logo
States are trying to save local news from Big Tech. Trump isn't helping.

States are trying to save local news from Big Tech. Trump isn't helping.

Politico8 hours ago

SACRAMENTO, California — Blue-state lawmakers are increasingly turning to tech giants for cash to save struggling newsrooms, fearful that President Donald Trump's policies could crush already reeling local news outlets.
Democrats in five blue states — Hawaii, Illinois, New York, Oregon and Washington — have been pushing to make tech companies pay outlets in exchange for displaying news content, arguing newsrooms should be reimbursed for advertising revenues lost to aggregation on sites like Google News and Facebook.
The efforts are ratcheting up in the face of a multifaceted challenge from the Trump administration, already hostile to traditional journalism outlets, as it seeks spending cuts for public media and enacts economic policies that states say have hurt their ability to backstop local newsroom funding.
'Whether it's tariffs on newsprint imported from Canada or a reduction in funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and others — all of these have a negative impact,' said Democratic Washington state Sen. Marko Liias, who introduced a tech tax proposal this year. 'What they're doing at the federal level is pushing us in the wrong direction.'
The strategy of forcing online platforms to pay for news content isn't new, tested in countries like Canada and Australia, which saw fierce pushback from Google and Meta when they passed their own laws.
Still, state lawmakers see it as the best option to tap into vast tech resources, given their own tight budgets.
'Big Tech should compensate local newsrooms for [content] they've been profiting from for many, many years,' said Illinois Sen. Steve Stadelman, a Democrat who worked as a local TV journalist for more than two decades before assuming office.
California — home to one of the country's largest media markets that has seen significant journalist layoffs in recent years — attempted the same approach last year, but also faced forceful opposition from tech. Sacramento ended up striking a handshake deal with Google to jointly fund newsrooms through public and private funds, but even that effort has been downsized this year.
That may spell trouble ahead for the other states trying to follow its lead: Bills in Hawaii, Illinois, New York and Washington all failed this year, though lawmakers have vowed to revive them. Oregon's proposal is still working through the Legislature but is short on time.
'There's no question that our state budget this year doesn't leave any room for discretionary funding,' said California state Sen. Catherine Blakespear, a vocal advocate for funding local news with public money. 'The question is, what are the state's priorities?'
Journalism's decline started long before the Trump era. Newspaper employment has plummeted 70 percent in the last two decades as a net total of 3,300 papers shuttered, according to Northwestern University's Medill School of Journalism.
Shrinking ad revenue coupled with dwindling print subscriptions has fueled the downward spiral. A 2023 Pew Research report found annual U.S. newspaper ad revenues fell from a 2005 peak of nearly $50 billion to less than $10 billion in 2022 as the advertising business shifted away from lucrative print placements toward less profitable online ads.
The decline coincides with skyrocketing ad revenues for tech companies. Online advertising is projected to be a $1 trillion market by 2027, with Google and Meta dominating the sector; Google's advertising revenue alone represented nearly 1 percent of America's entire economic output in 2023.
Changes under the Trump administration have exacerbated journalism's struggles, critics argue. House Republicans last week approved the president's plan to claw back $1.1 billion from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which awards grants to PBS and NPR affiliate stations. The funding cut promises to trigger staff and programming reductions for rural stations that rely more heavily on CPB grants.
'It's so ideological and frustrating, because the people who benefit most from public broadcast stations tend to be, ironically, in Republican areas, more rural areas,' Stadelman said.
Meanwhile, Trump's on-again, off-again tariffs and proposed cuts to Medicaid and federal food aid in congressional Republicans' domestic policy megabill threaten to destabilize already tight budgets in blue states, forcing lawmakers to reconsider how much cash they're willing to spare for local journalism.
Trump has argued his funding cuts recoup wasted government spending and accused NPR and PBS of being 'very biased' toward left-leaning causes.
White House spokesperson Harrison Fields said it's 'well within' Republicans' authority to eliminate taxpayer funding for 'biased news services.' Public media leaders insist their coverage is nonpartisan and argue the president's move to slash their funding is unlawful.
'It's no surprise that Democrat governors are shamelessly gaslighting the President's effective tariff policies to cover for their abysmal mismanagement of their states,' Fields said in a statement. 'This mission will continue regardless of what blue-state blowhards say.'
Tech critics seeking to make up for journalism losses argue platforms like Google News and Facebook allow readers to skim hundreds of headlines without paying for a news subscription, stealing viewers from news sites and leaving outlets with fewer, less profitable advertising opportunities.
