Congress has sent a $9 billion rescission package to the Oval Office to be signed by President Trump. Backlash has largely risen from the media industry as the package eliminates federal funding allocated to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB). Let’s get into the details of the package and uncover the real damage that these cuts will produce.
THE PACKAGE
The Rescissions Act of 2025 first passed the House on June 12th, was revised and passed the Senate on July 17th, and was finally passed by the House following Senate revisions on July 18th. It is the first piece of legislation that codifies DOGE cuts into law.
CBO estimates that this package will bring down budget outlays by $8.9 billion over 2025-2035 FY. “The $8.9 billion represents just a one-percent decrease in this year’s projected primary budget deficit of $913 billion.”
Of this one percent, $1 billion will be taken from the CPB which will remove all federal funding for NPR, PBS and their member stations since the corporation channels subsidies for these news organizations. NPR reported that these funds were needed to support the CPB through the next two years.
As for NPR and PBS, only a minority of their budgets are supported by CPB funding. NPR itself reported that it only relies on direct federal funding “for only a small portion of its budget”. The brunt of the cuts will mostly burden member stations whose budgets mostly rely on said funding. As for PBS, only 15% of its’ revenue comes from the CPB.
BACKLASH
CEO of NPR Katherine Maher gave a statement about these cuts calling them an irreversible loss to the public radio system” and “an unwarranted dismantling of beloved local civic institutions, and an act of Congress that disregards the public will.”
Another voice of dissent, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, said that the package “is an affront on to the bipartisan appropriations process.”
Those most outraged by this package see it as a detrimental smashing of public media.
President and CEO of the CPB Patricia Harrison is quoted saying, “Public media is a trusted, vital part of American life, available free of charge and commercial free. It delivers early learning resources to families, life-saving emergency alerts to communities, and trusted local and national programming to keep citizens connected and informed.”
However, PBS reported that public media is not exactly “free of charge”, as it costs Americans on average $1.50 a year. Though that price seems insignificant on paper, the argument in favor of cutting CPB funding says that Americans shouldn’t have to funnel tax dollars toward federal funding of biased media. Furthermore, the government shouldn’t be supplying biased media.
Whether you agree with that argument in this context is purely up to you.
After 12 hours of voting on revised amendments to the package, those in favor say that the victory is “more symbolic than anything, as it would cut only one tenth of 1% from the federal budget.”
Senate Majority Leader John Thune said, “It’s a small but important step toward fiscal sanity that we all should be able to agree is long overdue.”
In line with Trump’s prior vow to shrink the size of the federal government, the impact of this package seems to be weighted heavier in the years to come.
The federal government currently has a deficit of $2 trillion, as Cato Institute has published. Support for the rescission package suggests that this advancement of cuts should “represent a tiny down payment” for Trump’s overarching effort.
WHAT DO THE PEOPLE SAY?
NPR published results from a Harris Poll that said 66% of Americans support federal funding for public radio.
The CPB produced a poll this month that said 53% of U.S. voters oppose eliminating federal funding for public media.
Back in March, PEW Research conducted a poll that asked Americans whether NPR and PBS should continue to receive federal funding. 43% said yes, 24% said no, and 33% weren’t sure.
Polls can only account for so much of the public opinion as they only question a couple thousand people at a time. That said, it’s safe to say that the public (along with members of Congress) is nearly-evenly divided on the issue. I would vouch to say it’s risky to define a stark majority/minority on the matter. What we can do is determine for ourselves whether this was a step in the right direction, or harmful to the future of public media.
You can read more about how this issue developed by looking at my previous article HERE.
