logo
Public media braces for the worst

Public media braces for the worst

Politico6 days ago
Presented by Chevron
Welcome to POLITICO's West Wing Playbook: Remaking Government, your guide to Donald Trump's unprecedented overhaul of the federal government — the key decisions, the critical characters and the power dynamics that are upending Washington and beyond.
Send tips | Subscribe | Email Sophia | Email Irie | Email Ben
Staffers at local NPR and PBS stations around the country were devastated by the news last week that Congress approved $1.1 billion in federal funding cuts to public media, a move that could jeopardize the futures of dozens of stations.
Small, as well as rural, public media stations that heavily rely on federal funding to operate are now bracing for the unknown after Congress approved a package on Thursday that will claw back Corporation for Public Broadcasting funding.
Some stations say they're being punished over a fight between President DONALD TRUMP and the national public broadcasting organizations that have little relationship to the service smaller outlets offer their communities.
'I think [lawmakers'] decisions were not informed,' said DON DUNLAP, president and general manager of KEDT-TV/FM, a public radio and TV station in Corpus Christi, Texas. 'We're there to help people. There are 10 public TV stations in Texas, and we're thinking probably six of them will close down within a year.'
In April, Trump asked Congress to roll back funding for NPR and PBS, which he has long accused of bias against him and other Republicans — a claim both outlets have denied. The public media cuts are one aspect of the Trump administration's aggressive campaign against media outlets it deems as partisan. Trump has taken legal action against several news organizations, including CBS, ABC and The Wall Street Journal, over unfavorable coverage.
Several station heads told POLITICO they've been preparing for potential cuts since the Trump administration first floated the idea earlier this year.
For hundreds of stations, federal money makes up a significant portion of their total funding. According to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, about 45 percent of all public media stations that received their grants are in rural areas, and nearly half of those rely on CPB for 25 percent or more of their annual budget.
Without federal funding, those stations may be forced into layoffs and programming cuts, if they're able to survive at all.
According to data obtained by POLITICO, 34 public radio and TV stations receive at least 50 percent of their funding from federal grants. Twelve of those stations are in Alaska.
'We can't fundraise our way out of this. We have to make other decisions,' said MOLLIE KABLER, executive director of CoastAlaska, which oversees six public radio stations in southern Alaska. 'We have to consider, 'What services are we going to give up? What people are we going to let go of? And how can we find a way to collaborate and retain service for Alaskans?''
Public media staffers from local affiliates to the national networks have been lobbying Republicans in Congress for weeks in hopes of staving off the cuts. In the end, only four Republicans in both chambers voted against the final version of the package, which also included cuts to foreign aid: Sens. LISA MURKOWSKI of Alaska and SUSAN COLLINS of Maine, and Reps. MIKE TURNER of Ohio and BRIAN FITZPATRICK of Pennsylvania.
'NPR and PBS decide how to allocate their budgets, so any potential effects to news stations will stem from their own budget choices – not federal spending reductions,' a House leadership aide said in a statement. 'It's up to the networks to manage funds wisely and root out waste so rural stations can succeed.'
Representatives for Senate Majority Leader JOHN THUNE did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