'They are the ones who are in part responsible for destroying local news,' said Connie Leyva, a former California state senator who now leads PBS member station KVCR in San Bernardino, outside Los Angeles. 'They're not hurting.'
Google and Meta didn't respond to questions about state journalism efforts, but have previously argued measures taxing their advertising revenue are illegal and impede online access to news content.
In California, State Assemblymember Buffy Wicks proposed legislation in 2023 that would have forced Google and Meta to bargain with outlets on a set price for sharing news content. Wicks used the legislation as leverage to negotiate with Google, resulting in a first-of-its-kind news funding agreement last August.
But the agreement has been pared back as California stares down a $12 billion budget hole that Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom blamed largely on Trump's tariffs. Newsom in his May budget plan slashed the state's first-year payment by two-thirds to just $10 million. A week later, Google reduced its first-year contribution by one-third to match California's investment.
Journalist groups that already saw the agreement as a sweetheart deal for Google said the downsizing left newsrooms to fight for crumbs. Wicks and her allies were relieved to receive any public money in a tough budget year, even though the amount was lower than anticipated.
'Facing what we're facing now, it could have been zero,' said Regina Wilson, executive director of California Black Media, which advocates for Black-owned, independent news publications.
Democrats in other states that are eager to make platforms finance local journalism are struggling to advance their legislation amid similar budget challenges and tech pushback.
'That's why it was kind of a big deal when Assemblymember Wicks announced that settlement last year because it wasn't really just about California. It was about all the other states too,' said Matt Pearce, policy director at the nonprofit Rebuild Local News. 'California was definitely a huge letdown to that community.'
The most promising effort so far has come in Oregon, where Democratic state Sen. Khanh Pham is pushing to make tech firms pay local outlets for monetizing their digital news content, with 10 percent of the proceeds earmarked for journalism programs housed at the University of Oregon. Pham's bill is awaiting a vote in the Legislature's upper chamber, and Democratic Gov. Tina Kotek has expressed support for the idea.
However, First Amendment complaints from tech companies forced staffers to spend extra time ensuring the bill was legally sound. Now, Pham has mere days to push the bill through both houses of Oregon's Legislature before session ends on June 29.
'The platforms have been lobbying very intensively against this bill from day one of the session,' said Pham staffer Doyle Canning. 'It's quite remarkable that we have made it this far.'
Liias wasn't as successful across the border in Washington. The senator's proposal to fund a journalism grant program by taxing social media platforms and search engines stalled early in the legislative process amid resistance from tech companies, and as Washington advanced other taxes to close budget gaps. Lawmakers cannot reconsider the measure until 2026.
'Unfortunately, we don't have the same market power that Californa does,' Liias said. '[It] would've been nice to reach some sort of negotiated agreement.'
Other Democrat-led bills fared even worse: New York state Sen. Rachel May's proposal to make tech companies negotiate a fair price for news-link sharing stalled this spring without receiving a committee hearing, as did Hawaii state Rep. Ikaika Hussey's plan to fund outlets by taxing platforms' advertising revenues. Hussey chalked the result up to his inexperience as a first-term lawmaker and said he plans to tweak his approach before reintroducing the bill.
In Illinois, Stadelman for the second year in a row decided to delay his bill that would force platforms to pay local publishers an agreed-upon fee for sharing news links. His decision comes as Illinois advances more than $700 million in new taxes aimed at closing budget gaps that Democratic Gov. JB Pritzker blamed in part on 'Trump's incomprehensible tariff policies.'
It didn't help that Meta vowed to ban news content from its platforms in Illinois if Stadelman's measure passed — a threat the company and Google have posed in other places that passed or attempted similar legislation, like California, Australia and Canada.
Stadelman said he's 'waiting to see how things play out in California' before reviving his bill. However, he cautioned that the funding model other lawmakers are pushing — raising funds by making companies pay for sharing news links — could face yet another threat from an emergent technology: artificial intelligence, which sites like Google are increasingly embracing to generate search summaries.
Stadelman hopes state lawmakers will coordinate their efforts to find a solution that thwarts Big Tech's lobbying playbook while guarding against the growing threat that AI will further reduce traffic to local news sites.
'We need to find a way for the states to work together,' Stadelman said. 'If states work together, maybe that increases our leverage.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump's parade didn't make him feel tough. Maybe a war with Iran will?
Trump's parade didn't make him feel tough. Maybe a war with Iran will?

