House vote shows DOGE support might be waning

The House of Representatives on Thursday narrowly advanced a request from the White House to codify $9.4 billion in spending cuts made by the Department of Government Efficiency earlier this year.

The measure passed at the last minute in a 214-212 vote after two members—Reps. Nick LaLota, R-N.Y., and Don Bacon, R-Neb.—changed their votes on the floor. Ultimately, four Republicans voted against the bill’s passage. One more vote against it would have ensured its failure.

Despite the bill’s success and a general appetite for fiscal accountability in the GOP, frustrations leading up to the vote indicate not all Republicans lawmakers support DOGE’s efforts. That lack of support could turn into resistance to future requests from the White House.

LaLota, who had a visibly heated confrontation with Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., on the House floor, would not discuss the particulars of the conversation or what led him to change his vote. He told reporters he felt more confident about the cost-saving measures in the bill after talking to Johnson.

“It’s a diverse conference. Getting us all on the same page is a tough job,” LaLota said. “We had conversations that are mostly private, but it built my confidence that this piece of legislation and others will help serve my constituents.”

LaLota hinted that some of his frustrations had to do with matters unrelated to Thursday’s vote.

The bill, known as a rescission package, puts a congressional stamp of approval on DOGE’s work, giving the spending cuts a degree of permanence and protection from legal challenges. While the $9.4 billion in the rescission package is a fraction of the total $180 billion in estimated savings DOGE claims it has found, lawmakers have high expectations to continue the work.

“Today’s House passage of this initial rescissions package marks a critical step toward a more responsible and transparent government that puts the interests of the American taxpayers first,” Speaker Johnson said in a statement following the vote.

The proposed cuts include $8.3 billion in reductions to the United States’ foreign aid and $1.1 billion in cuts from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which funds services like NPR and PBS.

Unlike most bills, recission packages enjoy an expedited status, allowing the Senate to circumvent the 60-vote threshold normally needed to defeat a filibuster. Instead, Senate Republicans can pass the bill with just 51 votes and without Democrats’ help. That advantage lasts for 45 days, after which point the bill can be reintroduced but would lose its privileged status. Republicans would then need at least seven members on the other side of the aisle to support the measure for it to succeed.

The Senate must pass the bill by the third week in July to make use of its privileged status.

Following the razor-thin passage from the House, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., the chairwoman of the House Oversight Subcommittee on Delivering on Government Efficiency, expressed frustration at the narrow passage.

“I cannot comprehend Republicans [opposing] these DOGE rescission cuts. I was shocked. I couldn’t believe that during the vote we had to fight to get it passed,” she said.

“We have a primary season for a reason,” Greene added.

Ahead of the bill’s consideration, a handful of Republicans expressed more specific hesitations about the substance cuts than LaLota had been willing to share. Rep. Bacon, who changed his position mid-vote, said he was on the fence over public broadcasting and U.S. aid through the PEPFAR program to stop the spread of AIDS abroad.

“I feel better about PEPFAR. They’re protecting all the medical care, but I’m going to work with some of my colleagues on the PBS, NPR stuff and I’ll leave it at that for the time being,” Bacon told reporters on Tuesday.

While Bacon ultimately voted for the bill, Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, R-N.Y., did not; she was one of the four Republicans who voted against the package. On Wednesday, she expressed more big-picture concerns.

“The entire process stinks,” Malliotakis said. “I think they really need to focus on a rescission package that contains more of the savings and is clear what specific programs are going to be cut in those accounts. We should send it back and get something better.”

Because the White House has identified the funding it wants removed—but not the specifics of where the money will stop flowing—Malliotakis believes the process defers too much power to the president.

“At the end of the day, we hold the power of the purse,” Malliotakis said, referring to the constitutional authority entrusted to the House of Representatives to originate spending legislation. “This gives a lot of power to the White House to be doing that unilaterally without Congress.”

Having passed the House, the package now heads to the Senate, where its success is uncertain. Republicans need 51 votes to advance the measure and currently hold 53 seats in the chamber.

House leaders have not said when they expect to receive the White House’s next rescission request.