As Senate Republicans celebrated the passage of President Trump’s bill to “claw back” billions in what they deem wasteful government spending, a quiet rebellion was taking place within their own ranks.
Two veteran Republican senators broke from their party, joining every Democrat in a vote against the package.
Their dissent was not a fiery ideological crusade against the President’s agenda. It was a sober protest rooted in a much deeper and more fundamental constitutional struggle – a fight over transparency, institutional power, and the very way Congress is supposed to do its job.
A Stand on Principle
The two “no” votes came from Senator Susan Collins of Maine and Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. Their opposition was enough to require Vice President J.D. Vance to come to the Senate floor to break a 50-50 tie.
The bill itself is straightforward in its goal: it rescinds, or cancels, roughly $9 billion in funding that Congress had previously approved but which has not yet been spent.
The primary targets are nearly $8 billion from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and over $1 billion from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), the funding arm for NPR and PBS.
While other Republicans like Ron Johnson dismissed the cuts as a “chip shot” – a tiny fraction of the federal budget – Collins and Murkowski saw profound issues in the process.
‘Lack of Clarity’
For Senator Collins, the powerful chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, the issue was a lack of basic information from the White House.
She argued that the President’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) had provided only a “sparse text” for the cuts, without specifying which programs would actually be eliminated.
“For example, there are $2.5 billion in cuts to the Development Assistance account, which covers everything from basic education, to water and sanitation, to food security – but we don’t know how those programs will be affected.” – Sen. Susan Collins
Her objection was a fundamental demand for transparency. She argued that she could not, in good conscience, vote to cut billions from an account without knowing if she was voting to defund a vital water project or a basic education program.
‘Return to Legislating’
Senator Murkowski’s opposition was rooted in a defense of Congress’s institutional role. She warned her colleagues against simply taking “marching orders from the White House” rather than doing their own work as legislators.
Her argument was given dramatic weight by a real-world event. As the Senate debated, tsunami warnings were being issued in her home state of Alaska.
Murkowski pointed out that for many of her rural constituents, those life-saving federal warnings are relayed through the very local public broadcasting stations this bill would defund.
“The tsunami warnings are now thankfully canceled, but the warning to the U.S. Senate remains in effect. Today of all days, we should vote down these misguided cuts to public broadcasting.” – Sen. Lisa Murkowski
The Constitutional Power of the Purse
At its heart, this was a debate over one of Congress’s most fundamental and formidable authorities: the “power of the purse.”
Article I of the Constitution gives Congress – not the President – the sole power to decide how taxpayer money is spent. The budget rescissions process is a constitutional dialogue between the branches: the President can propose to cancel previously approved spending, but only Congress has the final authority to approve that cancellation.
The dissent from Collins and Murkowski was based on the principle that for their approval to be meaningful, it must be informed. They argued that voting “yes” on a list of cuts provided by the White House, without specific details or independent analysis, is not truly legislating – it is surrendering Congress’s constitutional power to the executive branch.
A Warning About the Process
While the clawback bill ultimately passed, the “no” votes from two senior members of the President’s own party send a powerful message.
Their rebellion was not about the broad political goal of cutting spending. It was about the integrity of the legislative process, the necessity of executive branch transparency, and the solemn duty of Congress to be a responsible steward of its own constitutional power.
It serves as a stark reminder that even in a hyper-partisan Washington, there are still members who will defy their own party’s president – not over politics, but over principle.