White House Releases Additional Materials Outlining FY 2026 Budget Request 

The White House recently unveiled additional information to support its fiscal 2026 budget proposal, releasing an appendix and various agency budget documents that expand on the “skinny” budget request the Trump administration released in early May. The new documents provide more details of the proposed $163 billion in cuts to non-defense discretionary spending across a wide array of agencies. However, the White House has yet to provide specifics for many Department of Defense (DOD) programs and will reportedly submit a separate request to Congress later this month relating to Pentagon operations.

The release of the budget appendix and agency-level requests is timely, as the House Appropriations Committee officially began work on FY 2026 spending measures this week. Specifically, the House Military Construction and Veterans Affairs (MilCon-VA) Appropriations Subcommittee and the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee marked up and approved their respective FY 2026 spending bills.

For its part, the Agriculture Subcommittee’s legislation includes $25.5 billion in discretionary funding, which represents a slight decrease compared to last year’s funding levels. The bill would fund programs within the Department of Agriculture, nutrition assistance, rural broadband expansion, and the Food and Drug Administration. The measure also includes measures to limit funding for certain climate-related initiatives and would block new energy standards for USDA-financed homes.

Looking ahead, it’s unclear how much weight the President’s proposed budget will carry as lawmakers continue to write the FY 26 spending bills, which must ultimately clear the Senate by a 60-vote threshold. Given the GOP’s current laser focus on the budget reconciliation package, it’s likely that legislation addressing discretionary funding levels for next fiscal year will be enacted late in the year.

Senate Begins Considering Options for Budget Reconciliation Package 

With the House having cleared the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBB, H.R. 1) by a razor thin 215-214 margin on May 22, action on the legislation now turns to the Senate, where several hurdles await the bill.

For starters, the measure will undergo review by the Senate parliamentarian, who will determine whether it complies with reconciliation rules. The ruling could impact several major provisions within the package, including how its impact on the deficit is measured. Even if it clears that hurdle, the bill faces opposition from both moderate and conservative Republicans. For their part, GOP moderates are concerned about the legislation’s proposed $900 billion in cuts to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act (ACA) over 10 years. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has an updated estimate projecting that should the bill become law, 10.9 million fewer people would have health insurance due to loss of coverage through Medicaid and the ACA. Factoring in a proposed rule curbing access to the ACA marketplace – and should Congress fail to extend the ACA’s enhanced premium tax credit, which is set to expire in December – CBO estimates that an additional 5.1 million individuals would lose insurance by 2034. Senators such as Josh Hawley (R-MO), Susan Collins (R-ME) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) have all expressed concern over the aforementioned cuts. Meanwhile, some fiscal hawks have stated that the measure does not go far enough to cut the program.

Other sticking points include the bill’s $300 billion in cuts to the Supplemental Assistance Nutrition Program (SNAP), as well as its total repeal of Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) clean-energy tax credits, which could negatively impact some Republican states. With the reconciliation process requiring just a simple majority for Senate passage, Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) can only afford to lose up to three GOP votes. However, any changes made in the Senate would need to be approved by the House before final passage.   

While the lower chamber marked up the various components of H.R. 1 within committees of jurisdiction, the Senate is unlikely to do the same. However, individual committees have begun unveiling their portions of the legislation. Those with more controversial components—such the Senate Finance Committee and Senate Agriculture Committee—will likely release their text later in the month as negotiations are ongoing.

For their part, Democrats are emphasizing early distributional analysis from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) indicating that the bill would disproportionately benefit the wealthiest ten percent, while the poorest ten percent would see a net loss. This week, Minority Leader Schumer released a Dear Colleague letter previewing the messaging Democrats will rely on in their fight against H.R. 1 

Senate Democrats Hold “Spotlight” Hearing on Proposed Cuts to SNAP

On Wednesday, June 4, 15 Senate Democrats criticized the proposed $300 billion in cuts to SNAP over 10 years included in the Reconciliation package at an unofficial hearing organized by Senators Ben Ray Lujan (D-NM) and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), arguing that it would saddle states with a budget nightmare, kick recipients off the country’s largest food aid program, and burden needy families with impossible choices between paying for food and health care. Both California Senators, Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla, attended the forum and shared stories of constituents who would be impacted by the cuts, with Senator Padilla posting a shareable video on social media.  

Supreme Court Limits Scope of Federal Environmental Review for Infrastructure Projects 

The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled (8-0, with Justice Gorsuch recusing) to limit the scope of environmental review required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), holding that a law originally meant to be a procedural check to inform agency decision making has instead grown to paralyze it. Under NEPA, federal agencies must study any potentially significant environmental consequences of federal permits for infrastructure projects. In Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, the Supreme Court reversed a D.C. Circuit ruling that the U.S. Surface Transportation Board had not done enough in its environmental impact statement to review the potential upstream and downstream effects of a proposed railroad line.  

In ruling for the railroad, the justices sketched out a relatively narrow role for courts reviewing future decisions under NEPA, the landmark environmental law at the center of the case. “NEPA does not allow courts, ‘under the guise of judicial review’ of agency compliance with NEPA, to delay or block agency projects based on the environmental effects of other projects separate from the project at hand,” the ruling states.  

The high court’s decision returns the case to the lower court for further review under more limited parameters. It remains unclear whether the rail line will ultimately be built. However, the ruling should have broader implications for reforming the NEPA process.