SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
");background-position:center;background-size:19px 19px;background-repeat:no-repeat;background-color:var(--button-bg-color);padding:0;width:var(--form-elem-height);height:var(--form-elem-height);font-size:0;}:is(.js-newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter_bar.newsletter-wrapper) .widget__body:has(.response:not(:empty)) :is(.widget__headline, .widget__subheadline, #mc_embed_signup .mc-field-group, #mc_embed_signup input[type="submit"]){display:none;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) #mce-responses:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-row:1 / -1;grid-column:1 / -1;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget__body > .snark-line:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-column:1 / -1;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) :is(.newsletter-campaign:has(.response:not(:empty)), .newsletter-and-social:has(.response:not(:empty))){width:100%;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col{display:flex;flex-wrap:wrap;justify-content:center;align-items:center;gap:8px 20px;margin:0 auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .text-element{display:flex;color:var(--shares-color);margin:0 !important;font-weight:400 !important;font-size:16px !important;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .whitebar_social{display:flex;gap:12px;width:auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col a{margin:0;background-color:#0000;padding:0;width:32px;height:32px;}.newsletter-wrapper .social_icon:after{display:none;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget article:before, .newsletter-wrapper .widget article:after{display:none;}#sFollow_Block_0_0_2_0_0_0_1{margin:0;}#sSHARED_-_Social_Desktop_0_0_11_0_0_1.row-wrapper{margin:40px auto;}#sBoost_post_0_0_0_0_0_0_1_0{background-color:#000;color:#fff;}.boost-post{--article-direction:column;--min-height:none;--height:auto;--padding:24px;--titles-width:calc(100% - 84px);--image-fit:cover;--image-pos:right;--photo-caption-size:12px;--photo-caption-space:20px;--headline-size:23px;--headline-space:18px;--subheadline-size:13px;--text-size:12px;--oswald-font:"Oswald", Impact, "Franklin Gothic Bold", sans-serif;--cta-position:center;overflow:hidden;margin-bottom:0;--lora-font:"Lora", sans-serif !important;}.boost-post:not(:empty):has(.boost-post-article:not(:empty)){min-height:var(--min-height);}.boost-post *{box-sizing:border-box;float:none;}.boost-post .posts-custom .posts-wrapper:after{display:none !important;}.boost-post article:before, .boost-post article:after{display:none !important;}.boost-post article .row:before, .boost-post article .row:after{display:none !important;}.boost-post article .row .col:before, .boost-post article .row .col:after{display:none !important;}.boost-post .widget__body:before, .boost-post .widget__body:after{display:none !important;}.boost-post .photo-caption:after{content:"";width:100%;height:1px;background-color:#fff;}.boost-post .body:before, .boost-post .body:after{display:none !important;}.boost-post .body :before, .boost-post .body :after{display:none !important;}.boost-post__bottom{--article-direction:row;--titles-width:350px;--min-height:346px;--height:315px;--padding:24px 86px 24px 24px;--image-fit:contain;--image-pos:right;--headline-size:36px;--subheadline-size:15px;--text-size:12px;--cta-position:left;}.boost-post__sidebar:not(:empty):has(.boost-post-article:not(:empty)){margin-bottom:10px;}.boost-post__in-content:not(:empty):has(.boost-post-article:not(:empty)){margin-bottom:40px;}.boost-post__bottom:not(:empty):has(.boost-post-article:not(:empty)){margin-bottom:20px;}@media (min-width: 1024px){#sSHARED_-_Social_Desktop_0_0_11_0_0_1_1{padding-left:40px;}}.donation_banner{position:relative;background:#000;}.donation_banner .posts-custom *, .donation_banner .posts-custom :after, .donation_banner .posts-custom :before{margin:0;}.donation_banner .posts-custom .widget{position:absolute;inset:0;}.donation_banner__wrapper{position:relative;z-index:2;pointer-events:none;}.donation_banner .donate_btn{position:relative;z-index:2;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_14_0_0_3_1_0{color:#fff;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_14_0_0_3_1_1{font-weight:normal;}#sElement_Post_Layout_Press_Release__0_0_1_0_0_11{margin:100px 0;}.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper.sidebar{background:linear-gradient(91deg, #005dc7 28%, #1d63b2 65%, #0353ae 85%);}.black_newsletter{background:linear-gradient(91deg, #005dc7 28%, #1d63b2 65%, #0353ae 85%);}.black_newsletter .newsletter_bar.newsletter-wrapper{background:none;}
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Christine Chester, 617-695-2525
Sarah Holzgraf, 011-33-637850670
This week, the World Water Forum (WWF) will convene representatives of the water industry, other major corporations and government officials in Marseilles to shape international water policy such that it to prioritizes for-profit models of water delivery, and profit-oriented allocation of the world's most essential resource. While water for domestic purposes is a recognized human right, today nearly 900 million people lack consistent, safe access. Corporate control and management has proven a failure in addressing this tragic shortfall, instead diverting the investment dollars and political will required to reverse this global crisis.
