Spending Money Congress Approved — Week of Jun 9, 2025

This week, Congress debated and the House passed a package canceling roughly $9.4 to $9.8 billion in government spending that had already been signed into law. The cuts targeted foreign aid programs including PEPFAR (which has saved an estimated 26 million lives from AIDS), public broadcasting like PBS and NPR, and reproductive health programs. Multiple members of Congress from both chambers described this as an attempt to undo spending decisions Congress had already made with bipartisan support (Rescissions (Executive Calendar); RESCISSION PACKAGE).

This might matter because Congress's control over federal spending—the "power of the purse"—is the primary way the legislative branch shapes national policy. If presidents can routinely propose large-scale cancellations of spending they already signed into law, and if agencies begin implementing those cuts before Congress formally approves them, it could potentially shift real spending power from Congress to the executive branch. One member of Congress reported that thousands of USAID jobs had already been eliminated and university partnerships terminated before the rescission vote was complete (TRUMP RESCISSIONS REQUEST AND USAID CUTS).

Separately, the administration issued an executive order restricting foreign students from attending Harvard University, citing national security concerns over the university's alleged refusal to share certain student records (Enhancing National Security by Addressing Risks at Harvard University). The order invokes the administration's immigration authority and may represent a legitimate security measure. Critics have noted it could also constrain the university's international programs without going through Congress.

There are important alternative explanations. Most significantly, the rescission process followed the legal procedure set up specifically for this purpose—the president proposed cuts, and Congress voted on them. Disagreement over which programs to fund is normal politics, not institutional erosion. Additionally, the sources flagged this week are almost entirely opposition speeches, which naturally present the most critical framing; supporters of the cuts argued they eliminate waste and reduce the deficit. The reported job losses at USAID may stem from separate administrative restructuring rather than premature execution of the rescission package. And the Harvard executive order may be a straightforward national security action rather than an indirect attempt to control spending.

Limitations: This analysis draws primarily on congressional floor speeches from members opposing the rescission package, which represent one perspective in an ongoing legislative debate. The administration's stated justifications for both the rescissions and the Harvard order are not fully captured in the source documents reviewed. Claims about pre-authorization implementation require independent verification.