当地时间7月18日，美国总统特朗普签署了争议巨大的削减支出法案，从而使得该法案涉及的90亿美元外交援助与公共广播联邦支出被正式撤销。
削减支出法案从6月3日由特朗普政府正式向国会提交申请，到今天由特朗普签署生效，其间历经45天的激烈辩论和两党博弈，成为美国媒体近期聚焦的热点之一。
△美国投资百科（Investopedia）网站报道， 削减支出法案在参议院复议通过后，立刻被送往白宫，由特朗普完成签署
该法案之所以引起高度关注，是因为其被普遍视为今年6月通过的“大而美”法案（One Big Beautiful Bill）后，美国两党在预算优先级和财政紧缩问题上矛盾斗争的具体化及再次延续，而其得以通过，也被视为特朗普近期在预算与行政主导方面的又一次政治胜利。
“大而美”法案后的预算重构
“大而美”法案以两党妥协形式，为国防、基础设施、社会保障等领域拨款超过2万亿美元，这一过程中，共和党为了推行自己的国防和边境条款，接受了一部分民主党主张的社会开支与国际援助，但共和党内部保守派对此始终不满。
削减支出法案正是要解决这一“不满”， 也就是通过后续立法，有针对性地回收之前被迫妥协让出的部分财政开支
，因此，其被视为特朗普政府与共和党保守派试图“自我修正”的工具，以展示财政紧缩的姿态。
总之，削减支出法案不是孤立动作，而是特朗普政府2025预算谈判链条中的第二阶段。
The first phase involved a cross-party compromise on the “Big and Beautiful” bill, while the second phase was the Republican Party’s internal restructuring of priorities.
According to a commentary by the Washington think tank Brookings Institution, this is an extension of the Republican Party’s budget priority adjustment process, initially passing the budget to ensure government operations before focusing on subsequent cuts in spending through the Revenue Reconciliation Act.
Diplomatic Assistance Cuts Raise Concerns
A lengthy article by The Guardian detailed why the Trump administration is pushing for the Revenue Reconciliation Act, including its cuts in diplomatic assistance. According to the draft of the Revenue Reconciliation Act,
these cuts primarily affect humanitarian aid, global health, food security, and climate assistance projects under the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), including funding for United Nations peacekeeping operations, the United Nations Population Fund, and the Green Climate Fund (GCF). The United States has long been the largest single source of funding in the UN system—accounting for 22% of the UN regular budget and 25% of the peacekeeping budget, with commitments to more than half of the global total for the Green Climate Fund.
In response, the Office of the Secretary-General of the United Nations stated: “If the United States cuts aid, it will have a direct impact on the most vulnerable populations worldwide.” The World Food Programme and the United Nations Children’s Fund also warned that they might face consequences such as “project suspension” and “interruptions in food and medicine supplies from recipient countries.”
Public Service Cuts Affect “The Last Mile”
In the United States, federal funding for public broadcasting is typically allocated first to the Federal Public Broadcasting Company (CPB) and then transferred to NPR, PBS, and local public radio stations according to regulations and internal mechanisms.
According to statistics, NPR and PBS receive about 4% and 15% of their funding from the federal government through CPB annually.
△ The Daily Yonder, a non-profit American media outlet, criticized that cutting back on support for public media would be detrimental to rural areas.
In 2025, the federal budget allocated to CPB was $535 million, which accounts for less than 0.01% of the total federal budget of 6.5 trillion dollars. Although the amount is not significant, it holds great importance for public media. These funds are used to maintain over 1,400 public radio stations across the country, including small towns and rural communities, where more than 70% of the funds flow to rural and remote areas. These public broadcasts rely entirely on these funds for operation, unable to rely on or attract large local donations. In other words, although the absolute amount is small, its wide coverage supports the “infrastructure” of the American public media system, especially safeguarding public information, education, and cultural services in remote and economically underdeveloped areas. Unlike ordinary commercial media, which operate on a profit-and-loss basis, any cuts could impact the “last mile” of public services.
The public media organizations such as NPR and PBS involved in the spending reduction bill have repeatedly called for the retention of funding, highlighting the potential closure of local radio stations and educational content due to this cut.
Although the $9 billion reduction in the spending bill represents less than 0.02% of the $6.5 trillion federal budget, its symbolic significance is significant. The United States accounts for 25% to 30% of global official development assistance (ODA), ranking first among the United Nations and the Global Climate Fund. Cutting funding could diminish America’s international influence and also trigger structural adjustments within the domestic public cultural sector. Therefore, the spending reduction bill has sparked intense debate.
Republican Party emphasizes that the bill aligns with its commitment to “reducing government.” Vice President Mike Pence stated, “American taxpayers do not need to pay for ideologically charged institutions.” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell referred to it as a “common sense fiscal measure.”
However, even within the Republican Party, opposition to the bill was clear and represented by moderate Republicans such as Susan Collins from Maine, Lisa Murkowski from Alaska, and former Republican Majority Leader from Kentucky Mitch McConnell. Collins pointed out, “We need more transparent project lists and impact assessments; blind cuts threaten the survival of local media and global health initiatives.”
△CBS detailed various opinions on the spending reduction bill among different parties.
The Democratic Party took a firm and consistent stance against the spending reduction bill, arguing that cutting funding would weaken critical services such as global public health, humanitarian aid, United Nations peacekeeping, and local emergency broadcasts. They deemed this not a rational budget discussion but rather an ideologically driven political battle. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer also criticized the bill, calling it a “rubber stamp” for the executive branch, stating, “The Senate has become an adjunct to the executive branch, acting as Trump’s go-between.”
Due to the sharp divisions, the passage of the bill was fraught with tension. The initial vote in the House was 214 votes in favor and 212 against, narrowly passing; then in the Senate’s procedural debate, it was 50 votes in favor and 50 against, breaking through the deadlock with Vice President Pence’s decision; subsequently, the Senate passed the final version with 51 votes in favor and 48 against; and in the early hours of July 18th, during the House’s last reconsideration vote, it was 216 votes in favor and 213 against, again being very close.
According to legislative procedures, after the House passes the spending reduction bill, it is sent to the president for signature.
Trump also acted without delay. Upon receiving the bill, the White House signed it that very day. This was because July 18 marked the final deadline for the withdrawal of funds involved in the bill.
According to relevant laws, after submitting a budget withdrawal request, Congress has 45 consecutive days to review the proposal, during which the government can temporarily withhold funding. The application was made by Trump on June 3rd, and by July 18th, it had exactly 45 days remaining. If the bill could not be signed by July 18th, then the diplomatic aid and public broadcasting expenditures related to the bill would not be withdrawn but would continue as originally planned. Therefore, if Trump wanted to ensure that this nearly $9 billion allocation was formally revoked and avoid automatic fund release, he needed to sign it as soon as possible after the House passed it on the same day.
Although the signing and effectiveness of the spending reduction bill were widely seen as another political victory for Trump, completing a complete cycle of coordination between Congress and the White House, the game around the spending reduction bill also highlighted the ongoing sharp divide over fiscal priorities and social priorities between the two parties. Moreover, this will continue to influence policy directions in the second half of 2025 and into 2026.