series, which has taken Tangle on the road to discuss hot-button issues with commentators from across the political spectrum. We’ve hosted live events in New York and Philadelphia, and today we’re excited to announce that our third installment of Tangle Live will be held on October 24, 2025, at the Irvine Barclay Theatre in Irvine, California. If you’re in the area (or want to make the trip), we’d love to have you join Isaac and the team for a night of spirited discussion, live Q&A, and opportunities to meet the team in person. You can read more about the event and purchase tickets here.

This year, we’re also thrilled to announce our most star-studded lineup of guests yet. Isaac will be joined onstage by Kmele Foster, Tangle’s editor-at-large, and two special guests:

• Alex Thompson, Axios’s national political correspondent and the co-author of the New York Times #1 bestseller Original Sin about Joe Biden and the 2024 presidential election.
• Ana Kasparian, executive producer and host of The Young Turks and a reporter for Real Clear Investigations.

We’re in the process of booking a fifth panelist and will be announcing them in the near future. Please consider joining us on October 24!

Quick hits.

1. The Justice Department reportedly informed President Donald Trump earlier this year that his name appeared several times in documents related to Jeffrey Epstein. At the time, Attorney General Pam Bondi also informed the president that they would not publicly release additional documents because some contained child pornography and victims’ personal information. (The report) Separately, a federal judge denied a Justice Department request to unseal grand jury records regarding federal investigations into Epstein, finding that the government had failed to justify the need for the release. (The ruling)
2. President Trump announced a $221 million settlement with Columbia University to resolve ongoing federal civil rights investigations into the school for alleged discriminatory practices. The agreement restores the school’s federal research funding and imposes oversight through an independent monitor. (The settlement)
3. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard released new documents related to investigations into Russian interference in the 2016 election, which she claimed showed that intelligence agencies relied on faulty information to conclude that Russia sought to boost then-candidate Trump’s candidacy. The Justice Department also announced the formation of a strike force to assess the documents Gabbard publicized. (The releases)
4. Protests continued in Ukraine over a new law that heightens government oversight of two anti-corruption agencies. Critics say the law undermines those agencies’ independence. (The protests)
5. The Supreme Court ruled in an unsigned order that President Trump can remove three Democratic members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission while a legal challenge to their removal plays out in court. (The ruling) Separately, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2–1 that President Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship cannot go into effect in any states, finding that four Democratic-led states challenging the order were entitled to a nationwide injunction. (The decision)

Today’s topic.

The global aid and public broadcasting clawbacks. On Thursday, the Senate voted 51–48 to pass a rescissions package clawing back $9 billion in federal funding that had previously been approved for international aid and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which funds National Public Radio (NPR) and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS). The next day, the House approved the package 216–213, sending it to President Donald Trump, who has yet to sign the bill. 

Back up: Rescissions cancel funds already appropriated by Congress. In May, President Trump and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Russell Vought requested 22 rescissions of budget authority, totaling $9.4 billion, under the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (ICA). This law allows the president to propose rescissions, which Congress has 45 days to approve before the money must be spent as originally allocated. 

The final version of the package clawed back roughly $7.9 billion for foreign aid and $1.1 billion for public broadcasting, but the Senate struck a $400 million requested cut to the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), a global AIDS program, after Republican senators raised concerns. However, the final package codified many of the key cuts to foreign assistance programs recommended by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) early in Trump’s term, particularly to the U.S. Agency for International Development. OMB Director Vought said the White House would likely send additional rescissions packages to Congress after their August recess. 

The package passed both chambers largely along party lines, with most Republicans in favor and all Democrats opposed. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) called the measure “a small but important step toward fiscal sanity that we all should be able to agree is long overdue.”

Democrats strongly criticized the cuts. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) suggested that they imperiled future bipartisan lawmaking, accusing Republicans of “retreat[ing] to a backroom to rubberstamp President Trump’s purely partisan scheme that only needs a simple majority to pass to tear up” previous agreements. A small number of Republicans also objected to the cuts; Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), who voted against the package, suggested the White House had not provided sufficient detail to support its recommendations. 

NPR and PBS leaders warned that the cuts would immediately impact their stations (note: we covered how these outlets are funded on Monday). PBS President and CEO Paula Kerger said in a statement, “Many of our stations which provide access to free unique local programming and emergency alerts will now be forced to make hard decisions in the weeks and months ahead.”

Today, we’ll share arguments from the right and left about the rescissions package, followed by my take. 

What the right is saying.

