SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
public media
'Hands Off Public Media!' Thousands March, Workers Strike in Czechia Over Right-Wing Attack
"The media don't belong to politicians. They belong to us all and we won't allow them to be stolen from us."
Jun 22, 2026
Public media journalists and staff are on a 24-hour strike in Czechia on Monday, just a day after thousands of people marched in Prague against attacks by the right-wing government on the nation's public broadcasting system.
Gathered outside the public television offices in Prague, those gathered Sunday shouted "Hand off public media!" as they railed against reforms proposed by the government of billionaire Prime Minister Andrej Babiš, a far-right ideologue compared to US President Donald Trump and Hungary's former Prime Minister Viktor Orbán.
The right-wing reforms, approved by the Babiš cabinet last week, would eviscerate the annual budgets for both public radio and television programming by 15% next year—bringing them back to 2008 levels by cutting a combined €57 million—while also changing the funding mechanism going forward. Instead of funds generated through fees paid by individuals, households, and businesses, the annual budgets would now come from government allocations, which critics of the changes say would give the ruling party more influence over content.
"The media don't belong to politicians," Mikulas Minar, an organizer with the group behind the protest movement—dubbed the Million Moments for Democracy—told Deutsche Welle on Sunday. "They belong to us all and we won't allow them to be stolen from us."
Thousands Protest in Prague: “Hands Off Public Media” Over Funding Reform 🇨🇿
Large crowds gathered in Prague under the slogan “Hands Off Public Media”, protesting the Czech government’s proposed reform to replace license fees with direct state budget funding for public… pic.twitter.com/793Q2dZf6W
— Unit News (@Unit_News) June 22, 2026
The fight over the countries public media system, "is not just about money," reports The Guardian.
“The reforms have been prepared without consultation and without guarantees for the independence of public service media,” Pavla Kubálková, a member of Czech Television’s strike committee, told the newspaper. “A large part of society remembers what the news looked like when politicians chose the content before 1989. We don’t want to go back there.”
On Monday, the striking workers formed a symbolic human chain around the Czech public radio offices in Prague.
Protesters ended their march at the public broadcaster's headquarters in Prague on Sunday, June 21, 2026. (Image: Ondrej Deml/CTK/picture alliance)
“What matters most to us is preserving independence and the direct relationship between Czech Television and its viewers,” added Kubálková, warning against increased political pressure on the public broadcasters from the state.
As the Guardian reports, those concerns, "were reinforced last week when Josef Nerušil, an MP for the far-right Freedom and Direct Democracy (SPD) party, which is part of the governing coalition, appeared to suggest that changes to funding should eventually lead to greater scrutiny of what public broadcasters air."
“The point is to change the funding,” Nerušil told Czech Radio. “But if we’re talking about what public service media should broadcast, then of course, in a further step, we want to get to a broader discussion.”
Nerušil admitted the aim was “to control not only the financial side but also the content side,” as he accused the broadcasters of political bias in their coverage.
The workers on strike and the people in the street, said Kubálková, should signal to the government that the people of Czechia are ready for a fight.
“The employees of both broadcasters are ready to defend their service to citizens, and we are determined to continue with even more vigorous protests,” she said. “We will do everything we can to defend public service media in their current form.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Why Is So Much of Corporate Media Caving to Trump?
A new ranking of the 35 largest media conglomerates finds a systemic failure to protect democracy against authoritarianism.
Jul 31, 2025
The rules of authoritarianism are pretty simple: Do as the leader says... or else.
This lopsided power equation runs counter to the checks and balances that are baked into the DNA of any healthy democracy. The early framers of American democracy understood this, which is why they codified the basic rights to free expression and an independent press as checks against power.
Free Press this week released the inaugural Media Capitulation Index to examine how this information ecosystem is fairing nearly 250 years later. This sweeping investigation analyzes and rates the independence of America’s 35 largest media companies, including the many conglomerates that have recently caved to pressure from an authoritarian and corrupt Trump administration.
I led the investigation, produced the performance-based ratings of these companies, and authored the report, A More Perfect Media: Saving America’s Fourth Estate from Billionaires, Broligarchy, and Trump, which accompanies the index.
We need to examine the systemic failures that have led us to this point and understand how such accumulation of power and wealth makes it next to impossible for these media giants to fulfill the social compact embodied in the notion of the Fourth Estate.
The findings are sobering. After digging into the many failures of America’s hyper-commercialized media system, we present a series of recommendations to help dig the United States out of the authoritarian quicksand into which we're sinking, and build toward a more independent, democratic, diverse, and free press.