An Office of Management and Budget spokesperson refuted claims that local NPR and PBS affiliates had remained nonpartisan, saying in a statement they had 'politicized their own coverage by relying on syndicated programming from their national org.'
'Democratic paper-pushers masquerading as reporters don't deserve taxpayer subsidies, and NPR and PBS will have to learn to survive on their own,' said White House principal deputy press secretary HARRISON FIELDS. 'Unfortunately for them, their only lifeline was taxpayer dollars, and that ended when President Trump was sworn in.'
Read the full story here.
MESSAGE US — West Wing Playbook is obsessively covering the Trump administration's reshaping of the federal government. Are you a federal worker? A DOGE staffer? Have you picked up on any upcoming DOGE moves? We want to hear from you on how this is playing out. Email us at westwingtips@politico.com.
Did someone forward this email to you? Subscribe!
POTUS PUZZLER
Which former president served for 18 years in Congress after his presidency?
(Answer at bottom.)
Agenda Setting
NEW GSA HEAD: Trump today appointed MIKE RIGAS as acting administrator of the General Services Administration, Sophia reports, effectively layering DOGE-aligned STEPHEN EHIKIAN and JOSH GRUENBAUM atop the agency.
GSA staffers and people close to DOGE view the appointment as a strategic move by the White House to rein in Ehikian, the former acting administrator, and Gruenbaum, the commissioner of the Federal Acquisition Service within GSA. They were chosen by DOGE's former operational lead, STEVE DAVIS, to lead DOGE after Davis and ELON MUSK left government, according to three people familiar with the internal workings of DOGE and GSA, granted anonymity to speak candidly.
The change in leadership is a notable shift for GSA, one of two federal agencies that Musk came closest to controlling earlier this year. It's also the most significant public step the White House has taken to diminish the role of Musk loyalists following his exit.
'The GSA has been a pillar of this success, and the President has full confidence in their ongoing work to advance this transformative agenda,' Fields, the White House spokesperson, said in a statement.
WSJ BOOTED: The White House is removing The Wall Street Journal from the pool of reporters covering the president's weekend trip to Scotland, White House press secretary KAROLINE LEAVITT told POLITICO, our ELI STOKOLS and Irie report.
The move follows the Journal's report last week alleging that Trump sent a sexually suggestive message to JEFFREY EPSTEIN in 2003. Trump has denied the existence of the letter and POLITICO has not verified it.
TARINI PARTI, a White House reporter for the Journal who did not have a byline on the Epstein story, had been scheduled to serve as the print pooler for the final two days of Trump's four-day trip to his golf courses in Scotland. But the White House, which earlier this year took over control of pool rotations from the White House Correspondents' Association, removed her from the trip manifest, Leavitt said.
'Due to the Wall Street Journal's fake and defamatory conduct, they will not be one of the thirteen outlets on board' Air Force One, Leavitt said in a statement.
A Journal spokesperson declined to comment. A White House spokesperson declined to comment on whether the Journal would be included in the pool in the future, either on the White House campus or on subsequent trips.
FINAL CBO SCORE: The Congressional Budget Office today released its final prediction for how the GOP megalaw will grow the national debt and impact American households over the next decade, our JENNIFER SCHOLTES, ROBERT KING and BENJAMIN GUGGENHEIM report.
Over the next decade, Trump's signature legislation would increase the federal deficit by $3.4 trillion and cause 10 million people to lose health insurance, the CBO forecasts. While the law would save more than $1 trillion by cutting federal spending on health care — with the majority coming from Medicaid — CBO predicts that the package's costs will far outweigh its savings.