20 years of water privatization has demonstrated time and again that water corporations do not serve those unable to afford water nor invest in the infrastructure maintenance and expansion critical for sustainable delivery of water. Corporate control of water has resulted in labor force downsizing, higher prices and shutoffs for poor and marginalized communities, reduced government capacity and oversight, decreased ability of water users to participate in and influence decision making, diluted legal recourse and information, neglect of long-term infrastructure and system expansion, as well as the shifting of the political and cultural values around water so as to grant access to users according to their ability to pay not their basic human right to the resource. Extracting corporate profits drains the resources required for reinvestment, with damaging consequences for communities, the environment and democracy itself.
As the largest external source of financing for water in developing countries, the World Bank has served as a critical ally for the water industry in the push to privatize. With mounting evidence of the flaws of the private model, governments and civil society alike have grown increasingly resistant to turn water systems over to corporate control. The Bank's response has been to bypass governments altogether: today, about a quarter of the Bank's funding goes directly to the private sector, including equity (stock ownership) investments in transnational water corporations. Investing directly in corporate water providers precludes public accountability and democratic oversight; it also gives the Bank itself a direct financial stake in the ability of corporations like Veolia to profit off of water delivery.
That's why Corporate Accountability International, working with a broad range of allies and experts, is renewing and strengthening the call for the World Bank to divest from private water as a critical means of returning governance to legitimate and transparent institutions from the United Nations down to local and municipal governments.
In a forthcoming report slated for release at the World Bank meetings in April, Corporate Accountability International documents how the Bank's investment in private water not only fails to deliver accessible safe water to populations in need, but is financially unsound for the Bank itself. The report reviews the many forms of support the Bank provides in promoting an agenda of water privatization, ranging from untenable funding packages and profit guarantees to the extra-financial research, advocacy and public relations which are used to market these policies to borrower governments and their populations. It then focuses on the Bank's direct relationships with global water corporations, honing in on the Bank's private sector International Finance Corporation (IFC), raising particular concerns around the inherent conflict of interest created by the IFC's ownership stakes, and hence profit interests, in major water corporations. The controversy surrounding water privatization is irrefutable: while the water sector comprises a small portion of IFC's portfolio of investments, 40 percent of the complaints received by its Ombudsman are water-related.
The World Bank and its corporate clients have sought for decades to remove water policy-making from transparent governmental spaces to business-oriented forums like the World Water Forum, as well as the Bank itself. The forthcoming report also exposes the newest face of Bank-supported corporate water governance in a recently-launched corporation housed at the IFC that uses the Bank's access to and leverage over borrower governments to insert corporate water lobbyists directly into the national and local policy processes surrounding water. The 2030 Water Resources Group (2030WRG) convenes a consortium of water profiteers and water-intensive corporations ranging from bottlers Coca-Cola and Pepsi to beverage corporations SAB Miller and Diageo, to the world's largest private water utility corporation, Veolia, in a powerful lobby group housed at the IFC and headed by the Chairman of Nestle, Peter Brabeck-Letmathe. The stated aim of the group is to "transform the water sector" by introducing "new normative models of water governance," one country at a time.
The World Water Forum is another tool in the corporate move to shift policy debates to opaque, elite forums insulated from broad democratic participation, asserting market assumptions as a starting-point for water policy. Since its 1997 inception, the WWF has been a lightning-rod for international protest, as a prime example of corporate interference with water governance. Organized by the private trade association, the World Water Council, in conjunction with host governments, this year's Forum will be held in France, the home of the two largest water corporations, Suez and Veolia. While the movement to reclaim public control of water has made major strides in France in recent years, most notably with the 2010 transition of the Paris water utility back to public control, the Forum location of Marseille remains a stronghold for the private water industry, and the home turf of the World Water Council.