This work is crucial at a time when some of the most dominant news media companies empires including Disney (which owns ABC), Paramount (CBS) and Warner Bros. Discovery (CNN) are capitulating and compromising in the face of this administration’s political extortion and thuggery. In addition, The New York Times is becoming increasingly “vulnerable” to pressure from the White House. In many ways it's a vulnerability of its own making. As we report, the newspaper's “ill-advised attempt at both-sides objectivity [has the Times] routinely normalizing the most extreme elements of Trumpism.”
The index also investigates the questionable and often lucrative government entanglements of billionaire media owners like Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, and Elon Musk.
In evaluating the 35 companies, Free Press found that media owners capitulated to the current White House in four principal ways:
- Through payments to U.S. President Donald Trump in the form of legal settlements, production contracts, campaign contributions, and other donations;
- By rolling back prior commitments to diversity, equity, and inclusion practices in hiring and community outreach;
- Through editorial manipulation and censorship: pressuring their newsrooms to soften criticism of the administration, firing staff, and even pulling content that might anger the president; and
- By attempting to curry favor with the president during inaugural ceremonies, private dinners at Mar-a-Lago, and meetings in the White House.
Fulfilling the Social Compact
This small cartel of billionaire- and equity-fund-controlled conglomerates determines much of what Americans read, see, and hear. Their coverage and amplification too often sets the agenda around nation-defining political issues. Through a history of mergers and acquisitions, these companies have consolidated their control over public discourse.
Our founders sought to protect the U.S. press from government meddling so that reporters and publishers could act as reliable checks against tyranny and other political corruption. But it’s up to the media to exercise these freedoms. Many modern-day media owners, instead, have put their pursuit of power and profits over First Amendment principles.
I can’t imagine that the drafters of the Constitution foresaw a time when so much control over information would fall into the hands of so few. We need to examine the systemic failures that have led us to this point and understand how such accumulation of power and wealth makes it next to impossible for these media giants to fulfill the social compact embodied in the notion of the Fourth Estate.
I spoke with former New York Times public editor Margaret Sullivan, who later wrote the Free Press project was a “thorough new examination of how well—or poorly—the American press is doing that core mission. And why it’s mostly failing.”
Each conglomerate in the Media Capitulation Index is ranked on a scale from “independent” to “propaganda.” The report analyzes the root causes driving commercial media’s inability to defend democracy at a time of spreading domestic and international authoritarianism.
Who Owns the Media Owners?
As I was writing, researching, and creating these materials, many people asked me: “Who owns the media?” The Media Capitulation Index helps answer that question, but it also raises an even more essential (and disturbing) one: “Who owns the media owners?”
The report that accompanies the index reveals the systemic problems behind the media’s failure to meet this moment. But it concludes on a more hopeful note, outlining steps people can take to make “a more perfect media” for everyone. These include fully funding public media and independent, local-accountability journalism; restoring and strengthening media-ownership limits; and emboldening the Federal Communication Commission’s and Federal Trade Commission’s role in stopping media mergers that harm the public interest.
We will continue to update the index, capturing both instances of media capitulation and examples where media stand up to this extortionate regime. It’s hoped that this structural critique of our current media system will help instill in more media outlets the courage needed to challenge a bullying and power-hungry president.
Keep ReadingShow Less
PBS and NPR See Unprecedented Surge in Donations After GOP Votes for Defunding
"It is still early, and we hope the support will continue to grow," said the CEO of a firm that tracks and analyzes donations to public media.
Jul 24, 2025
Republicans in Congress may have voted to defund publicly funded media outlets in the United States, but American citizens are trying to fill the gap.
The New York Times reports that donations to public media have surged ever since the GOP voted to eliminate $550 million in annual funding for the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) and National Public Radio (NPR).
Citing numbers from Contributor Development Partnership, a firm that provides analysis of public media fundraising data, the Times reports that donors this year have so far contributed $70 million more to NPR and PBS than they had done over the same period the year before. The numbers also show that "over the last three months, as the prospect of the cuts intensified, roughly 120,000 new donors have contributed an estimated $20 million in annual value," writes the Times.
Contributor Development Partnership CEO Michal Heiplik tells the Times that these donations, while impressive, are still a long way from being able to fill the $550 million hole left by GOP cuts.
"It is still early, and we hope the support will continue to grow," he said. "Next few weeks will be telling."
Heiplik also tells the Times that more donors in recent months have signed up to become sustaining members, which he says will be helpful in ensuring both entities have sustained finances instead of having to rely on one-time bursts of donations.