USA Today

time12 minutes ago

  • USA Today

Trump's parade didn't make him feel tough. Maybe a war with Iran will?

Trump's parade didn't make him feel tough. Maybe a war with Iran will? | Opinion Trump is proving, as if we needed proof, that insecure men are dangerous. They act impulsively, with no focus beyond soothing their own tender feelings. Show Caption Hide Caption Trump teases possible strike on Iran but says it's not too late for deal "I may do it. I may not do it." President Trump teased a possible strike on Iran but also said it is not too late to negotiate. Having an insecure president during a time of crisis is a problem, largely because he's going to say things like this when asked about possibly bombing Iran: 'I may do it, I may not do it. I mean, nobody knows what I'm going to do.' That was President Donald Trump's wildly problematic comment on June 18. First, President Dodo-head seems to think the decision to draw America into a potentially cataclysmic conflict in the Middle East is his alone ‒ you'll note the use of the first person four times in two sentences. Apparently, Congress and the American public have no voice in such a decision. It all rests in the little hands of the Supreme Leader. Trump says, 'Nobody knows what I'm going to do.' No kidding. Second, the man who oversees the world's largest military probably shouldn't be saying, 'Nobody knows what I'm going to do.' That sounds like something an unhinged dictator would say and … well, never mind, I guess that tracks. Trump was speaking outside the White House, where he was having two enormous flagpoles installed. It was effectively an advertisement for male overcompensation, which makes sense in the wake of Trump's poorly attended and morose military parade, the one he thought would cast him in the all-powerful-ruler light he desires. Opinion: From massive protests to a puny parade, America really let Donald Trump down The weekend and weakened parade was overshadowed by millions of Americans across the country protesting Trump and his king-like behavior. Trump sent the Marines to be bored in LA Before that, the president's previous show of manly-man toughness ‒ sending the U.S. Marines into Los Angeles to address anti-ICE protesters ‒ also failed. Now, soldiers are just standing around in a city that's doing fine. Will the quest to quench this man's insecurity ever end? Trump stumbled disconsolately from his puny parade to the summit of the Group of Seven leading industrialized nations in Canada on June 16, then left early the next day to return to Washington, DC, ostensibly to deal with the worsening crisis between Israel and Iran. After getting home, Trump's 'dealing with the crisis' seemed to largely involve posting unhinged comments on social media, bizarrely advising residents of Tehran to evacuate and, despite claiming the United States isn't involved in Israel's ongoing attacks on Iran, boldly proclaiming: 'We now have complete and total control of the skies over Iran.' Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. Trump raises flagpoles while threatening war So are we in or are we out? It's a reasonable question for any American to ask, and it's one Trump clearly won't answer, as evidenced by his 'nobody knows what I'm going to do' comment during the apparently critical installation of new White House phallic symbols. 'These are the most magnificent poles made,' Trump posted on social media on June 17, the night before the flagpoles went up. 'They are tall, tapered, rust proof, rope inside the pole, and of the highest quality.' Great job, Mr. President. Americans are laser-focused on White House pole quality and are not at all concerned about you starting a war nobody wants ‒ a new Economist/YouGov poll finds "only 16% of Americans think the U.S. military should get involved in the conflict between Israel and Iran" ‒ without congressional approval. Trump's sad-boy feelings will always override what's best for America Trump is proving, as if we needed proof, that insecure men are dangerous. They act impulsively, with no focus beyond soothing their own tender feelings. Dispatching troops against American citizens didn't make Trump feel big. A military parade didn't make him feel big. He didn't feel big around other world leaders at the G7 summit, so he left and did some online hollering and saber-rattling. And now? We wait to see if our capricious president needs to drop a bunker-busting bomb on Iran to feel big. We wait to see if Trump single-handedly marches America into war, leaving us to suffer the blowback of his inextinguishable self-doubt. Follow USA TODAY columnist Rex Huppke on Bluesky at @ and on Facebook at