• The right supports the cuts, particularly to NPR and PBS.
• Some say the rescissions package is a first step to bringing down the national debt.
• Others refute the claim that public broadcasting cuts harm free speech.

In USA Today, Nicole Russell wrote “PBS, NPR push liberal propaganda. Trump is right to cut their funding.”

“NPR and PBS were once one-stop shops for news and wholesome programs for families. The kids could watch ‘Sesame Street’ while their parents listened to ‘All Things Considered.’ But now NPR and, to a lesser extent, PBS have become a cesspool of liberal bias that taxpayers have been forced to fund,” Russell said. “NPR often frames its news coverage in ways that make Trump's conservative policies seem harmful, rather than simply reporting the facts. A progressive point of view is fine when presented as commentary, but NPR purports to be a neutral news source that serves all Americans.

“Don't believe me? AllSides, a media literacy organization that rates news organizations’ biases, has repeatedly found that NPR's online content ‘leans left,’” Russell wrote. “The calls about NPR's leftist bias have even come from inside the house. Longtime business editor Uri Berliner famously resigned last year after being suspended for publicly detailing his employer's history of newsroom bias. Taxpayers shouldn't be forced to financially support a news source that's so blatantly partisan.”

In Newsweek, Erick Erickson said the rescissions package will help Republicans “prove they’re serious about the national debt.”

“The national debt is an existential threat. The CBO estimates that net interest payments are projected to hit $1 trillion next year, crowding out investments in defense, infrastructure, and tax relief,” Erickson wrote. “Every dollar spent on questionable programs — say, for example, the $10 million set aside for ‘gender programs’ in Pakistan that somehow found its way into the domestic COVID relief bill — is a dollar stolen from future generations. The Rescissions Act, though modest at 0.5 percent of discretionary spending, is a critical signal to voters and the market.”

“It is time for Congress to reassert its role as the legislature rather than outsource its responsibilities to the executive branch. Elon Musk and DOGE did an admirable job from the White House in flagging $162 billion in improper payments in 2024 alone. Rescissions are the constitutional path to codify these savings, shielding the administration from legal challenges while reasserting Congress' fiscal responsibility,” Erickson said. “Republicans should make liberals justify their own spendthrift ways, rather than playing defense. The Rescissions Act is a test of whether the GOP can follow the mandate that voters gave them in 2024.”

In National Review, Dan McLaughlin argued “defunding NPR is no threat to free speech.”

“There are certainly sound reasons to be worried that the Trump administration is abusing its powers to retaliate against critics in some areas, such as targeting entire law firms just because they previously employed an enemy of Trump. But the specific case of NPR just doesn’t belong in this discussion,” McLaughlin wrote. “National Public Radio’s budget is being cut by Congress, not by executive action… long-standing precedents set a very high bar for First Amendment claims of viewpoint discrimination and retaliation when those decisions are made on a facially neutral basis by a legislature.”

“Of course, it’s true in a sense that defunding NPR isn’t facially neutral because Congress didn’t at the same time defund federally taxpayer-funded conservative media outlets. That’s because there are none to defund,” McLaughlin said. “Which brings us to the broader cultural point: so long as NPR is publicly funded, its speech is not ‘free speech’ in the way we think of individual liberty — it is government speech. Claiming a First Amendment right, or even a free-speech cultural value, for the left to retain a permanent claim to taxpayer subsidies for one viewpoint is an argument that dissolves on close inspection.”

What the left is saying.

• The left opposes the package, arguing that it’s founded on false pretenses. 
• Some say the cuts will cause Democrats to lose trust in Republicans during upcoming appropriations. 
• Others note the broadcasting cuts are part of a longstanding conservative campaign against public media. 

In Slate, Nitish Pahwa called the public broadcasting cuts “ridiculous.”

“Historically, Republicans from states with significant rural and Indigenous populations have often fought to preserve and even expand public media funds, even when other GOP legislators opposed such efforts,” Pahwa said. “This time, Sens. Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski were the only real GOP holdouts… What changed for their colleagues, then? There are two main factors here: a yearslong culture-war campaign to reduce Americans’ trust in NPR and PBS, and the far-right Heritage Foundation’s successful effort to install the architects of its Project 2025 agenda in the White House.”

“For pundits and members of Congress to decry CPB as some leftist indoctrination factory is laughable. The corporation has multiple Republican board members, including current President and CEO Patricia Harrison, a George W. Bush appointee,” Pahwa wrote. “This is not the end of public media, to be clear. At least three dozen states also provide direct monetary support for local public stations, and there are other nonprofit groups not backed by the federal government… Still, the local and national media ecosystems will suffer a steep injury, and there will be a far narrower range of programming and opportunities than before.”