The vast majority of funding for public media has long come from donors, with only a small percentage coming from the federal government.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Defunding Public Media Makes Perfect Sense If Destroying Democracy Is the Goal
The Trump purge of federal spending is about stripping our democratic system of all accountability mechanisms—including the sorts of journalism that hold our country’s rich and powerful accountable—and replacing it with propaganda.
Jul 18, 2025
U.S. Congress’ decision early Friday morning to completely defund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is a blow to anyone who cares about the role the media must play to sustain the health of a democracy. The move follows a request by President Donald Trump to claw back more than $1 billion lawmakers had already allocated to the entity, which supports National Public Radio and Public Broadcasting Service stations across the country.
Zeroing out federal funding for public media has been a dream of Republicans since the Nixon administration. But it’s one that, until now, never came true. Past efforts ran up against a noisy public—including people of every political persuasion—who believe federal funding for public media is taxpayer money well spent.
Many were engaged in the current fight, too; they dialed their members of Congress by the thousands to urge them to preserve essential funding for favorite local radio and television stations. But Republican members of Congress chose to listen to their Dear Leader instead. The week prior to the rescission vote, Trump threatened to withhold his “support or endorsement” in upcoming elections to any Republican who didn’t back the clawback. And with far too few exceptions Republicans willingly got in line
Clearing a Path for Destruction
The loss of CPB funding will be felt for years. “This is a vote to evade public accountability and hide the Trump administration’s destructive actions from independent scrutiny,” Free Press Action co-CEO Craig Aaron said.
It won’t be easy to rebuild what Trump has ruined, but we must because the health of our democracy depends on having independent public media. And the less than $2 per person that U.S. taxpayers willingly paid to fund the CPB was paltry by comparison with what other modern democracies spend on their own public media.
Congress is acting on the false belief that the November 2024 election—which Trump won with less than a majority of the popular vote—delivered them a mandate to remake the federal government in the president’s autocratic image.
The benefits in this public-interest equation far outweighed any expense. They include essential educational programming, invaluable accountability journalism, and the broadcast of emergency information.
As senators debated Trump’s defunding request on July 16, a 7.3-magnitude earthquake struck the Alaska Peninsula, prompting rural and island-bound public-radio stations to issue tsunami alerts to affected listeners throughout the region. It’s these rural stations that rely the most on public funds to air potentially lifesaving updates during emergencies and their aftermath.
Still, Congress is acting on the false belief that the November 2024 election—which Trump won with less than a majority of the popular vote—delivered them a mandate to remake the federal government in the president’s autocratic image, regardless of the costs.
Public Media Benefits Democracy
And those costs are very high. The Trump purge of federal spending is not just about downsizing the government so billionaires won’t have to pay their fair share in taxes. It’s about stripping our democratic system of all accountability mechanisms—including the sorts of journalism that hold our country’s rich and powerful accountable—and replacing it with propaganda.
If anything has a popular mandate, it’s the use of federal funds to support public media. Americans routinely rank PBS among the most trusted institutions in the country, and a “most valuable” service taxpayers receive for their money.
These benefits accrue to our democratic system. A 2021 study coauthored by University of Pennsylvania professor (and Free Press board chair) Victor Pickard finds that more robust funding for public media strengthens a given country’s democracy—with increased public knowledge about civic affairs, more diverse media coverage, and lower levels of extremist views. Other studies strongly suggest that declines in such local news and information lead to drops in civic engagement.
There’s reasonable criticism of the public-broadcasting system that had been in place since President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967. For example, CPB needed to offer more support to the proliferation of local noncommercial outlets serving communities too often overlooked by legacy commercial media. In addition, tax laws need to better accommodate local commercial news outlets seeking to shift their fiscal models to not-for-profit.
But we should build these changes on the foundation the CPB has established over the decades. That foundation has been swept away by a leader who cares far more about himself than the health of our nation.
Rebuilding at the State and Local Levels
It’s hard to find a silver lining to such a dark cloud. If any exists it’s in the energy and organizing for better public media at state and local levels.
New Jersey just re-upped its commitment to fund the Civic Information Consortium, a groundbreaking state-level effort that supports trustworthy, community-based news and information sources throughout the state.
These solutions are needed in addition to a federal mechanism for funding public media, not in place of it.
Local lawmakers in other states—including California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Washington—are advancing policy solutions that increase public support for and access to nonpartisan and independent local news. Noncommercial media—including existing outlets like Capital & Main, City Bureau, LAist, Mississippi Today, Outlier Media and ProPublica—are offering an antidote to a hyper-commercial media system that is too fearful of political leadership (and protective of profit margins) to act as a check against official abuses of power.
