Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: What specific discretionary programs and agencies face proposed cuts in the 2025 budget and by what percentages?
Executive Summary
The administration’s 2026 budget proposal and related congressional drafts would sharply reduce non-defense discretionary spending, cutting overall non-defense discretionary by about 22.6% and shifting roughly $119.3 billion toward defense; the administration’s package singles out large percentage reductions to specific domestic agencies while proposing increases for Defense and Homeland Security [1] [2]. Independent analyses and appropriations drafts show variation in which programs and how much they would be cut — from deep proposed reductions at State (83.7%) and EPA (up to 54.5%) in the President’s request to smaller, but still substantial, cuts in House drafts and outside analyses [3] [4] [5].
1. How big is the headline cut and where the money is being shifted — a national reallocation of priorities
The budget request frames the change as a major reallocation: non-defense discretionary spending falls by about 22.6% while defense and border security rise, with OMB’s materials citing a $119.3 billion shift into defense priorities [1]. Independent summaries and news accounts echo that calculation and emphasize the administration’s objective to “remake” government by reducing domestic program levels and increasing defense outlays [2] [6]. Budget documents list broad percentage cuts across agency groupings rather than only line-item program eliminations, and the administration pairs large percentages with a pledge to eliminate or fold numerous independent entities, a move that would change the federal landscape beyond immediate funding levels [6] [1]. The result is a systemic tilt toward security and defense spending at the expense of many domestic services.
2. Specific agencies targeted in the President’s submission — the steepest percentage cuts
OMB and administration summaries list several steep agency-specific reductions: State reportedly faces an 83.7% cut, HUD 43.6%, EPA reductions are cited as high as 54.5%, Agriculture 18%, Commerce 16.5%, Education 15.3%, Energy 9.4%, and a claimed 13% increase for Defense in other accounts [1] [4] [3]. The administration’s document and media compilations also specify proposed eliminations of about 23 independent agencies and programs, including cultural and public-broadcasting entities, which would remove recurring federal support and regulatory roles [6] [2]. Those percentage figures come from the administration’s request and journalistic summaries and represent requested programmatic direction rather than enacted law.
3. Research, science and public health — deeper cuts in agency R&D budgets under the proposal
Analyses focused on research funding highlight very large reductions for non-defense R&D overall (roughly 21%) and especially severe percentage declines at the National Science Foundation (reportedly 57%) and the National Institutes of Health (reportedly 41%), along with notable cuts to EPA science offices [7]. These figures are drawn from sector-specific breakdowns and signal a disproportionate hit to federally supported basic and applied research. Congressional appropriations drafts diverge in scale: House committee proposals also cut R&D but often by smaller amounts — for instance, House appropriations texts show EPA and NSF facing cuts closer to the low-to-mid 20 percent range in some bills, illustrating legislative negotiation rather than a fixed outcome [5]. The discrepancy matters: the administration’s ask sets the ceiling for cuts, but Congress controls actual appropriations.
4. Domestic safety net and foreign affairs — immediate programmatic implications and warnings
Think-tank and policy analyses warn that the proposed percentages would translate into reduced access to services such as nutrition assistance, school meals, Medicaid-related supports, foreign aid programs, and global health initiatives. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and congressional foreign-operations draft summaries flag that an 83.7% cut at State and a 22% drop in foreign operations funding would constrain diplomacy, global health, and population programs [8] [9]. Administration messaging frames many cuts as efficiency and ideological shifts — eliminating programs accused of promoting “wokeism” — while analysts emphasize the concrete service losses that follow budget reductions. The debate thus splits on philosophical grounds about government size and on technical grounds about public-service capacity.
5. Divergent actors and incentives — why the numbers vary and what to expect next
Several competing incentives shape the numbers: the President’s OMB request offers a maximalist vision of cuts and eliminations, House appropriations committee drafts reflect GOP priorities but sometimes attenuate administration percentages, and independent analysts translate percentage cuts into program outcomes and warn of service degradation [4] [5] [8]. Political agendas are evident: the administration’s request centers defense and border funding and proposes eliminating cultural and research programs; congressional appropriators negotiate between those aims, constituency pressures, and statutory obligations. Final outcomes depend on appropriations bills, congressional negotiation, and potential vetoes — the proposal’s percentages are authoritative only as intentions, not as law. Expect variance between the request, committee drafts, and the enacted budget.