For The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Devin O’Connor, Sam Berger and Jacob Leibenluft suggested the rescissions package “undermine[s] future funding deals.”

“Congressional approval of the Administration proposal would mark the first successful presidentially proposed rescissions under the ICA authority since fiscal year 1999 and the largest such rescissions enacted in over four decades. Under normal circumstances, weighing the potential harm from the proposed cuts against the cost savings might be the only consideration,” the authors wrote. “But this rescission package did not come to Congress under normal circumstances. The Administration illegally impounded the funds at issue for months before proposing the package.”

“Enacting appropriations for fiscal year 2026, which starts October 1, will require Democratic senators to join with Republicans to reach the needed 60-vote threshold. This Democratic support may not materialize if Democrats are concerned that any agreement could later be undone if the Administration proposes a rescission package under the ICA that at least 50 Republican senators agree to,” the authors said. “As a result, it would be far more difficult to reach the bipartisan agreements necessary to fund the government on time.”

In The New York Times, Jim Rutenberg wrote “conservatives get the PBS and NPR cuts they’ve wanted for decades.”

“For five decades, Republicans failed time and again to choke off federal funding for public broadcasting. Some were afraid of being accused of avicide (for ‘killing Big Bird’ of ‘Sesame Street’), while others appreciated their local public stations (and the airtime they personally received) — always stopping the party short of turning their threats against PBS and NPR into law,” Rutenberg said. “That they have finally been able to do it now… on one level speaks to the power of President Trump. His threat to support primary challenges against any Republicans who might try to block the cuts all but guaranteed they would go through this time.”

“The ascendant ideology of the Trump era is the opposite of the one that spawned the modern public broadcasting system. Its creation was spurred along by the declaration of Newton N. Minow, chairman of the F.C.C. during the Kennedy administration, that the competition for ratings and ad dollars had turned television into a ‘vast wasteland,’” Rutenberg wrote. Those commercial forces “still exist in an era of social media algorithms that reward content that attracts the most likes and shares. That’s rarely the hyperlocal issues or deep policy discussions that are the bread and butter of local public television and radio stations.”

My take.

Reminder: “My take” is a section where I give myself space to share my own personal opinion. If you have feedback, criticism or compliments, don't unsubscribe. Write in by replying to this email, or leave a comment.

• Republicans granting Trump’s rescission request is legal and above board, but also unusual.
• I’m glad to see Congress act to cut spending, but I don’t agree with the funding they targeted.
• To have a real effect on the deficit, Congress is going to have to get serious with either meaningful cuts or new taxes.

Earlier this year, when I stepped in for Isaac during his paternity leave, the legality of the executive branch underspending the federal budget was probably the defining subject of the takes that I authored. I never expected the issue would disappear when Isaac came back. In fact, I was certain that President Trump’s attempt to cut the existing federal budget had just begun — in our January 30 edition on the federal funding freeze, I wrote, “Keep an eye out for a new debate over the constitutional limits of executive power, with the key words ‘deferral’ and ‘rescission.’”

I also wrote that Trump was not “being a king” but probing the limits of his executive power, that the courts would not approve of the executive branch cutting spending unilaterally, and that the Republican-controlled Congress was likely to pursue rescission. That’s exactly what’s happening now. 

For all the grief I’ve given this Congress since Trump’s inauguration for ceding its power to the executive branch, I have to credit them here for actually exercising their power of the purse and doing something to address the deficit. They’re not relying on Elon Musk to try to do their job for them; they’re cutting $9 billion of federal spending. That’s a significant amount of money, and a legal step towards addressing our federal deficit. It’s an unusual step — so unusual that a legal expert I talked to about DOGE wasn’t even familiar with what rescission was at the time, and Congress hasn’t approved a rescission request since 1999 — but it’s a legal step forward nonetheless.

And while I’m happy about that, I still think Congress’s baby step is a big stumble.

First, the cuts themselves. I’m open to the idea of USAID being directed by the State Department for diplomatic purposes. I’m also innately uncomfortable with the idea of the government sponsoring any media, which invites politicization by its very structure, so I’m not ideologically opposed to rolling back federal funding there, either. But the specific items this package is cutting — the Africa Corps, international development assistance, disaster relief — these aren’t woke nonsense (and the much-touted “Transition Initiatives” in the package make up 0.6% of all the rescinded spending). Instead, in turning away from these programs, the government is abdicating U.S. leadership on the global development stage, creating a vacuum for other countries to fill (an opportunity China is eagerly pursuing).