One possible solution is to impose a small tax on advertising to fund the production and distribution of local news and civic information, something Free Press has long advocated for.
But these solutions are needed in addition to a federal mechanism for funding public media, not in place of it. We still need to mobilize behind efforts to restore the CPB or a similar entity to that role. The goal—building a media system that serves the interests of the American people, and not those of a unitary executive—is vital to saving our democracy.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Doing Trump's Bidding, Senate GOP Votes to Gut Public Media, Foreign Aid in Dead of Night
"At 2 am, Republicans just passed a bill to defund public broadcasting and lifesaving aid because Trump told them to—they wouldn't even protect rural radio or emergency alerts."
Jul 17, 2025
In the early hours of Thursday morning, Senate Republicans passed legislation that would claw back $9 billion in previously approved congressional funding for public broadcasting and foreign aid programs targeted by President Donald Trump's White House.
The final vote count was 51 to 48, with Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) joining Democrats in opposing the package, which now heads back to the GOP-controlled House for final passage. The legislation would cement some of the Trump administration's lawless, unilateral attacks on programs approved by Congress with bipartisan support.
"At 2 am, Republicans just passed a bill to defund public broadcasting and lifesaving aid because Trump told them to—they wouldn't even protect rural radio or emergency alerts," said Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), the vice chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, warning that the GOP's partisan clawback of funding imperils all future spending negotiations.
"Congress should decide what we spend and what we cut—not Trump and not Russ Vought," Murray added, referring to the director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
In a floor speech ahead of the Thursday morning vote, Murray said Vought refused to be specific about which programs would be cut if the rescissions bill passes.
"It's one of the great outrages of this package," said Murray. "At our hearing with him, he refused to go into detail. He stonewalled us. We asked and we asked. The chair, the Republican chair, even asked him about this. But OMB would not tell us. The question is: What will you cut? The answer has been: Pass it, we'll see."
"The thing that's particularly dangerous about it is that this is probably a test case. If they pull it off with these topics, they'll move on to more and more and more topics."
The White House rescissions request was broadly outlined in a May memo authored by Vought, an architect of the far-right Project 2025 agenda.
The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which helps fund PBS and NPR, is expected to face over $1 billion in cuts, while the rest of the rescissions package targets foreign assistance.
"With this vote, Senate Republicans are telling us everything we need to know about their priorities," said Alex Jacquez, the Groundwork Collaborative's chief of policy and advocacy. "After passing a tax law that gives a massive giveaway to billionaires and raises costs on working families, Senate Republicans are now codifying DOGE's deeply unpopular and reckless cuts to vital programs. Once again, Republicans are failing to deliver on the one thing they promised: lower prices. Instead, they're waging a campaign that will make life more expensive and difficult for working families while lining the pockets of the wealthy."
During the marathon amendment process, Republicans rejected Democratic proposals to shield public safety alerts and prevent cuts to international disaster relief programs.
Vought has signaled that the White House will likely submit more rescissions requests if the $9 billion in cuts make it through Congress.
Kate Riley, the president and CEO of America's Public Television Stations, said in a statement following the Senate vote that the rescissions bill would "eliminate federal funding to the local public television stations throughout this country that provide essential lifesaving public safety services, proven educational services, and community connections to their communities every day for free."
"This elimination of federal funding will decimate public media and put local stations at risk of going dark, cutting off service to communities that rely on them—many of which have no other access to locally controlled media," Riley warned.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) accused Republicans of weaponizing the rescissions process to attack "some of their favorite enemies, like National Public Radio, Elmo, or food for starving people overseas."
"The thing that's particularly dangerous about it is that this is probably a test case," Whitehouse added. "If they pull it off with these topics, they'll move on to more and more and more topics, bringing their Musk-type chainsaw to projects which Congress has approved on a bipartisan basis, put into law, and funded."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Senate GOP Set to Eviscerate Public Media Funding, 'Dismantle' Outlets Relied on by Millions
The bill threatens "emergency alerts that save lives, local journalism that informs communities, and educational tools that support families, job seekers, and teachers," according to Protect My Public Media.
Jul 16, 2025
The Republican-controlled U.S. Senate is on the verge of stripping more than a billion dollars from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which could decimate local news stations.
On Tuesday, the chamber voted 50-50, with a tie broken by Vice President JD Vance to move forward with debate on the package, which is underway as of Wednesday morning.