The Fed holds interest rates steady and forecasts two rate cuts for 2025
The Fed holds interest rates steady and forecasts two rate cuts for 2025

Yahoo

time13 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

The Fed holds interest rates steady and forecasts two rate cuts for 2025

The Federal Reserve did not cut interest rates, as was expected. With little question over whether the Fed would cut, investors turned their attention to the central bank's outlook for the future of interest rates. The Fed kept its forecast from March of two interest rate cuts. Investors were treated to another predictable Fed meeting. Interest rates remained the same, which had been all but a certainty in the lead-up to Wednesday's decision. The Federal Reserve maintained its position that the economy was stable, even as uncertainty among participants was rising. Investors and business leaders might feel as though the economy is teetering on a knife's edge, but the data, Fed chair Jerome Powell reassured them, pointed to a solid picture—though one that was cloudier than before. Whether or not they are storm clouds is the critical question at hand. 'Uncertainty about the economic outlook has diminished but remains elevated,' according to a Fed statement released after the meeting. With the question of rate cuts largely a foregone conclusion, investors instead turned their attention to the Fed's Summary of Economic Predictions, which is commonly referred to as the 'dot plot.' The hope is that Fed officials' quarterly forecast about the U.S. economy, which includes expectations for interest rates, inflation, and growth, will offer some hints about their views for the economy. With the Fed usually circumspect about its outlook, investors often hope to divine some greater understanding about the fate of the U.S. economy. The median rate projection was for two quarter-point rate cuts in 2025. The previous dot plot, released in March, had the same median projection. One of the major updates from that version was the expectation of lower GDP growth and higher inflation over the course of 2025. At the time, it was a significant development because it meant Fed officials weren't just considering the possibility of those two unwelcome changes, but also began to see them as the likely outcome of the economy's current path. That said, it's worth remembering the dot plot is not a commitment to a certain amount of rate cuts; rather, it is a collection of forecasts made by top Fed officials at a given moment in time. Importantly, it also doesn't communicate how certain each official is in their forecast. It is nonetheless an important measure of where the central bank sees monetary policy heading. And with only six months left in the year, the timing left for the rate cuts it foresees (but not guarantees) is only getting tighter. For now, the consensus seems to be that there will be either one or two rate cuts. For President Donald Trump, any interest-rate cuts can't come soon enough. His criticisms of Powell have practically become a customary part of FOMC meetings. In the president's view, interest rates should come down because inflation has not increased. And while that is true, the Fed is still hesitant to cut interest rates because it isn't sure yet whether inflation will spike again as a result of Trump's tariffs. So far, the Trump administration has made some progress on the trade agreements it promised—something investors believed would calm the markets. The U.S. says it has signed a preliminary agreement with the UK and established a framework of a deal with China after two meetings. While a welcome early sign the U.S. might return to its previous role in the global economy, the two deals are well short of the dozens promised by the White House. As a result, uncertainty still lingers. At the same time, the geopolitical conflicts also risk disrupting the market—namely, the military actions between Israel and Iran. The widening conflict in the Middle East only exacerbates tensions in an already volatile part of the world. Shipping through the Red Sea, oil markets, and U.S. military involvement all now remain open questions. Their potential answers are both varied and significant—unwelcome news for those clamoring for clarity. This story was originally featured on Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data

