As of late, President Trump has issued another executive order to effectively cut federal funding that has been distributed to news services NPR and PBS. Charging the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) to cease this distribution, the Trump administration is receiving mixed responses to this new order. The CPB is a publicly funded nonprofit news media organization that distributes funds designated by U.S. Congress to other news media services. AP News reports that the CPB distributes around half a billion dollars of congressional-appropriated money to PBS, NPR and local news media stations across the country.
EXECUTIVE ORDER
The White House reported earlier this week that the Trump administration is eager to end “taxpayer subsidization of biased media” through Trump’s executive order directed at the CPB. They say that the organization is founded on principles of impartiality, that it may refrain from “contributing to or supporting any political party” 47 U.S.C 396(f)(3); but has failed to do so by distributing and subsidizing federal funds to NPR and PBS. Trump has targeted these news services in particular because he claims that they have assisted in filtering and publishing biased media that disadvantages the Republican party. “NPR and PBS have fueled partisanship and left-wing propaganda.”
For the order to follow through, Trump has ordered that the CPB revise its’ 2025 General Provisions. This will also prohibit local public radio, TV stations and other recipients of CPB funding from supporting NPR and PBS with taxpayer funds.
Through the White House Fact Sheet, they identify data analysis that displays such partisanship and biased promotion of media. One statement says that an NPR editor had reported that the number of registered Democrats to Republicans who work in editorial positions is severely imbalanced – accounting 87 to 0.
CPB HISTORY WITH GOVERNMENT
As Jordan Berman reports on her “Unbiased” media platform, this is not the first time that the federal government has moved to restrict federal funding of news media and the CPB specifically. This sort of action was pursued by former President Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, G.W. Bush, House Speaker Gingrich, and House Republicans in 2023.
The CPB was established during former President Johnson’s administration to create grants for local stations nationwide, as well as to separate news media from the control of federal departments. Congress appropriates an amount of federal funding drawn from taxpayer dollars that is granted to the CPB. From there, the CPB allots portions to local, rural and urban public media stations.
These stations may then use those funds to either create their own programming, or purchase programming from services like NPR and PBS. However, local stations and producers also raise funds from their viewers, listeners and donors. This is a critical form of funding that is oftentimes more than CPB grants that they receive.
The history of presidential action intended to continue mitigating extensive federal funding to news media is lengthy. It has certainly not recently begun with President Trump.
During the 1970s, the CPB took Congressional funding and began to distribute support to NPR. In 1972, Nixon vetoed legislation that proposed long-term funding to the CPB. In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan suggested that the government eliminate funding for the CPB to instead create a “self-sustaining model”. During his tenure as the 50th House Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Newt Gingrich opted to “zero-out” CPB funding. In 2005, G.W. Bush proposed a 25% cut to the CPB budget as well as zero funding for PBS specifically.
What does the history of federal funding to the CPB tell us? Simply this: this is not a new issue, but it’s worth educating yourself on. Also, the government in many capacities has recognized that federal interference in news media is not a good thing. Let’s look at the constitutional grounds acknowledged in this issue.
The freedom of press is an acknowledged 1st Amendment protection, but does it necessarily apply to Trumps’ executive order?
Originally, this 1st Amendment protection referred to print media because… well… that’s all they had. Now that we live in an age with vast technological innovations (like the device and media platform you’re reading this from right now) it has been considered a protection for other news mediums in addition to print, like broadcasting. By operating under the protection of the freedom of speech & press, this also means that the media cannot compel the government to offer funding. Simply put, the government chooses how it funds activities. Even this selection is mitigated by law.
As for government restriction and prevention of certain publications of information, the Federal Communications Commission (established in the 1930s) operates under the concept of “no prior restraint”. In line with the Communications Act sect. 326, this means that the broadcasting of any particular perspective of news cannot be prevented. To maintain this ruling, the FCC only regulates broadcasting media in order to establish rules for fair, bipartisan political coverage.
Some have argued that because of this, surely NPR and PBS haven’t facilitated biased media. However, NPR and PBS do not operate beneath the FCC. They are nonprofit organizations separate from the government, which is why they may receive funding from the CPB. As for the argument surrounding these organizations’ “right” to funding to survive, there is no constitutional right due them that mandates reception of taxpayer subsidies. The government possesses sole authority over whether media outlets may receive funding through taxpayer subsidies.