Following the report's release, Leavitt told reporters outside the White House the legislation was 'a fiscally responsible bill, one of the most fiscally conservative pieces of legislation for its size that has ever crossed through Capitol Hill.' She emphasized that Trump 'wants to cut our deficit' and said he would do so with tariff revenue.
In the Courts
SHOW ME THE MONEY: A federal judge ruled today that the Trump administration is violating the law by concealing how it spends congressionally appropriated funds by taking down a public website that displayed that information, our ERICA ORDEN writes in.
In a 60-page decision, U.S. District Judge EMMET SULLIVAN wrote that 'there is nothing unconstitutional about Congress requiring the Executive Branch to inform the public of how it is apportioning the public's money.' Sullivan, an appointee of BILL CLINTON, added: 'Defendants are therefore required to stop violating the law!'
Sullivan ordered the Trump administration to reinstate the database, but paused his order until Thursday to allow time for an appeal. The ruling is a win for the nonprofits Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and Protect Democracy Project, both of which sued the OMB and its director, RUSS VOUGHT. A White House spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the ruling.
ACCESS TO COUNSEL: A federal judge today ordered the administration to reinstate a policy to provide legal counsel to immigrants in deportation proceedings who are deemed mentally incompetent, our KYLE CHENEY writes in. U.S. District Judge AMIR ALI concluded that the administration had failed to justify eliminating the policy, leaving vulnerable people at risk during complex proceedings.
Ali, an appointee of JOE BIDEN, noted that the program had helped thousands of immigrants with mental disabilities access counsel during immigration cases, and when it was cut from DOJ's books earlier this year, the only explanation was that it was for 'convenience.' A White House spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the ruling.
DEFYING THE COURTS, BY THE NUMBERS: Trump administration officials have been accused of defying the courts in a third of lawsuits in which a judge has delivered a substantive ruling against the administration, WaPo's JUSTIN JOUVENAL reports.
A Post analysis of more than 337 lawsuits brought against the administration found that judges had ruled against the Trump administration in 165 lawsuits, as of mid-July. The administration has been 'accused of defying or frustrating court oversight in 57 of those cases — almost 35 percent,' the analysis found. Trump officials, who accuse the courts of 'judicial tyranny,' have denied defying the orders.
Fields in a statement called judges who have ruled against the president 'leftist' and said the president's attorneys 'are working tirelessly to comply' with rulings. 'If not for the leadership of the Supreme Court, the Judicial Branch would collapse into a kangaroo court,' he said.
What We're Reading
How the 2017 Trump tax cuts ballooned the 'big, beautiful bill' (POLITICO's Taylor Miller Thomas, Paula Friedrich and Jonathan Lai)
6 months after DOGE upended their lives, 6 former federal workers reveal their advice for others (Business Insider's Ayelet Sheffey, Jack Newsham, Juliana Kaplan, and Alice Tecotzky)
When Getting Fired Is Only the Beginning for Federal Workers (NYT's Eileen Sullivan)
Donald Trump's Tariff Dealmaker-in-Chief (The New Yorker's Antonia Hitchens)
As Trump's raids ramp up, a Texas region's residents stay inside — even when they need medical care (AP's Amanda Seitz and Jacquelyn Martin)
POTUS PUZZLER ANSWER
That would be former President JOHN QUINCY ADAMS, who served nearly two decades in Congress after concluding his term as sixth president of the United States in 1829. Adams suffered a stroke at his desk in the House chamber and ultimately died in the speaker's office. (Source: The Library of Congress)
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

