The White House is preparing to release a “skinny budget” proposal this Friday, outlining plans for $163 billion in federal spending cuts for the 2026 fiscal year. This preliminary budget will target a wide range of programs, affecting sectors like health care, education, environmental protection, and foreign aid. According to sources familiar with the matter, the cuts are designed to reduce the size of the federal government while aligning with the Trump administration’s vision of fiscal responsibility.
The proposal, which is expected to generate significant political debate, is only a request at this point. While it lays out the White House’s spending priorities, these cuts must be approved by Congress for them to become law. With Republicans holding majorities in both the House and Senate, President Trump might have a stronger chance of pushing the proposal through, but it remains to be seen how lawmakers will respond.
The budget’s release follows a period of growing controversy over federal spending, particularly after President Trump and his administration’s moves to reshape the way government spending is managed. Under this proposal, several key federal agencies could see their budgets significantly reduced or eliminated altogether. While these cuts have been discussed for years, the 2026 budget proposal represents a new, more drastic approach.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Energy Department, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) are among the agencies slated for budget reductions. These agencies, which provide crucial services in environmental protection, energy regulation, and public housing, are just a few examples of the White House’s aim to trim what it views as inefficient or redundant government programs.
The budget proposal would also target federal spending on education, with proposed cuts to the Department of Education’s budget. Funding for higher education, including federal student loans and Pell Grants, could also be affected. Additionally, cuts to foreign aid programs, which often receive significant criticism for being wasteful or ineffective, are part of the broader plan to tighten government spending.
The Trump administration has a history of attempting to cut back on federal spending. In fact, many of the cuts proposed in the 2026 budget are continuations of measures the administration tried to implement in previous years.
During Trump’s first term, federal spending laws were already stretched in innovative ways. For example, White House Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought argued that the executive branch should have more authority to cancel or redirect federal spending without needing approval from Congress.
Elon Musk, through his involvement in the U.S. DOGE Service, has also pushed for similar spending cuts, claiming that the administration has already reduced more than $100 billion in federal expenditures for the current fiscal year. However, these moves have not been without controversy, and legal challenges have surfaced. The courts have ruled that many of these cuts cannot be enacted without approval from Congress, especially in cases where Congress has already passed laws mandating the expenditure of funds for certain programs.
The budget proposal sets spending levels for the 2026 fiscal year, which begins on October 1, 2025. The total proposed cuts—$163 billion—will target what is known as “nondefense discretionary” spending. This category of spending excludes major defense programs, as well as mandatory spending on entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Collectively, these entitlement programs make up the bulk of government spending every year, and therefore are not included in the proposed cuts.
The nondefense discretionary category encompasses a wide range of government services and programs, from scientific research to environmental protection, housing, and education. Under the White House proposal, nondefense discretionary spending would be reduced by approximately 23 percent compared to current levels.
One of the largest cuts would affect the National Science Foundation (NSF), which funds scientific research across a variety of fields. The White House proposal calls for a $5 billion reduction in NSF funding, a move that would significantly impact scientific research and innovation in the United States.
Similarly, the National Endowment for Democracy, a program that promotes democracy and human rights around the world, could be defunded entirely. Additionally, the U.S. Institute of Peace, which works to prevent and resolve conflicts worldwide, could be eliminated under the new budget plan.
These proposed cuts come as part of the White House’s ongoing push to reduce federal spending. However, they have already faced significant opposition from various corners, including members of Congress who argue that these cuts could undermine critical services, particularly in the fields of education, health, and international diplomacy.
While the White House’s budget proposal is an important part of the budget process, it is only the beginning. The proposal is essentially a request to Congress, which has the power to approve, modify, or reject the proposed cuts. With Republicans in control of both the House of Representatives and the Senate, the White House may have a better chance of getting these cuts into law. However, there are still many obstacles ahead.
For one, congressional Republicans have not fully embraced the drastic cuts proposed by the White House. Some Republican lawmakers have already expressed concerns over certain cuts, particularly to programs that benefit their constituents or align with their policy priorities. For instance, cuts to education and health care may face pushback from lawmakers who represent districts that rely on federal funding for these services.
Additionally, several high-profile Republicans have resisted cuts to foreign aid and international diplomacy programs. While some members of the party support reducing the scope of foreign aid, others argue that cutting funding for democracy promotion and conflict resolution could damage U.S. influence around the world. Moreover, eliminating programs like the National Endowment for Democracy could alienate certain parts of the Republican Party that value human rights and democracy promotion.
There is also the matter of how these cuts would impact the overall economy. With the global economy still recovering from the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, many economists warn that such drastic cuts could have unintended consequences. Reducing funding for scientific research, education, and social programs could hinder economic recovery, leaving vulnerable populations without the support they need to thrive. As a result, the proposal may face resistance not just from Democrats, but also from Republicans who worry about the economic fallout.
The proposed cuts have far-reaching consequences for various sectors of American society. In education, the reduction in federal funding could lead to higher tuition fees, reduced access to financial aid, and fewer resources for schools. The Department of Education has already been under pressure in recent years to increase funding for low-income schools and make higher education more affordable. Cuts to these programs would likely reverse progress made in these areas.
In the environmental sector, proposed cuts to the EPA and other agencies tasked with regulating pollution and protecting natural resources could jeopardize efforts to address climate change. With the U.S. already grappling with extreme weather events and environmental degradation, these cuts could further strain the country’s ability to respond to environmental challenges.
On the international front, defunding the National Endowment for Democracy and eliminating the U.S. Institute of Peace could undermine U.S. efforts to promote peace and democracy abroad. These programs help build relationships with foreign governments, foster democratic institutions, and address global conflicts. Cutting funding for these programs could weaken U.S. soft power and diminish the country’s influence on the global stage.
The White House’s budget proposal is just the first step in a long and complicated process. In the coming months, Congress will hold hearings, debate the proposed cuts, and ultimately decide whether to approve, modify, or reject the proposal. As the process unfolds, the political implications of these cuts will become clearer.
For now, the debate over the proposed $163 billion in federal spending cuts highlights the ongoing tension between fiscal conservatism and the need to invest in essential services. While President Trump and his administration continue to push for smaller government, many Americans are concerned about the impact these cuts could have on vital programs that benefit the public. The outcome of this budget proposal will set the stage for the nation’s fiscal priorities in the years to come.
Disclaimer: This article has been meticulously fact-checked by our team to ensure accuracy and uphold transparency. We strive to deliver trustworthy and dependable content to our readers.
Jon King is an experienced journalist with 3 years of experience in the field. With a strong background in investigative reporting, Jon is known for his in-depth coverage of crime news, finance news, local news, and USA news. Currently working with Mikeandjonpodcast, Jon brings his sharp investigative skills, where he provides timely updates and analysis on a wide range of topics. His commitment to delivering accurate and impactful news has earned him a reputation for providing insightful and comprehensive stories that resonate with his audience.