IMPACT ON SMALLER STATIONS
It is projected that these funding cuts to the CPB may have a larger impact on local and smaller stations, seeing that they have high expenses and rely on federal funding more than larger stations that have significant donor bases. Jordan Berman suggests that these local stations will lose nearly a third of their budget if NPR & PBS no longer have funds to give. What about NPR & PBS that distribute these funds?
Through the Federal Spending Bill that was passed in March, Congress had appropriated $535 million for public media which would carry the organization well into FY 2027. Ballotpedia reports that PBS’ accumulative funding from the government subsidies amounts to 15% of their budget. The PBS Foundation calculates this percentage as equivalent to $1.40 per taxpayer annually. NPR receives around 10% of budget funds from the CPB.
CHALLENGES/UPDATES
Unsurprisingly, the head honchos of PBS, NPR and CPB have responded to Trump’s order negatively. The fact of a challenge is not alarming nor is it a revolutionary thing. We would hope and expect such entities to challenge this sort of an executive move. However, it is the basis of each argument that highlights the significance of the ordeal.
The head of PBS has responded to Trump’s order calling it unlawful, and promotes a willingness to challenge it. President & CEO of PBS, Paula Kerger, specifically said that this funding cut will “threaten our ability to serve the American public with educational programming.”
The CEO of CPB, Patricia Harrison, points back to the creation of the CPB as it was crafted so that Congress may forbid federal agencies and/or employees from having direct control of educational television and/or broadcasting (AP News). They have since filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration by claiming that it exceeds its’ authority as part of the executive branch.
On the other hand, the administration has justified the order for funding cuts by claiming that the CPB statute promotes impartial principles prohibiting the organization from supporting any political party. The plan text of the order states that the CPB has failed in abiding by such principles as it subsidizes NPR and PBS, which they claim have broadcasted partisan news coverage (as stated by the White House Fact Sheet linked below).
Here’s the deal: These news media services and organizations say it’s an injustice, harmful to the public’s education, and financially detrimental to their operations. The Trump administration says they have failed to abide by their statute principles that makes them eligible for government subsidies, and that there is no constitutional right that demands they are deserving of taxpayer subsidies for funding. It boils down to a debate between these organizations pragmatic need of funding, and the principle behind the executive order.
Trump entered office in hot pursuit of significantly curtailing federal spending so, it should come as no surprise that he is conquering federal spending. However, there seems to be a disconnect amongst the public opinion.
Cato Institute conducted their 2025 Fiscal Policy National Survey to measure the majority opinion of Americans regarding federal spending. They found that 76% of Americans believe that the federal government “spends too much money”. 85% of Americans testified that the increase in government spending over the last decade has either not impacted their life at all or plausibly reduced their quality of life.
So, what have we found? The American people detest the fact that government spending has been outrageous and unhelpful. In so believing, we demand the government take control of its’ spending and help us more directly with the money it takes from our taxes. President Trump enters office with the promise to do just that, but it’s not how we want it to happen so now we fight against his efforts.
*Please regard this as a satirical conclusion based on the information you’ve read. This in no way signals my personal beliefs on the matter – it is purely analytical of the facts and points out the ironic nature of our society. The fact of the matter is that this is how every single reaction to a presidential administration has unfolded. We say what we want, the President doesn’t do it how we like, and now we hate him. This is a historical fact that spans across every administration whether they wear red or blue. It’s good for the heart if we laugh at ourselves a little.*
What do you think? Is this a genuinely beneficial effort at curbing federal spending? Or is this arbitrary and harmful to the public and media broadcasting? All I’ve given you are the facts and a bit of a laugh. From here, you must draw your own conclusion.
RESEARCH
NBC News
White House
AP News
CATO Institute
https://www.cato.org/blog/npr-should-not-be-subsidized-taxpayers#:~:text=NPR%2C%20a%20non%2Dprofit%20media,the%20news%20outlets’s%20website%20insists. ; https://www.cato.org/blog/americans-say-federal-govt-wastes-59-cents-dollar
Cornell Law
American Presidency Project
Veto of Public Broadcasting Bill. | The American Presidency Project
NY Times
U.S. Senate
U.S. Senate: Vetoes by President Richard Nixon
TIME Magazine
Washington Post
First Amendment Watch
Unbiased with Jordan Berman
PBS
NPR