As Trump's trade deal deadline approaches, his tariffs face legal pushback in court
As Trump's trade deal deadline approaches, his tariffs face legal pushback in court

Yahoo

time28 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

As Trump's trade deal deadline approaches, his tariffs face legal pushback in court

WASHINGTON — Donald Trump's plan to realign global trade faces its latest legal barrier this week in a federal appeals court — and Canada is bracing for the U.S. president to follow through on his threat to impose higher tariffs. While Trump set an Aug. 1 deadline for countries to make trade deals with the United States, the president's ultimatum has so far resulted in only a handful of frameworks for trade agreements. Deals have been announced for Japan, Vietnam, Indonesia, the Philippines and the United Kingdom — but Trump indicated last week that an agreement with Canada is far from complete. "We don't have a deal with Canada, we haven't been focused on it," Trump told reporters Friday. Trump sent a letter to Prime Minister Mark Carney threatening to impose 35 per cent tariffs if Canada doesn't make a trade deal by the deadline. The White House has said those duties would not apply to goods compliant with the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement on trade. Canadian officials have also downplayed expectations of a new economic and security agreement materializing by Friday. "We'll use all the time that's necessary," Carney said last week. Countries around the world will also be watching as Trump's use of a national security statute to hit nations with tariffs faces scrutiny in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The U.S. Court of International Trade ruled in May that Trump does not have the authority to wield tariffs on nearly every country through the use of the International Economic Emergency Powers Act of 1977. The act, usually referred to by the acronym IEEPA, gives the U.S. president authority to control economic transactions after declaring an emergency. No previous president had ever used it for tariffs and the U.S. Constitution gives power over taxes and tariffs to Congress. The Trump administration quickly appealed the lower court's ruling on the so-called "Liberation Day" and fentanyl-related tariffs and arguments are set to be heard in the appeal court on Thursday. The hearing combines two different cases that were pushing against Trump's tariffs. One involves five American small businesses arguing specifically against Trump's worldwide tariffs, and the other came from 12 states pushing back on both the "Liberation Day" duties and the fentanyl-related tariffs. George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin called Trump's tariff actions a "massive power grab." Somin, along with the Liberty Justice Center, is representing the American small businesses. "We are hopeful — we can't know for sure obviously — we are hopeful that we will continue to prevail in court," Somin said. Somin said they are arguing that IEEPA does not "give the president the power to impose any tariff he wants, on any nation, for any reason, for as long as he wants, whenever he feels like it." He added that "the law also says there must be an emergency and an unusual and extraordinary threat to American security or the economy" — and neither the flow of fentanyl from Canada nor a trade deficit meet that definition. U.S. government data shows a minuscule volume of fentanyl is seized at the northern border. The White House has said the Trump administration is legally using powers granted to the executive branch by the Constitution and Congress to address America's "national emergencies of persistent goods trade deficits and drug trafficking." There have been 18 amicus briefs — a legal submission from a group that's not party to the action — filed in support of the small businesses and states pushing against Trump's tariffs. Two were filed in support of the Trump administration's actions. Brent Skorup, a legal fellow at the Washington-based Cato Institute, said the Trump administration is taking a vague statute and claiming powers never deployed by a president before. The Cato Institute submitted a brief that argued "the Constitution specifies that Congress has the power to set tariffs and duties." Skorup said there are serious issues with the Trump administration's interpretation of IEEPA. "We don't want power consolidated into a single king or president," he said. It's expected the appeals court will expedite its ruling. Even if it rules against the duties, however, they may not be immediately lifted. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt has said the Supreme Court should "put an end to this." There are at least eight lawsuits challenging the tariffs. Canada is also being hit with tariffs on steel, aluminum and automobiles. Trump used different powers under the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 to enact those duties. This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 27, 2025. Kelly Geraldine Malone, The Canadian Press

U.S. politics threaten to complicate Canada's co-hosting of 2026 World Cup
U.S. politics threaten to complicate Canada's co-hosting of 2026 World Cup