With the controversy surrounding the Forum and the privatization agenda more broadly, attendance at the official forum is in marked decline. This year more than a thousand representatives from global civil society are converging on Marseille to protest the forum and organize the alternative Peoples Water Forum. The stakes for public and planetary health are profound, and a growing international movement recognizes water as a public good and a common resource that must be managed for the broadest benefit. The public health implications alone are staggering: the WHO reports that one tenth of the global disease burden could be alleviated through concerted investment in the water systems required to realize universal access to safe water. The solution to this human crisis is well-understood; what is required is the financial and political commitment to achieve universal fulfillment of this human right. Public commitment to this task has been undermined, and the necessary resources diverted, by the profiteering aspirations of global water corporations and allied institutions led by the World Bank.
This week Corporate Accountability International is exposing the illegitimacy of the WWF, challenging the corporate agenda and engaging directly with policy makers and other opinion leaders. In addition, Corporate Accountability International is a sponsor of the People's Water Forum, and will be previewing the report with water justice allies and interested media. Specifically, the organization will conduct two panels on corporate interference in water governance and on the role of the World Bank in the promotion of water privatization. We will also be presenting key mechanisms for protecting public policymaking from corporate interference, based on precedents from the global tobacco treaty, which enacted in 2005, is the world's first corporate accountability and public health treaty.
With its resources, connections and influence, the World Bank could play a critical role in reversing the global water crisis, alleviating human suffering and promoting sustainable, equitable development. Instead, by taking a profit stake in the fortunes of the private water industry, the Bank has allowed its mission of poverty alleviation to take a second seat to facilitating the profits of client corporations. The call for the World Bank's divestment from private water recognizes that removing this institutional support for privatization would clear space for public, democratic oversight, and redirecting the Bank's support toward the resulting public agenda and solutions would be a profound contribution to mobilize the momentum required to fulfill the human right to water on a global scale.
As Corporate Accountability International's report (available on April 20, 2012 at www.stopcorporateabuse.org or by contacting Shayda Naficy at 617-695-2525) finds, privatization has neither extended water access, nor proven economically viable. The preponderance of evidence provided in this report suggests the time has come for the Bank to divest from private water and redirect support to public and democratically accountable institutions.
Corporate Accountability stops transnational corporations from devastating democracy, trampling human rights, and destroying our planet.
(617) 695-2525"Congress famously has the power of the purse," wrote one expert. "But it looks like DOGE is trying to snatch it."
Reporting Friday that aides to Elon Musk—the billionaire backer of Republican President Donald Trump who runs the Department of Government Efficiency—locked career civil servants out of computer systems containing the personal data of millions of federal employees raised alarms among observers who said the move is consistent with the administration's efforts to assert authoritarian control over the federal government.
An unnamed official at the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) toldReuters that "we have no visibility" into what Musk aides "are doing with the computer and data systems," and "that is creating great concern."
"There is no oversight," the official said, adding that "it creates real cybersecurity and hacking implications."
No one elected Musk and he holds no official position—and yet: “Aides to Elon Musk charged with running the US government human resources agency have locked career civil servants out of computer systems that contain the personal data of millions of federal employees” www.reuters.com/world/us/mus...
[image or embed]
— Leah McElrath (@leahmcelrath.bsky.social) January 31, 2025 at 12:50 PM
The Reuters report came on the same day that The Washington Post reported that David Lebryk, who has worked in nonpolitical positions at the U.S. Treasury Department since the George H.W. Bush administration, will retire following "a clash with allies of billionaire Elon Musk over access to sensitive payment systems."
As the Post noted:
Run by the Bureau of the Fiscal Service, the sensitive systems control the flow of more than $6 trillion annually to households, businesses, and more nationwide. Tens, if not hundreds, of millions of people across the country rely on the systems, which are responsible for distributing Social Security and Medicare benefits, salaries for federal personnel, payments to government contractors and grant recipients, and tax refunds, among tens of thousands of other functions.