Three Republicans—Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), and Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)—joined Democrats in opposition.
If passed, the bill would codify President Donald Trump's illegal impoundment of more than $9 billion in funds that were already appropriated by Congress.
Defenders of public media have mobilized a last-ditch effort to stop the bill, which strips more than $1.1 billion from the CPB, which includes cuts to NPR and PBS.
The progressive group Our Revolution on Tuesday delivered more than 70,000 petitions to the Senate urging them it to vote against the bill's advancement.
"This is a coordinated, authoritarian attempt to silence dissent and dismantle the public good—not 'fiscal policy,'" the group said in a post on social media.
Despite the bill's advancement to the debate stage, the group Protect My Public Media says that the cuts can still be stopped.
"Changes to the bill are still possible," the group said. "Now is the time to urge your senators to remove the proposal targeting public media from the package."
"Taking back this funding—just $1.60 per person per year—wouldn't simply force stations to scale back," the group continued. "It would dismantle services that millions rely on every day: emergency alerts that save lives, local journalism that informs communities, and educational tools that support families, job seekers, and teachers. In many rural and underserved areas, the loss could be total. Some stations may be forced off the air entirely, leaving entire communities without access to essential information."
Legislators have similarly warned about the bill's devastating effects on local news.
This was highlighted in a letter sent Tuesday by Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus Chair Grace Meng (D-N.Y.), Congressional Black Caucus Chair Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.), and Congressional Hispanic Caucus Chair Adriano Espaillat (D-N.Y.).
"The federal government is the largest single funding source for public television and radio stations," the letter said. "CPB's elimination would decimate public media infrastructure, as the vast majority of its funding goes directly to local stations, many of which rely on it for over half their operating budgets."
More than 70% of CPB funding goes to local news and radio stations, according to its website. This funds more than 1,500 locally-owned public radio and television stations. Around half of those are in rural areas, which are often "news deserts" that lack other sources of regular coverage.
Murkowski, one of three Republicans who voted against the bill Tuesday, noted this at a Senate Appropriations hearing last month. Speaking about public news stations in her home state of Alaska, she said, "[A]lmost to a number, they're saying that they will go under if public broadcasting funds are no longer available to them."
In May, NPR President and CEO Katherine Maher disputed the Republican characterization of these cuts as a cost-saving measure.
"This is not about balancing the federal budget," she said. "The appropriation for public broadcasting, including NPR and PBS, represents less than 0.0001% of the federal budget."
Rather, she said, it's an investment in a local news ecosystem that pays off in the long-run.
"Every $1 of federal funding generates $7 from local sources," she said, "enabling stations to produce local journalism, support local and regional music and arts, and develop creative, informative, and entertaining programming for distribution across the nation."
The plan to cut public broadcast funding is overwhelmingly unpopular. In a poll conducted by Data for Progress last week, just 21% of voters said they wanted to defund public broadcasting including NPR and PBS, compared with 67% who said they wanted to either keep funding at its current levels or increase it.
The Senate vote on whether to pass the rescissions package could take place Wednesday following debate and amendment votes. Should it pass, it will return to the House, where the deadline for its passage is Friday.
Though it moved on to the debate stage Tuesday, just one more Republican defector could force the bill's cuts to public broadcasting to be revised.
"Now it's our job to speak up and make sure the Senate hears us," said Protect My Public Media in a final urgent plea. "Pulling back support from local stations would leave communities less safe, children less prepared for school, and all of us less connected."
Keep ReadingShow Less
House GOP Vote to Take Back Funds for NPR/PBS Imperils 'Future of Public Broadcasting'
"President Trump is determined to destroy any news outlets that hold him accountable for his actions," said one free press advocate.
Jun 13, 2025
The U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday narrowly approved a rescission package that would take back funding for PBS and NPR, as well international aid programs—a move that supporters of public media quickly decried.
Earlier in June, the Trump White House formally asked Congress to rescind over $9 billion in approved spending, the vast majority of which would go toward foreign aid programs. However, it also includes a take back of more than $1 billion in already approved funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), the congressionally funded and created company that supports public media in the United States. CPB distributes nearly all of those funds to local television and radio stations, according to NPR. The funding clawback impacts funding for the next two fiscal years.
"Public media delivers unmatched value to the American taxpayer," said Patricia Harrison, president and CEO of CPB, in a statement on Thursday. "It serves every family in every part of America."
The package passed with a 214 to 212 vote. All House Republicans except for four voted in favor of the measure, and all Democrats voted against it. It now heads to the Senate.