Meanwhile, I wouldn’t be surprised if the public broadcasting cuts totally backfire. Nationally syndicated programming like This American Life or All Things Considered are funded independently by grants, direct donations, and local stations purchasing broadcasting rights. More likely than not, those shows will continue to exist. Instead, smaller and underfunded stations will be hampered by not being able to purchase the rights to those shows, or cutting staffing, or potentially closing down. Terry Gross won’t lose her job, but the reporter on the ground in the state capitol will. I know some of these NPR reporters; they perform a valuable function in communities across the country. 

Given that the most threatened stations tend to be in rural states that vote Republican, canceling their funding may end up hurting constituents more than fire them up. The GOP has recognized this in the past and actually done a lot to support public broadcasting — past recipients of the Champion of Public Broadcasting Award include reliable conservatives such as Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (WV), Rep. Mike Simpson (ID), and Rep. Tom Cole (OK). So these cuts could drive more listeners to conservative talk radio in the short term, but may not be a wise political move in the long run. 

Second, the legal and organizational issues. Before requesting that Congress rescind funding for public broadcasting and international aid, Trump and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) impounded funds for foreign aid unilaterally in January, without Congress — a process federal courts ruled unconstitutional at the time, and affirmed as such in March. Not only that, but the process was incredibly disorganized. OMB released a memo that called on agencies to freeze about $3 trillion in federal spending (including Medicare payments), then rescinded the memo (but not the funding freeze), which the press secretary told us should clear up the confusion. 

However, one element still confuses me: Why hasn’t Trump signed this yet? According to the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, Congress has 45 days to approve a president’s rescission request. They hustled to get this package to Trump by the July 18 deadline, but it’s still sitting on his desk. There’s probably a mundane reason for this, but this delay seemed worth mentioning.

Lastly, these cuts aren’t going to provide a meaningful reduction to the deficit. Tangle has been a broken record on this point, but the four biggest areas of government spending are healthcare, Social Security, servicing the national debt, and the military. Without cuts in those areas, we have no chance to actually close the federal deficit and shrink the national debt. Of course, we could always consider raising revenue through taxes, but that path is a nonstarter under this administration. Not only that, but Congress just passed a bill that will simultaneously lower revenue and increase costs, adding a projected $3 trillion to the national debt over the next ten years. So, Congress just has to make similar clawbacks 332 more times to fix the damage they’ve already inflicted.

It’s technically progress, and I suppose that is worthy of some recognition. But these savings are totally eclipsed by the deficit increase Congress has already approved, they’re cutting the wrong things, and they still haven’t even gotten their bill signed by the same president who requested it. Plenty of Republican members have kicked and screamed along the way, but at some point they are going to have to do the brave thing and address our fiscal situation with some lasting austerity. 

Take the survey: What do you think about the rescissions package? Let us know!

Disagree? That's okay. My opinion is just one of many. Write in and let us know why, and we'll consider publishing your feedback.

Your questions, answered.

Q: What’s the deal with this CBS protest happening? Did CBS do anything questionable?

— Jasmine from San Bruno, CA

Tangle: The protests at CBS right now are in reaction to the network’s decision to cancel “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert.” Critics say the move was political, and that CBS’s parent company Paramount is folding to pressure from the Trump administration — real or implied — to silence criticisms. Our editorial staff responded to that basic question: Did CBS do anything questionable here? Is the cancellation of Stephen Colbert’s show political?

Ari Weitzman, Managing Editor: CBS is certainly within their rights to cancel one of their programs, especially one that was reportedly cash-flow negative. There’s some smoke here, since CBS’s parent company — Paramount Global — recently settled with Trump for $16 million. However, I don’t see any fire; remember, Paramount owns Comedy Central, which airs “The Daily Show.” I mean… come on. Instead, I think CBS is just asking what the point of these late shows centered around celebrity interviews even is in a world where celebrities are easily accessible. 

Will Kaback, Senior Editor: This decision was likely political, but not exclusively so. It's no secret that Paramount (which owns CBS) is courting Trump's favor as it pursues a high-stakes merger with Skydance Media. In fact, canceling Colbert is arguably the least shameless of the company's recent parade of panders. Regardless of your politics, such a brazen pursuit of a quid-pro-quo deal with the White House should feel a little grimy. However, canceling Colbert is also a straightforward financial decision in that the show was reportedly losing $40 million a year and canceling it could boost the odds of reaching a lucrative deal. It feels craven, but I think Paramount is just making a financial decision. 