The clash reflects an intensifying battle between Musk and the federal bureaucracy as the Trump administration nears the conclusion of its second week. Musk has sought to exert sweeping control over the inner workings of the U.S. government, installing longtime surrogates at several agencies, including the Office of Personnel Management, which essentially handles federal human resources, and the General Services Administration, which manages real estate.
On Friday, the Trump administration ordered the General Services Administration to create a plan to slash 50% from the independent agency's budget, according to journalist Ken Klippenstein, who reported senior officials were left looking "shell-shocked'" by the directive.
Lebryk's announcement underscored what critics have warned is an aggressive push by Musk and other unelected Trump acolytes to sideline civil servants as part of an agenda in which MAGA sycophants are empowered to weaken government checks and balances and ensure total loyalty to the president, who has repeatedly flirted with authoritarianism.
In a Friday article highlighting Lebryk's announcement, Gizmodo's Matt Novak reported that "while it's not clear why [Department of Government Efficiency] wants access, experts are alarmed because there's basically no plausible explanation that doesn't involve tinkering with critical government functions by sidestepping Congress."
"Lebryk's departure is apparently related to the interference by DOGE-affiliated goons to access these payment systems," Novak asserted.
Common Dreamsreported earlier this week that Trump loyalists in the OPM and Office of Management and Budget associated with Project 2025—the Heritage Foundation-led blueprint for a far-right takeover of the federal government—are leading a sweeping effort to purge career civil servants and replace them with officials who will do the president's bidding without question.
Don Moynihan, a professor at the University of Michigan's Ford School of Public Policy, toldReuters Friday that "this makes it much harder for anyone outside Musk's inner circle at OPM to know what's going on."
Despite its name, DOGE is a presidential advisory committee, not a federal department—and critics including Novak have accused the billionaire Trump supporter of reaching "his tentacles into virtually every agency."
"Congress famously has the power of the purse," he wrote. "But it looks like DOGE is trying to snatch it."
Earlier this week, Congressman Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), the ranking member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, warned that Trump "is trying every trick he and his Project 2025 cronies can think of to circumvent established civil service protections so they can purge the civil service of experts and replace them with political loyalists."
"The victims here, as is always the case with Donald Trump, are the American people who will see government services and benefits allocated not by nonpartisan civil servants, but by partisan hacks," Connolly added.
Mark Mazur, who served in senior Treasury Department roles during the Obama and Biden administrations, told the Post Friday that the prospect of government officials using the federal payments system in service of personal political motives is without precedent.
"It's never been used in a way to execute a partisan agenda," Mazur stressed. "You have to really put bad intentions in place for that to be the case."
"This administration's reckless plan to block federal funding has already caused chaos, confusion, and conflict throughout our country," said New York's attorney general, who is leading the legal challenge.
A federal judge in Rhode Island on Friday delivered another blow to U.S. President Donald Trump's effort to dramatically overhaul the government, temporarily blocking the Republican's funding freeze that sparked chaos and confusion this week.
U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell Jr. granted a temporary restraining order in response to a lawsuit filed by the attorneys general of the District of Columbia and 22 states. His move came after Washington, D.C.-based District Judge Loren AliKhan issued an administrative stay that blocked Trump's funding freeze until a Monday hearing, in a case launched by nonprofits.
After AliKhan's Tuesday decision, the Trump administration rescinded the relevant memo from Matthew Vaeth, acting director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). However, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said on social media Wednseday: "This is NOT a rescission of the federal funding freeze. It is simply a rescission of the OMB memo."
"Why? To end any confusion created by the court's injunction," Leavitt wrote, stressing the president's executive orders "on federal funding remain in full force and effect, and will be rigorously implemented."
Citing Leavitt's post in a 13-page order, McConnell explained that the administration tried to claim "that this matter is moot because it rescinded the OMB directive. But the evidence shows that the alleged rescission of the OMB directive was in name only and may have been issued simply to defeat the jurisdiction of the courts. The substantive effect of the directive carries on."
The temporary restraining order is in effect until further action from McConnell, an appointee of former Democratic President Barack Obama. Although the Trump administration can move forward with its review of federal funds, it cannot "pause, freeze, impede, block, cancel, or terminate" funding to the states or D.C. The judge also prohibited "reissuing, adopting, implementing, or otherwise giving effect to the OMB directive under any other name or title or through any other defendants."