Yahoo

time28 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

U.S. politics threaten to complicate Canada's co-hosting of 2026 World Cup

OTTAWA — With less than a year to go until the 2026 World Cup, political tensions and U.S. policy threaten to pose problems as Canada, the United States and Mexico prepare to co-host the tournament. Next year's FIFA World Cup will be the biggest ever, with the three countries hosting a record 48 teams. Between June 11 and July 19, they will play 104 matches, most of them in the U.S. With millions of fans expected to cross borders to attend the games, U.S. President Donald Trump's harsh immigration policies — which include travel bans on some countries, immigration raids and mass deportations — are generating anxiety. "This is all being driven by the United States. And we're entirely the guilty party here," said Victor Matheson, a professor at College of Holy Cross in Massachusetts who specializes in sports economics. "You could have significant immigration problems with fans and players going across borders." The U.S. has travel bans in place for 12 countries and restrictions in place for seven, and is considering banning travellers from another 36 countries. Though there are exemptions for athletes, staff and families, the unpredictability of Trump's administration means no one knows for certain what kind of rules might be in place by the time the tournament starts. Economist Andrew Zimbalist, who wrote a book on the economics of hosting the World Cup, said Trump has the ability to make it difficult for people to travel, but it's not clear whether he will actually do so. "I think probably Trump himself might not have the answers because … he responds very impetuously to changes in his environment," he said. Concerns about visas or political opposition to Trump might lead some soccer fans to decide not to attend at all, while others opt to attend the games in Canada instead, Zimbalist suggested. But he also pointed out that the quarter, semifinals and final are all taking place in the U.S. A spokesperson for Canadian Heritage said Canada could see a million international visitors during the tournament. "Given the tri-national nature of the event, it is anticipated that international and domestic travellers will move back and forth between Canada and the United States. The focus will continue to be on the flow of movement, the safety of travellers and the security of the borders," the spokesperson said. A spokesperson for the Canada Border Services Agency said the agency is working closely with federal government departments, host cities and FIFA "in the safety and security planning for this international event." Matheson said fans — particularly those from countries that have found themselves in Trump's crosshairs — have good reasons to be worried. "I would be very concerned about planning a vacation that has you travelling from Mexico or from Canada into the United States and back. I don't think that you can guarantee that vacation of a lifetime is actually going to be there for you to actually take," he said. He said it's one thing to be denied entry, another to end up in jail and deported — potentially to a prison in El Salvador. "No one wants to go to the World Cup to watch some soccer games and then end up in jail," he said. Trump's moves to impose tariffs on much of the world, including Canada, could also affect the World Cup. Matheson offered the example of someone who makes jerseys for a country's team who would want to ship those jerseys across the border with the team. "Tariffs make that type of inventory management pretty challenging," he said. Tim Elcombe is a professor at Wilfrid Laurier University whose areas of expertise include sports, politics and international affairs. He said "there was a sense that having the event in Canada, the United States and Mexico would almost be a bit of a calming of the political waters," as the cup returned to Western countries. Instead, he said, the 2026 tournament may be even more politically charged than the 2022 World Cup in Qatar. Canada is co-hosting one of world's biggest sporting events with a country whose president has instigated a trade war and threatened annexation. Canadians have cut travel to the U.S. and stopped buying American products — and it's not clear what all of that might mean for the World Cup. While Vancouver and Toronto will host some games, "really this is an American-centric competition," Elcombe said. "So how will Canadians feel about this? Will we get behind it? Will it become the event I think they were hoping it would be?" In early July, labour and human rights groups, including Human Rights Watch, wrote to FIFA president Gianni Infantino to say U.S. policies under Trump pose a "serious threat" to individuals, especially non-citizens. The letter accused FIFA of ignoring "the clear evidence of the significant deterioration of the rights climate in the United States." Elcombe said while the United States is likely to take the brunt of scrutiny, Canada is not immune. "Canada is going to have to be prepared for a very critical eye in terms of focus on some of the issues in Canada from a human rights perspective, because I think they will be exposed," he said, citing Canada's relationship with Indigenous Peoples as one example. MacIntosh Ross, a fellow at the Scott McCain and Leslie McLean Centre for Sport, Business and Health at Saint Mary's University, said Canada should put pressure on the U.S. government "to make sure that things happen in a safe or as safe a manner as possible." "The Canadian organizers and the Canadian government need to be very clear about their expectations for their partners in this World Cup and reiterate them and state them over and over again," he said. Elcombe noted Infantino, who has "very much established himself as a friend and supporter of President Trump," could be a key player in determining how the coming months unfold. It's difficult to predict what Trump might do, Zimbalist said. If there are political issues in the United States that he wants to distract people from, "you can see him doing crazier and crazier things internationally to get people's minds off of what's actually happening." But Trump also has shown that he cares about the World Cup and looking good as he hosts the tournament. "I think he does care about image and he does care about being on the world stage," Zimbalist said. "So I can see that being a significant deterrent, actually." This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 27, 2025. Anja Karadeglija, The Canadian Press Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

Trump team's ‘pocket rescission' idea runs into GOP opposition
Trump team's ‘pocket rescission' idea runs into GOP opposition