Audrey Moorehead, Associate Editor: I think CBS just needed to tighten up the budget. “The Late Show” was losing money, and even if it led in its time slot, late-night talk shows are a dying format, so Colbert went to the chopping block. That Colbert's cancelation would also please the president with the power to sink their merger probably made the executives' decision easier, but I don't think it was the sole or even a primary factor.

Lindsey Knuth, Associate Editor: Like most of the country, I don’t watch late night, but I’ve always thought of it as an untouchable, firmly ensconced species in America's media ecosystem. This CBS saga showed me how imperiled the slot really is, but I don’t buy that the motives are “purely financial.” CBS’s parent company Paramount rakes in almost $30 billion per year and has just signed onto two deals that personally benefit the president. A million factors underlie media decisions like this, and one of those factors seems to be meeting the current political moment.

Isaac Saul, Executive Editor: Imagine being in a relationship you know is going nowhere, but satisfies some part of your social life. It gets a lot easier to leave the relationship when someone else you like enters the picture (and who might like you back). I think that’s basically what’s happening here. I doubt Paramount made this decision purely in pursuit of their merger; much more likely to me is that they saw an opportunity to make a justifiable financial decision now, rather than later, that could double as an investment in a good relationship with the current administration. All we can do is speculate, but I doubt the decision was purely financial or purely political.

Want to have a question answered in the newsletter? You can reply to this email (it goes straight to our inbox) or fill out this form.

Under the radar.

This week, Pew Research released new polling that shows rising support among U.S. adults for banning middle and high school students from using cellphones during class. Since Pew’s survey last fall, support for phone bans in class has risen from 68% to 74%, while support for bans throughout the entire school day has risen from 36% to 44%. The increase is particularly pronounced among younger adults; 57% of those aged 18–29 said they support in-class bans, up from 45% in 2024. The survey findings come as several states and Congress have ramped up efforts to pass cell phone bans over concerns about the devices’ impact on students’ behavior, social skills, and academic performance. Pew Research has the story. 

Numbers.

• $91.9 billion. The total amount of rescissions requested by the president between President Gerald Ford’s administration (starting in 1974) and the first Trump administration. 
• $25.1 billion. Of those requests, the total amount of rescissions approved by Congress.
• $14.8 billion. The amount of rescissions requested by President Donald Trump in his first term.
• $0. The amount of those requests accepted by Congress.
• 43% and 24%. The percentage of U.S. adults who say Congress should continue to fund NPR and PBS and should remove federal funding, respectively, according to a March 2025 Pew Research poll.
• 20% and 21%. The percentage of U.S. adults who say they regularly get news from NPR and PBS, respectively.
• 9% and 32%. The percentage of Republicans and Democrats, respectively, who say they regularly get news from NPR.
• 11% and 31%. The percentage of Republicans and Democrats, respectively, who say they regularly get news from PBS.

The extras.

• One year ago today we wrote about the Secret Service director resigning.
• The most clicked link in yesterday’s newsletter was the adorable hippo escape drill.
• Nothing to do with politics: How the constellations got their names.
• Something to do with politics: Can the president force the Washington Commanders to change their name? We answer the question in an Instagram Reel.
• Yesterday’s survey: 3,258 readers responded to our survey on Russia’s 2016 election interference with 55% saying it had a significant impact and sowed distrust. “No direct tampering with voting machines or ballots, but they were definitely active on social media and hacking into democrats' email accounts,” one respondent said.

Have a nice day.

Malaria kills about 597,000 people per year, and most of those deaths are concentrated among children under five years old in Africa, where the disease is endemic in many areas. Newborns are the most vulnerable population, as they cannot be vaccinated against malaria until they are five months old (or risk serious side effects). Now, however, help could be on the way. Swissmedic, Switzerland’s drug regulator, recently approved the world’s first malaria treatment for newborn babies. The medicine modifies existing treatments to prevent side effects and can be dissolved in breast milk to make it easier to give to patients. Eight African countries are expected to quickly approve the medicine as part of a partnership with Swissmedic. Euronews has the story.

Don’t forget...

📣 Share Tangle on Twitter here, Facebook here, or LinkedIn here.

🎧 We have a podcast you can listen to here.