Which spending cuts are Republicans pushing for in 2024–2025 budget negotiations?

1. What Republicans explicitly put on the chopping block — a program-by-program rundown that matters to voters

Republican proposals laid out both line-item appropriations cuts and broad mandatory-program restructures. House GOP appropriations language and the full-year continuing resolution sought $13 billion in cuts to nondefense programs and $3 billion from defense relative to FY2025 baselines, with explicit reductions to nutrition assistance, veterans’ care, Emergency Food Programs, disaster relief, education grants (including school mental-health services), rural broadband, and local transportation and election-security funding ^{[4] [1]}. Separate House budget-blueprint language proposed $1.5 trillion in discretionary cuts plus $2 trillion in reductions to mandatory spending — including Medicare- and Medicaid-related measures and food benefits — as part of a broader fiscal package that would free funds for $4.5 trillion in tax cuts intended to extend the 2017 tax law ^{[1] [5]}. These items show Republicans advancing both short-term CR trimming and deep structural changes to entitlement programs.

2. Big-ticket mandatory changes — SNAP, Medicaid and the decade-long math

Republican proposals moved beyond annual appropriations to redesign mandatory programs, proposing reforms that would shift costs to states, tighten work requirements and cap benefit updates. The SNAP proposals advanced in House plans would trim approximately $300 billion over a decade, require state contributions to benefits beginning in 2028, expand time limits, narrow exemptions, and limit Thrifty Food Plan updates — moves analysts say would raise hunger and hardship, particularly among low-income families ^[2]. Parallel proposals on Medicaid and other entitlement lines aimed at multi‑trillion dollar savings over ten years: some Republican outlines referenced roughly $2.3 trillion in Medicaid reductions within broader $5+ trillion ten‑year cuts, a scale that could meaningfully curtail coverage and benefits for millions ^{[5] [1]}. The combined arithmetic makes clear Republicans pursued both immediate savings and phased, structural retrenchment.

3. Agency and program-level austerity: education, EPA, enforcement and veterans

Appropriations drafts showed targeted agency contractions: Education Department funding proposals trimmed overall budgets by double‑digit percentages, cutting Federal Work-Study, SEOG and Federal Student Aid administration by substantial shares; critics warned these cuts would disproportionately harm low-income college students ^[6]. Independent analyses and House Republican bills also proposed steep reductions to the EPA, the National Labor Relations Board, public housing and environmental and worker-protection programs — with CBPP’s November 2024 review flagging cuts of 20–33 percent for some agencies that serve vulnerable communities ^[3]. The appropriations language further signaled lower funding for veterans’ health care and local safety projects while prioritizing detention capacity over some cross-border enforcement capacities, a mix that illustrates a reordering of federal priorities away from domestic social investments ^{[4] [1]}.

4. Political strategy and fractures: CR demands, caucus pressure and Senate obstacles

The Republican approach mixed procedural leverage with internal division. Some conservatives, including the House Freedom Caucus and the Republican Study Committee, pushed for continuing resolutions that would hold spending at prior-year or even lower levels through late 2026, using CR timelines to force wider policy changes; others sought at least a short-term CR to buy negotiating time ^[7]. These maneuverings accompanied a split over whether to extend enhanced ACA subsidies — with some Republicans rejecting the COVID-era-style subsidies as “wasteful” and others supporting an extension to preserve healthcare continuity while negotiating reforms ^[7]. On Capitol Hill, the House-passed blueprints faced an uncertain Senate reception and heavy Democratic opposition, underscoring that conservative House proposals often met procedural and political limits in bicameral negotiations ^{[1] [8]}.

5. The tradeoff Republicans framed — tax cuts for spending cuts — and how critics framed the consequences

Republicans linked proposed cuts to financing a major tax agenda: budget blueprints contemplated about $4.5 trillion in tax cuts paired with $3.5–4 trillion in spending reductions, framing policy as long‑term fiscal revision rather than near-term austerity ^{[1] [8]}. Opponents and policy centers argued the math masks distributional effects: CBPP and other analysts predicted the proposed cuts would shift burdens to low-income households, veterans and communities of color, while tax extensions would disproportionately favor higher earners and corporations, thereby enlarging inequality even if headline deficits fell ^{[3] [5]}. The debate therefore converged on a classic legislative choice: prioritize tax relief for higher incomes funded by entitlement restructuring and program cuts, or preserve social-safety net spending and seek alternative revenue or deficit strategies.

Bottom line: Republicans advanced a multi-pronged agenda in 2024–2025 that combined immediate appropriations reductions, sweeping mandatory-program restructuring, and major tax-cut extensions; the proposals triggered sharp partisan conflict, detailed independent critiques about likely harms to vulnerable populations, and intra‑GOP debate over tactics and time horizons for any deal ^{[4] [2] [1]}.