The Hill

time29 minutes ago

  • The Hill

Trump team's ‘pocket rescission' idea runs into GOP opposition

Some Republicans in Congress are uneasy about the possibility the Trump administration will use a 'pocket rescission' to claw back already approved government funding as fears of a fall shutdown rise. The Trump administration has already clawed back funds through the use of a rescissions package that passed both chambers of Congress, and some GOP lawmakers are concerned about having to vote on a second, possibly politically tougher, package of cuts. But these lawmakers say the use of pocket rescissions, an idea floated by the White House's budget chief that could yank back money without input from lawmakers, could create bad feelings not only with Democrats, but also with Republicans. 'Pocket rescissions, I think, are unconstitutional,' said Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho), a spending cardinal, this week. 'So, just like impoundment, I think, is unconstitutional.' 'So we'll see how it goes,' he said. Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought referred to pocket rescissions as 'one of the executive tools' that are 'on the table' earlier this month, as the administration continues a sweeping operation aimed at reducing federal spending. 'The president was elected to get us to balance, to deal with our fiscal situation, and we're going to use all of the tools that are there depending on the situation, and as we move through the year,' he said at an event. However, he also noted then that the administration hasn't yet 'made a determination to use it in part because we're making progress during the normal course of business with Congress.' Trump became the first president in decades to successfully claw back funds through the special rescissions process, with the GOP-led Congress agreeing to pull back about $9 billion in previously allocated funding for foreign aid and public broadcasting. The Impoundment Control Act (ICA) lays out rules governing that process and allows the administration to temporarily withhold funding for 45 days while Congress considers the request. If Congress opts not to approve the request in the timeframe, the funds must be released. Under a pocket rescission, however, experts say the president would send the same type of request to Congress, but do so within 45 days of the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30. The targeted funds could then essentially be held until the clock runs out and they expire. Vought has described the tactic as 'no different than a normal rescission, except for the timing of when it occurs.' 'A pocket rescission occurs later in the end of the fiscal year, within 45 days of the time that you have to hold the funding, and then the money evaporates at the end of the fiscal year,' he said. But some budget experts have strongly pushed back on the budget chief's characterization, arguing the tactic is 'illegal' and undermines the intent of the ICA. The Government Accountability Office also said during Trump's first presidential term that the law does not allow 'the withholding of funds through their date of expiration.' 'It is a method through which [Vought] would get to impound funds against congressional intent,' said Bobby Kogan, a former Senate budget aide and senior director of federal budget policy at the left-leaning Center for American Progress, in a recent interview. 'Pocket rescission says, 'Well, what if I send up a request 45 days before the end of the fiscal year, then even if Congress says no, I can still end all funding for the rest of the year, right?'' he argued. 'Like that's the concept behind a pocket rescission. Profoundly illegal because it would allow you to impound funds without congressional approval, which is illegal.' At the same time, other experts have argued impoundment law is murky on the matter and have described the tactic as a potential loophole. Some have defended the administration's interpretation of the law and argue lawmakers would have prohibited the maneuver over the years if they wanted to. Not all Republicans are certain about the legality of the use of pocket rescissions, however. 'I don't know. I haven't researched it,' Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.), a senior appropriator and former attorney, said this week when asked by reporters whether pocket rescissions were legal. 'I'd prefer that we not do it that way.' The Louisiana Republican, who has been pushing for the White House to work with Congress to get more rescissions packages out the door, instead said it 'wouldn't bother' him if the administration sent 'a rescission package a week and spell out in detail what they want to propose we cut.' There's been concern from members on both sides of the aisle that the administration's plans to continue to claw back federal funding with only GOP support could threaten bipartisan funding talks for fiscal 2026. But Republican rifts over the president's latest rescissions requests were also an issue. The party clashed over potential cuts to programs like the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief and public broadcasting dollars that help fund not only PBS and NPR, but also local stations some Republicans say their constituents depend on. Under the pocket rescissions strategy, experts say the administration could reduce some funding by strategically holding up appropriations set to expire at the end of the fiscal year. If Congress chooses not to approve the administration's request for cuts, it could still provide funding for the program as part of a deal to keep the government open past September. Congress often opts to keep government funding levels mostly the same at the start of a new fiscal year to buy time for a larger deal updating funding levels. But experts have emphasized that would be 'new funding,' noting funding an account was denied at the end of the fiscal year as part of a pocket rescission likely would not roll over into the next. Asked whether another rescissions plan could worsen the outlook for a funding deal for fiscal 2026, House Appropriations Chair Tom Cole (R-Okla.) said this week that 'the only thing that would worry me is if Congress didn't get a chance to vote on it, that's the key thing.' 'I don't want to see things up here that get jammed where Congress doesn't vote.' Cole was asked whether he was referring to pocket rescissions. 'I don't care procedurally what you want to call it,' he responded. 'I expect Congress to vote on these things, and you know that would worry me, and I know that would worry my colleagues in the other chamber, on both sides of the aisle, certainly worry my Democratic colleagues here.' 'And there's a lot of Republican concern about this too,' he added.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store