"McConnell's order was expected, as he had signaled following a hearing Wednesday that he was inclined to issue the temporary pause of the Trump administration's directive," CBS Newsnoted Friday.
Still, the Democrats behind the legal challenge celebrated their win. New York Attorney General Letitia James said in a statement that "this administration's reckless plan to block federal funding has already caused chaos, confusion, and conflict throughout our country. In the short time since this policy was announced, families have been cut off from childcare services, essential Medicaid funds were disrupted, and critical law enforcement efforts were put in jeopardy."
"I led a coalition of attorneys general in suing to stop this cruel policy, and today we won a court order to stop it," she continued.
"The president cannot unilaterally halt congressional spending commitments. I will continue to fight against these illegal cuts and protect essential services that New Yorkers and millions of Americans across the country depend on."
Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha said that "I am grateful for Judge McConnell's careful consideration of this matter and for seeing the irreparable harm that this directive would cause, and frankly has already caused, Americans across the country."
"As we allege in our complaint, the executive branch does not have the authority to intercept crucially important federal funding that the Congress has already allocated to the states, and on which Americans rely," he emphasized. "This directive targets public safety, healthcare, veterans' services, childcare, disaster relief, and countless other cornerstones of American life."
"Make no mistake: This federal funding pause was implemented to inspire fear and chaos, and it was successful in that respect," he added. "These tactics are intended to wear us down, but with each legal victory we reaffirm that these significant and unlawful disruptions won't be tolerated, and will certainly be met with swift and immediate action now and in the future."
As The New York Timesreported:
Judge McConnell's Friday order does not block the Trump administration from continuing its review, only from defunding those programs that fail its tests in the states that sued—New York, California, Illinois, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, North Carolina, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin, along with the District of Columbia.
In that sense, it may create a divide between Democratic states that will continue to have funds flowing and Republican states that will still face uncertainty.
The judge's decision came as Trump and billionaire Elon Musk—the richest person on Earth and chair of the president's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)—attack the federal government in various ways, including by trying to purge the federal workforce.
As
The Washington Post reported Friday that the U.S. Treasury Department's highest-ranking career official, David Lebryk, is leaving his post after clashing with Musk allies over access to payment systems that the agency uses to distribute over $6 trillion, Reuters revealed the DOGE leader's said have "locked career civil servants out of computer systems that contain the personal data of millions of federal employees."
"The FCC chair is clearly undertaking an effort to bully and intimidate independent journalism, which is a hallmark of authoritarian regimes where democracy is under siege," said one critic.
U.S. press freedom advocates this week forcefully condemned Republican Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr's investigation into National Public Radio and Public Broadcasting Service that could lead to stripping them of government funding.
"If they weren't ringing already, alarm bells should be going off loudly," said Tim Richardson, program director for journalism and disinformation at PEN America, in a Thursday statement. "By using its investigatory powers, the FCC chair is clearly undertaking an effort to bully and intimidate independent journalism, which is a hallmark of authoritarian regimes where democracy is under siege."
"The Trump administration is clearly embracing such tactics and putting independent media at risk by undermining accountability of elected leaders and risking a less informed public," Richardson added. "We call on the FCC to dispense with such politically motivated investigations."
Jenna Leventoff, senior policy counsel at the ACLU, was similarly critical, saying that "the commission should not bring frivolous investigations into media outlets simply because they do not like their coverage. Investigations like this can chill coverage and threaten the independence of the press, making it harder to hold the government accountable and keep us all informed."
I told @nytimes.com that Carr's claim that NPR and PBS broke sponsorship disclosure rules is an obvious pretext to attack their funding and independence. Carr was appointed to do Trump's censorial bidding. All his moves should be viewed through that lens.This “investigation” is a sham and meant to terrorize NPR and PBS. They have *rigorous* oversight on vetting the “this program brought to you by” statements and literally pages of documentation about it that they give to filmmakers like me. Support your local stations, they’re going to need it.
[image or embed]
— Ariel Waldman (@arielwaldman.com) January 30, 2025 at 2:39 PM
Free Press co-CEO Craig Aaron declared that "his seat as FCC chairman is barely warm, but Brendan Carr is already abusing his power and harassing public broadcasters with a sham investigation designed to scare journalists into silence. This is all part of Carr's far-right, Project 2025-inspired agenda."