"From life-saving emergency alerts to local reporting and storytelling, and educational resources that support families, job seekers and teachers—these services exist because public media is committed to serving everyone, regardless of income or zip code. In many rural and underserved areas, the loss could be total," Protect My Public Media, a grassroots advocacy campaign focused on preserving federal funding for public media stations, wrote in response to the House vote. The group is driving emails to the Senate to urge lawmakers to vote against the package.
Co-CEO of the advocacy group Free Press Action, Craig Aaron, said Thursday that there is broad support for federal funding for public broadcasting.
"President [Donald] Trump is determined to destroy any news outlets that hold him accountable for his actions. As they prepare to vote on his request, senators need to know that supporting public media is healthy for their communities and our democracy. Publicly funded news outlets act as counterbalances to a commercial media system that too often puts profits before the public interest," Aaron said.
Big picture, Free Press Action says that the House vote puts the "future of public broadcasting in doubt."
In addition to slashing federal funding for NPR and PBS, the package would cut money for peacekeeping efforts, dollars for health programs that fund activities related to child and maternal health, HIV/AIDS, and infectious diseases, and funding for climate projects.
Lisa Gilbert, co-president of the watchdog group Public Citizen, highlighted some of these other cuts, as well as those to public media, and added that "Republican senators should reflect on how the rescission package threatens to blow up the annual appropriations process."
"The minority party has no reason to agree to bipartisan appropriations legislation if the president and one party alone can undo the deal," she said.
Keep ReadingShow Less
5 Ways Trump's Order to Eliminate NPR and PBS Is an Assault on American Democracy
The president's ongoing attacks on a free press are part of the administration’s concerted efforts to shut down journalism that displeases him.
May 02, 2025
Late Thursday night, President Donald Trump issued an executive order aiming to eliminate federal funding for NPR and PBS. As a rationale for the move, the White House also released a so-called “fact sheet” detailing what it claims is evidence of “left-wing propaganda.”
Even if that were true—and it’s not—any government attempt to silence the press based on viewpoint is plainly unconstitutional. Expect this latest Trump order to face a comprehensive legal challenge, similar to other successful efforts in the courts to block illegal actions from the administration.
Trump’s ongoing attacks on public media are part of the administration’s concerted efforts to shut down journalism that displeases the president. Too often commercial outlets, including those controlled by conglomerates like Disney (ABC) and Paramount (CBS), are caving to official pressure, putting their profits before their democratic principles. This is why an independent, publicly funded noncommercial media system—one that holds power accountable—is essential to healthy democracies around the world.
If we care about democracy, we should spend more—not less—on public media.
Here are five ways this latest Trump order is an assault on democracy in the United States.
1. Serious First Amendment Concerns
The White House made it clear that it’s taking this action based on Trump’s unfounded claims about coverage from NPR and PBS. This most thin-skinned of presidents has made it his job—and that of his lapdog censor at the Federal Communications Commission, Chairman Brendan Carr—to threaten and intimidate any news outlet that challenges, or even questions, his 100-day power grab. With this latest move, he’s taking it one step further, pushing to defund and destroy any public media outlet that doesn’t service his authoritarian agenda. Yet the First Amendment very clearly and succinctly prohibits the government from making any laws (and by extension, any executive orders) “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.”
2. Goes Against the Will of the American People
In poll after poll, people of all political stripes say that federal support for NPR and PBS is taxpayer money “well spent.” In other polling, Americans find PBS to be the most-trusted U.S. institution, with 63 percent of respondents expressing “a great deal of trust” or “some trust” in the network. The same survey found PBS is the “most-trusted news network” in the country. To eliminate funding for these media institutions clearly goes against the will of the majority of Americans—and that's not the way a democracy is supposed to function.
3. Undermines a Democratic Society
“Despite being the wealthiest nation on the planet, the United States impoverishes its public media infrastructures,” writes professor Victor Pickard, co-director of the University of Pennsylvania’s Media, Inequality, and Change Center (and Free Press' board chair). Pickard should know. In 2021, he co-authored a global survey with Professor Timothy Neff, which found that more robust funding for public media strengthens a given country’s democracy—with deeper public knowledge about civic affairs, more diverse media coverage and lower levels of extremist views. If we care about democracy, we should spend more—not less—on public media.