‘Big Short' investor warns the precarious tariff environment reminds him of WWI—and a trade war would send the U.S. into a recession
‘Big Short' investor warns the precarious tariff environment reminds him of WWI—and a trade war would send the U.S. into a recession

Yahoo

time14 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

‘Big Short' investor warns the precarious tariff environment reminds him of WWI—and a trade war would send the U.S. into a recession

Should failed tariff negotiations lead to a trade war, the global economy is likely headed toward a recession, The Big Short investor Steve Eisman told CNBC this week. Eisman said the tariffs were the 'only real risk' to the markets and warned the U.S. should be especially concerned with negotiating with the European Union ahead of the approaching July 9 trade-deal deadline. Global markets will enter dire economic straits if President Donald Trump's ongoing tariff stance leads to an all-out trade war, warns billionaire investor Steve Eisman. The former managing director of Neuberger Berman—who successfully anticipated and profited from the 2008 stock market crash, and whose profile served as the basis for Michael Lewis' book (and later, the 2015 film) The Big Short—said in a CNBC interview on Tuesday the U.S. economy and markets will flourish if the Trump administration is able to facilitate truces with the various nations on which he has imposed tariffs. But if that doesn't happen, 'chances are, we go into a global recession.' 'The tariffs and the potential for a trade war, I think, is really the only risk to the market right now,' Eisman said. 'It's completely binary, and I really have no way of handicapping it.' Trump's whipsaw tariff decisions have rattled both consumers—who have sharply cut back on spending as a result of the levies—and investors, who, like Eisman, see tariffs as a threat to the global economy. A Bank of America Global Fund Manager Survey published this week found 47% of the 222 fund managers surveyed said they believed a global recession as a result of a trade war was the biggest 'tail risk' to markets. Trade deals, such as with the UK and a tentative truce with China, have tempered these concerns. JPMorgan Research lowered its probability of U.S. and global recessions from 60% to 40% at the end of May, citing decreased trade tensions as a result of Trump slashing Chinese tariffs. The U.S., however, has yet to resolve its trade issues with the European Union ahead of a crucial July 9 deadline. Eisman drew similarities between the rocky trade environment and lead-up to World War I, likely referring to a series of treaties forged in the decades before the war designed to settle regional skirmishes that, in reality, created two massive, and eventually opposing, alliances. 'Nobody wanted World War I, and yet, because of all the reciprocal treaties that existed between countries, they somehow ended up there,' he said. 'I don't think anybody wants a trade war, but it's certainly possible.' Though trade talks with China have taken center stage, Eisman argued the process of solidifying trade relations with Europe is 'more interesting,' given the EU's concerns with regulations, as well as value-added tax (VAT). With 27 member states, the EU has to balance myriad agendas, complicating a potential trade deal. 'Negotiating with Europe is like trying to herd cats given the way they're structured,' Eisman said. Trump has claimed the EU was created to 'screw' the U.S., threatening to impose, then later pausing, a 50% tariff on the union. As part of negotiations, the administration has tried to pressure the EU to loosen tech regulations he claims are inhibiting growth of U.S. companies. Trump also opposes VAT, essentially a sales tax that accumulates through each stage in a product's supply chain. The president has interpreted VAT as another trade barrier, arguing the tax puts undue financial pressure on U.S. businesses trying to export to Europe. Trump has signaled that the U.S. is not yet satisfied with provisions of the agreement, telling reporters on Tuesday, 'We're talking, but I don't feel that they're offering a fair deal yet.' Trump's former commerce secretary Wilbur Ross warned that after successful negotiations with China and the U.K., the Trump administration may become overconfident in negotiations with the EU, pushing away European allies. 'One fear is that if our government feels too chesty with their progress, they may overplay the hand and get to levels that are hard—maybe even impossible—for the other countries to give in,' Ross told Fortune last week. 'This is going to be hard, but our country's goal should be to help make European nations stronger and keep them close,' he added. This story was originally featured on 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

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store