"This bogus investigation is an attack on the freedom of the press and a bungling attempt to bash public broadcasters and further weaken their resolve to question the extremism, corruption, and cruelty of the Trump administration," Aaron warned. "This unjustified investigation isn't based on any genuine concern about whether there's too much advertising on public media. It's a blatant attempt to undermine independent, rigorous reporting on the Trump administration."
"Carr may not like public media—and that's no surprise given that he isn't a fan of journalism that holds public officials and billionaires accountable. In this, as in so many other areas under his purview, Chairman Carr is far out of step with the American public and their needs," he continued. "Communities all across the country rely on their local public radio and TV stations to provide trustworthy news reporting and a diversity of opinions. In every survey, the American public indicates it wants more support for public and community media, not less."
Aaron added that "in a healthy democracy, we would be investing enough in our public-media system that it wouldn't need to seek any corporate underwriting. Unfortunately, Carr's cronies in Congress and the Big Media barons they serve have instead for decades tried to zero out funding for public media. They have repeatedly failed because millions of viewers and listeners opposed them."
Carr—whom President Donald Trump first appointed to the FCC in 2017 and recently elevated to chair after he contributed to the Heritage Foundation-led Project 2025—announced the probe in a Wednesday letter to NPR president and CEO Katherine Maher and PBS president and CEO Paula Kerger.
"I am concerned that NPR and PBS broadcasts could be violating federal law by airing commercials," Carr wrote. "I have asked the FCC's Enforcement Bureau, with assistance from the FCC's Media Bureau, to initiate an investigation into the underwriting announcements and related policies of NPR, PBS, and their broadcast member stations."
The chair added:
I will be providing a copy of this letter to relevant members of Congress because I believe this FCC investigation may prove relevant to an ongoing legislative debate. In particular, Congress is actively considering whether to stop requiring taxpayers to subsidize NPR and PBS programming. For my own part, I do not see a reason why Congress should continue sending taxpayer dollars to NPR and PBS given the changes in the media marketplace since the passage of the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967.
To the extent that these taxpayer dollars are being used to support a for-profit endeavor or an entity that is airing commercial advertisements, then that would further undermine any case for continuing to fund NPR and PBS with taxpayer dollars.
Some federal lawmakers have already responded on social media. Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said that "the letter from Chairman Carr announcing a new FCC investigation into NPR and PBS member stations is baseless. He cites no evidence at all. Instead, this investigation is a dangerous attack on public media and local journalism."
Rep. Doris Matsui (D-Calif.) said that "public television and radio are essential for their local communities. The FCC must not be weaponized to intimidate and silence broadcast media. We should be supporting, not undermining, their contributions to journalism and the marketplace of ideas."
I told @nytimes.com that Carr's claim that NPR and PBS broke sponsorship disclosure rules is an obvious pretext to attack their funding and independence. Carr was appointed to do Trump's censorial bidding. All his moves should be viewed through that lens. www.nytimes.com/2025/01/30/b...
[image or embed]
— Seth Stern (@seth-stern.bsky.social) January 30, 2025 at 5:27 PM
The two Democratic members of the FCC have also responded critically to Carr's move. Commissioner Anna Gomez said that "this appears to be yet another administration effort to weaponize the power of the FCC. The FCC has no business intimidating and silencing broadcast media."
Commissioner Geoffrey Starks said that "public television and radio stations play a significant role in our media ecosystem.
Any attempt to intimidate these local media outlets is a threat to the free flow of information and the marketplace of ideas. The announcement of this investigation gives me serious concern."
Maher said in statement that "NPR programming and underwriting messaging complies with federal regulations, including the FCC guidelines on underwriting messages for noncommercial educational broadcasters, and member stations are expected to be in compliance as well."
"We are confident any review of our programming and underwriting practices will confirm NPR's adherence to these rules," she added. "We have worked for decades with the FCC in support of noncommercial educational broadcasters who provide essential information, educational programming, and emergency alerts to local communities across the United States."
In a statement to NPR media correspondent David Folkenflik, who reported on the probe, Kerger said that "PBS is proud of the noncommercial educational programming we provide to all Americans through our member stations... We work diligently to comply with the FCC's underwriting regulations and welcome the opportunity to demonstrate that to the commission."