4. Expands Local “News Deserts,” Cutting Communities Off From Information They Need to Participate in Civic Life
As local newsrooms downsize or outright shut down, public-media stations fill a void. Penny Abernathy, at University of North Carolina's Center for Media Law and Policy, has extensively documented the spread of news deserts across the country. Local newspapers are closing at an exponential rate, and many local radio stations have hollowed out their newsrooms and replaced programming with nationally syndicated talk formats, often hosted by far-right figures. The expansion of news deserts across the country is a democratic issue with profound implications for our communities. Local NPR and PBS stations often provide the only local news in countless communities—and provide lifesaving information during emergencies.
The expansion of news deserts across the country is a democratic issue with profound implications for our communities.
5. An Attempted End-Run Around Congress
Congress—not the president—has the power to craft our federal budget. While the president makes spending proposals, Congress ultimately considers, amends and approves them. The nation’s founders created the system in this way to specifically put federal spending outside of this sort of control. With this executive order, Trump is attempting to short-circuit this long-established check against runaway executive power.
With the right-leaning composition of Congress, few expect GOP lawmakers to speak out against Trump's move. But past Republican-led efforts to zero out funding for public broadcasting have met fierce opposition from people across the country who are ready to pick up their phones, call their representatives and senators, and tell them to save public media.
“All of us who care about an independent press, an informed populace, a responsive government and a thriving democracy have a stake in the outcome of this fight,” says my colleague Craig Aaron, the co-CEO of Free Press. “If we unite to defend public media—and I believe we can and will prevail—then we might just save our democracy, too.”
He's exactly right.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Democracy Is on Life Support': Trump Orders Defunding of NPR and PBS
"All of us who care about an independent press, an informed populace, a responsive government, and a thriving democracy have a stake in the outcome of this fight," said one press freedom advocate.
May 02, 2025
U.S. President Donald Trump on Thursday signed an executive order calling for an end to taxpayer funding for NPR and PBS, an escalation of his dangerous assault on public media that could shutter hundreds of local stations across the country.
The president's order, which he signed behind closed doors, echoes a section of Project 2025, a far-right agenda that called for stripping public funding from NPR, PBS, and other broadcasters on the grounds that they "do not even bother to run programming that would attract conservatives."
Trump's order instructs the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB)—a private nonprofit corporation created and funded by Congress—to "cease direct funding to NPR and PBS, consistent with my administration's policy to ensure that federal funding does not support biased and partisan news coverage."
The executive order, which is expected to face legal challenges, also directs all federal agencies to "identify and terminate, to the maximum extent consistent with applicable law, any direct or indirect funding of NPR and PBS."
Craig Aaron, co-CEO of the advocacy group Free Press, said in a statement Friday that "Trump's attack on public media shows why our democracy is on life support."
"After years of attacking journalists and lying about their work, it's no surprise that Trump and his minions are trying to silence and shutter any newsroom that dares to ask him questions or show the devastating impact of his policies on local communities," said Aaron. "Yet in many of those communities, the local public-media station is the only source of independent reporting. Trump, of course, prefers fawning propaganda—which too many commercial TV and radio broadcasters are willing to provide in exchange for regulatory favors, or to stay off the president's target list."
"All of us who care about an independent press, an informed populace, a responsive government, and a thriving democracy have a stake in the outcome of this fight," he added. "If we unite to defend public media—and I believe we can and will prevail—then we might just save our democracy, too."dele'
It’s not just NPR and PBS, they’re coming to fuck with your local public radio. www.whitehouse.gov/presidential...
[image or embed]
— Matt Pearce (@mattdpearce.com) May 2, 2025 at 12:50 AM
Trump's move was expected, and it came in the wake of reports that the administration intends to ask Congress to rescind previously approved funding for CPB, which is already engaged in a court fight with the president over his attempt to fire several of the organization's board members. The Associated Press reported Thursday that the rescission request "has not yet been sent to Capitol Hill."
According to the organizations' estimates, federal funding accounts for roughly 1% of NPR's annual budget and 15% of PBS's yearly revenue.
In a letter to congressional leaders earlier this week, a coalition of civil society groups led by Reporters Without Borders (RSF) warned that, if enacted, Trump's proposed funding cuts for public broadcasting "will result in the shutdown of dozens, if not hundreds, of local, independent radio and television stations serving Americans in every corner of the country."
"As it stands, public media journalists are often the only reporters attending a school board meeting, or a local zoning hearing, or at the scene of a crime," the groups wrote. "They are the journalists most likely to hold local public officials accountable and expose
corruption. Faraway digital media outlets will not replicate this coverage, and the American public will lose out."
Trump's attack on public broadcasters is part of his administration's broader effort to undermine journalism in the United States and around the world.
RSF said in a report published Friday that Trump's "early moves in his second mandate to politicize the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), ban The Associated Press from the White House, or dismantle the U.S. Agency for Global Media, for example, have jeopardized the country's news outlets and indicate that he intends to follow through on his threats, setting up a potential crisis for American journalism."
"After a century of gradual expansion of press rights in the United States," the group said, "the country is experiencing its first significant and prolonged decline in press freedom in modern history, and Donald Trump's return to the presidency is greatly exacerbating the situation."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump's MAGA Wants To Kill US Public Broadcasting Because It Symbolizes a Better World
Anything representing the idea that the state could in any way contribute to the greater good is horrific and must be crushed.
Apr 25, 2025
The Trump Administration has announced its intention to withdraw over $1 billion in funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), the organization that supports public broadcasting in the United States in the form of the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) and National Public Radio (NPR).
Although federal funding makes up only a small portion of the overall budgets for these organizations—a combination of private donations, corporate sponsorship, state financing makes up a larger part—the funding is vital for public television and radio in smaller local markets where public or corporate support is difficult to obtain. The cuts would likely kill off those smaller stations and weaken those in larger markets.
In effect, the last traces of public media would disappear from large sections of the United States, leaving them entirely in the hands of corporate media.
This attack on U.S. public media is perhaps the least surprising news imaginable. When I was interviewed last month here in Sweden after Trump effectively shut down Voice of America (VOA), I was asked what could be next on the Republican media agenda. I didn’t hesitate in my response: next would be the de-funding of the nation's public broadcasting system. To me, it wasn’t a question of if…but when.
In its classic form, public service broadcasting of the type we have here in Europe treats the inhabitants of the country not as potential consumers, but as actual citizens.
The threat to kill public broadcasting in the U.S. is not the same as the killing of Voice of America. Through stations such as Radio Free Europe, VOA had always had been the mouthpiece of the U.S. state. It was part of global U.S. soft power, promoting the nation's foreign policy and economic interests. It was anything but objective, independent journalism.
PBS and NPR, on the other hand, are something entirely different. They represent an alternative model for how media in the U.S. could be…or, at least, could have been. Created in 1967 under President Lyndon Johnson, and decades after private media giants ABC, NBC, and CBS had been allowed to take near-complete control over U.S. broadcasting, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting was meant to provide U.S. citizens with a non-commercial media alternative.
Unlike their European counterparts, however, which began as well-financed monopolies in the 1920s and 1930s, U.S. public media were born weak. They were never meant to challenge the power of U.S. corporate media.
For the past half century, U.S. public broadcasting has existed at the margins of the national media ecosystem, producing high-quality educational programming and decent news that attracted a predominantly well-educated, urban audience. Low levels of federal funding meant that U.S. public broadcasting, again unlike European counterparts such as Sweden's SVT or the UK's BBC, was forced to take money from corporations in order to survive. When I lived in the U.S., PBS took so much "sponsorship” money from oil companies such as ExxonMobil that it was jokingly referred to as the “Petroleum Broadcasting System.”
So, why kill off the last remnants of a media system that attracts only a tiny fraction of the U.S. audience and gets the majority of its financing from non-government sources?
Simple. Because of what it represents.
The Trump administration and its oligarchy of advisors have as their central goal to destroy or undermine any and all institutions in U.S. society that either suggest an alternative to private, corporate control or provide a counter-argument to the myth that the “free market” is the best option for structuring U.S. society: from education to health care to media. The very idea that the state could in any way contribute to the greater good is horrific and must be crushed.
In its classic form, public service broadcasting of the type we have here in Europe treats the inhabitants of the country not as potential consumers, but as actual citizens. In modern societies, absolutely soaked in the logic of consumption, there needs to be at least a few spaces where your value is seen as inherent and not related to how much disposable income you have.
Here in Sweden, for example, that includes not just public broadcasting, but things like universal healthcare and university education. The logic is simple: being informed, being healthy and being educated should not be privileges restricted to those who can afford it. And, a well-informed, healthy and well-educated society benefits everyone.
Public broadcasting in the U.S. is in need of serious reform. And, public broadcasting in Europe isn’t perfect. But, despite their various flaws, their value can be found not only in what they produce in terms of content, but in what they tell people about how society can be structured. That working alternatives exist and can co-exist. That it’s possible to have a free market, but at the same time recognize there are some elements of society too important to be left to the mercies of corporations, billionaires, and profit margins.
For people like Trump and Musk, these non-commercial spaces of citizenship are viruses eating away at profits. But they aren’t the virus.
They are the vaccine.
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy