North Dakota Senate vote allows funding for public broadcasting, but no guarantee
Prairie Public Broadcasting's offices in downtown Fargo. (Jeff Beach/North Dakota Monitor)
The North Dakota Senate defeated a bill that bans state or federal funding for public broadcasting but some senators who voted against the bill still called for defunding Prairie Public Broadcasting.
North Dakota typically funds Prairie Public Broadcasting through the Office of Management and Budget bill. Gov. Kelly Armstrong's proposed budget included nearly $2.9 million for Prairie Public.
When House Bill 1255 mandating the public broadcasting funding ban passed the House of Representatives, Appropriations Committee members took Prairie Public funding out of the OMB bill.
Sen. Kristin Roers, R-Fargo, said Monday that the appropriations bill is where the funding decision should be made and warned of unintended consequences of passing the House bill.
The bill, sponsored by Rep. Jorin Johnson, R-Fargo, failed on a 24-6 vote.
Prairie Public supporters urge North Dakota Senate to restore state funding
Roers said the House bill would have prevented federal funding for public broadcasting from passing through a state agency. She said the bill also could have prevented state agencies from renting space on towers owned by Prairie Public for things such as emergency sirens and weather instruments.
'If you want to defund public radio and television in North Dakota, do that through the appropriations process,' Roers said.
Roers said there are upsides to continuing to fund Prairie Public, such as supporting broadcasts of state high school sports, educational television and local documentaries that are free over the air. She said Prairie Public's broadcast towers also benefit the state.
Sen. Scott Meyer, R-Grand Forks, and Sen. Janne Myrdal, R-Edinburg, were among those who voted against the funding ban but advocated for cutting funding in House Bill 1015, which funds the Office of Management and Budget.
John Harris, president and CEO of Prairie Public, testified last week in a Senate Appropriations hearing asking that the funding be restored.
Harris said Prairie Public would be spending $4 million to $7 million in the next 18 months to upgrade facilities and buy transmitters.
The nearly $2.9 million for Prairie Public during the 2025-27 biennium in Armstrong's preliminary budget included $1.7 million in one-time funding to assist with transmitter maintenance and replacement.
Prairie Public leaders have testified that the organization can survive without state funding, but that it will mean less local programming. Other sources of funding include charitable gambling, endowment funds and investment funds.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Like Elon Musk, Russ Vought wants to break Washington. Unlike the billionaire, the budget guru might just succeed.
The Elon Musk era of the Trump administration's fiscal sturm und drang is over. But his much more understated — and savvy — counterpart, Russ Vought, is just hitting his stride. Vought, the two-time director of the Office of Management and Budget, is the most strategic player in executing the Trump administration's effort to slash the federal government. Just this week, Vought has been everywhere from doing TV hits at the White House and on the Sunday shows to sitting in Speaker Mike Johnson's office to sell the 'big beautiful bill' and lay the groundwork for codifying the DOGE cuts. His omnipresence highlights how Vought's work is taking on a more public profile after months of behind-the-scenes planning as Musk captured the spotlight — and that far from slowing down, his agenda to fundamentally remake government from the ground up remains in high gear. Whereas Musk bulldozed through bureaucracy and largely ignored Capitol Hill, Vought relies on a different playbook: pushing change through institutional channels, backroom conversations, and contingency planning. That sort of meticulousness and deep understanding of government has inspired fear among federal workers as he strengthens presidential authority to dismantle large parts of the federal bureaucracy, underscoring that unlike Musk, Vought actually knows how to get things done. His ultimate goal is to 'bend or break the bureaucracy to the presidential will,' and use it to send power from Washington and back to America's families, churches, local governments and states, he wrote in Project 2025. 'It wasn't actually Musk holding a chainsaw. Musk was a chainsaw in Russ Vought's hands,' said a senior government employee with a front row seat to Trump's remaking of government, who, like others in this story, was granted anonymity to describe it. The contrast between the two men is stark, and increasingly consequential. While Musk operated with a kind of maniacal urgency, Vought has proven he's willing to slow down before speeding up. While Musk staffed DOGE with tech loyalists barely old enough to rent cars, Vought's team at OMB is a veteran-heavy group with deep roots in government. 'Elon is an owner. Russ has, for his entire career, been an exceptional staffer,' said Paul Winfree, who held various policy roles in the first Trump administration. 'Russ knows how to manage both up and down, and he also knows how to use the levers of government, whether or not they're at OMB, and how to think more broadly about legislative strategy and working with Congress, basically the way that things get done in this town,' Winfree added. 'He is a master at this.' And it takes a mastery of government and near-endless patience to achieve what Vought really wants: stripping down what he has long seen as a bloated federal budget, bringing an unwieldy federal bureaucracy to heel and drastically transforming the foundation of the U.S. government. Musk arrived with grand plans to slash $2 trillion from the federal budget but left his role having cut less than 10 percent of that figure, forced to admit that the sprawling federal bureaucracy was not as easy to wrap his arms around as he originally thought. 'Everyone thinks they can come to D.C. and fix it,' said one former Trump administration official. 'But you have to have a really good understanding of this town, how the policies are cooked and baked. At OMB, that's the team. These are seasoned policy guys. They've been working on their issue areas forever.' Vought has spent more than two decades in Washington, including stints as executive director of the Republican Study Committee, a group of conservative House members; and vice president of Heritage Action, the conservative Heritage Foundation's advocacy arm. At his core, Vought is both a fiery conservative ideologue and a budget wonk, allies say. He's known for spending free time poring over budget documents — even on weekends — but also has been one of the administration's sharpest messengers on traditional cable news networks and conservative distinction between Vought and Musk is apparent in the rescissions package, a $9 billion bundle of cuts originally slated to be sent to Congress in April. When internal GOP whip counts showed the White House wouldn't have enough Senate votes to pass it, Vought pulled back, recalibrated, and started working the phones. 'Why the delay? Because the House actually wants to pass it … and put pressure on the Senate,' Vought said on longtime Trump adviser Steve Bannon's WarRoom show late last month. 'I don't want to send a rescissions bill out there that goes nowhere.' Trump allies on the Hill have welcomed his engagement.'I'm glad he comes over here. We need that,' said Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Fla.). 'We can't have an administration where you never hear from them, never see them, except when they want to spend a ton of money.' Assisting Vought is a team of allies from his first OMB stint, including deputy chief of staff Hugh Fike, general counsel Mark Paoletta and communications director Rachel Cauley. Unlike Musk, Vought isn't an act-first, come-up-with-the-legal-theory-later type. If his recissions package fails to pass Congress, Vought has a plan B and if that fails, a plan C, which he's started to outline publicly in recent days. Vought has long been a proponent of the idea that the executive can legally impound, or withhold, spending that has been approved by Congress. Critics say only Congress has the power of the purse. Though an OMB memo from the early days of the administration suggested it was poised to wage that fight — by abruptly freezing all federal financial assistance — the office quickly pulled the order back. Vought's allies say he's being deliberate about which fights he picks over impoundment and is waiting to build a solid legal case. Another interim strategy if Congress declines to approve the package is pocket rescissions, a process in which the White House would send the rescissions package at the end of the fiscal year and then run out the clock on Congress's ability to act on the proposal, leading to the automatic cancellation of funds when the fiscal year ends. 'I've worked closely with him for 15 years, and one of the things that he has always done a pretty good job at doing is thinking out into the future,' Winfree said. 'With this recissions package that he's moving on the Hill right now — it isn't just about the recissions. He's thinking about, how do the moves on this package set up the next move that sets up the next move?' Former administration officials say that Vought learned from the failed recissions fight of 2018 — spearheaded by then-Trump budget director Mick Mulvaney — by building relationships on the Hill that he hopes will get the package across the finish line this year. Now, 'I think they're more attuned to the push and pull here, and the need to find the center of gravity with the Hill,' a second former Trump administration official said, even if that means making small tweaks to the recissions package to get it across the finish line in the Senate. 'Give them a win, and then it should be fine.' Others are less optimistic about the totality of the administration's legislative agenda, including the president's 'one big beautiful bill,' which Vought also is playing a key role in shepherding. 'Russ is going to have to get in there with some hand-to-hand combat and get these guys to 'yes,'' a third former administration official said. 'If this bill passes, Trump's going to have everything. He'll have [deregulation] on steroids with Russ. He'll have tariffs as a negotiating tool and tactic for China and he'll have [the] cost of living going down for all Americans. And that's the midterms. Like, the end.' 'If one of those things falters,' the person added, 'I think Republicans lose the midterms.'
Politico
a day ago
- Politico
This Musk counterpart actually knows how to use the government to dismantle it
The Elon Musk era of the Trump administration's fiscal sturm und drang is over. But his much more understated — and savvy — counterpart, Russ Vought, is just hitting his stride. Vought, the two-time director of the Office of Management and Budget, is the most strategic player in executing the Trump administration's effort to slash the federal government. Just this week, Vought has been everywhere from doing TV hits at the White House and on the Sunday shows to sitting in Speaker Mike Johnson's office to sell the 'big beautiful bill' and lay the groundwork for codifying the DOGE cuts. His omnipresence highlights how Vought's work is taking on a more public profile after months of behind-the-scenes planning as Musk captured the spotlight — and that far from slowing down, his agenda to fundamentally remake government from the ground up remains in high gear. Whereas Musk bulldozed through bureaucracy and largely ignored Capitol Hill, Vought relies on a different playbook: pushing change through institutional channels, backroom conversations, and contingency planning. That sort of meticulousness and deep understanding of government has inspired fear among federal workers as he strengthens presidential authority to dismantle large parts of the federal bureaucracy, underscoring that unlike Musk, Vought actually knows how to get things done. His ultimate goal is to 'bend or break the bureaucracy to the presidential will,' and use it to send power from Washington and back to America's families, churches, local governments and states, he wrote in Project 2025. 'It wasn't actually Musk holding a chainsaw. Musk was a chainsaw in Russ Vought's hands,' said a senior government employee with a front row seat to Trump's remaking of government, who, like others in this story, was granted anonymity to describe it. The contrast between the two men is stark, and increasingly consequential. While Musk operated with a kind of maniacal urgency, Vought has proven he's willing to slow down before speeding up. While Musk staffed DOGE with tech loyalists barely old enough to rent cars, Vought's team at OMB is a veteran-heavy group with deep roots in government. 'Elon is an owner. Russ has, for his entire career, been an exceptional staffer,' said Paul Winfree, who held various policy roles in the first Trump administration. 'Russ knows how to manage both up and down, and he also knows how to use the levers of government, whether or not they're at OMB, and how to think more broadly about legislative strategy and working with Congress, basically the way that things get done in this town,' Winfree added. 'He is a master at this.' And it takes a mastery of government and near-endless patience to achieve what Vought really wants: stripping down what he has long seen as a bloated federal budget, bringing an unwieldy federal bureaucracy to heel and drastically transforming the foundation of the U.S. government. Musk arrived with grand plans to slash $2 trillion from the federal budget but left his role having cut less than 10 percent of that figure, forced to admit that the sprawling federal bureaucracy was not as easy to wrap his arms around as he originally thought. 'Everyone thinks they can come to D.C. and fix it,' said one former Trump administration official. 'But you have to have a really good understanding of this town, how the policies are cooked and baked. At OMB, that's the team. These are seasoned policy guys. They've been working on their issue areas forever.' Vought has spent more than two decades in Washington, including stints as executive director of the Republican Study Committee, a group of conservative House members; and vice president of Heritage Action, the conservative Heritage Foundation's advocacy arm. At his core, Vought is both a fiery conservative ideologue and a budget wonk, allies say. He's known for spending free time poring over budget documents — even on weekends — but also has been one of the administration's sharpest messengers on traditional cable news networks and conservative distinction between Vought and Musk is apparent in the rescissions package, a $9 billion bundle of cuts originally slated to be sent to Congress in April. When internal GOP whip counts showed the White House wouldn't have enough Senate votes to pass it, Vought pulled back, recalibrated, and started working the phones. 'Why the delay? Because the House actually wants to pass it … and put pressure on the Senate,' Vought said on longtime Trump adviser Steve Bannon's WarRoom show late last month. 'I don't want to send a rescissions bill out there that goes nowhere.' Trump allies on the Hill have welcomed his engagement.'I'm glad he comes over here. We need that,' said Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Fla.). 'We can't have an administration where you never hear from them, never see them, except when they want to spend a ton of money.' Assisting Vought is a team of allies from his first OMB stint, including deputy chief of staff Hugh Fike, general counsel Mark Paoletta and communications director Rachel Cauley. Unlike Musk, Vought isn't an act-first, come-up-with-the-legal-theory-later type. If his recissions package fails to pass Congress, Vought has a plan B and if that fails, a plan C, which he's started to outline publicly in recent days. Vought has long been a proponent of the idea that the executive can legally impound, or withhold, spending that has been approved by Congress. Critics say only Congress has the power of the purse. Though an OMB memo from the early days of the administration suggested it was poised to wage that fight — by abruptly freezing all federal financial assistance — the office quickly pulled the order back. Vought's allies say he's being deliberate about which fights he picks over impoundment and is waiting to build a solid legal case. Another interim strategy if Congress declines to approve the package is pocket rescissions, a process in which the White House would send the rescissions package at the end of the fiscal year and then run out the clock on Congress's ability to act on the proposal, leading to the automatic cancellation of funds when the fiscal year ends. 'I've worked closely with him for 15 years, and one of the things that he has always done a pretty good job at doing is thinking out into the future,' Winfree said. 'With this recissions package that he's moving on the Hill right now — it isn't just about the recissions. He's thinking about, how do the moves on this package set up the next move that sets up the next move?' Former administration officials say that Vought learned from the failed recissions fight of 2018 — spearheaded by then-Trump budget director Mick Mulvaney — by building relationships on the Hill that he hopes will get the package across the finish line this year. Now, 'I think they're more attuned to the push and pull here, and the need to find the center of gravity with the Hill,' a second former Trump administration official said, even if that means making small tweaks to the recissions package to get it across the finish line in the Senate. 'Give them a win, and then it should be fine.' Others are less optimistic about the totality of the administration's legislative agenda, including the president's 'one big beautiful bill,' which Vought also is playing a key role in shepherding. 'Russ is going to have to get in there with some hand-to-hand combat and get these guys to 'yes,'' a third former administration official said. 'If this bill passes, Trump's going to have everything. He'll have [deregulation] on steroids with Russ. He'll have tariffs as a negotiating tool and tactic for China and he'll have [the] cost of living going down for all Americans. And that's the midterms. Like, the end.' 'If one of those things falters,' the person added, 'I think Republicans lose the midterms.'
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Trump's Odious New Demand of the Civil Service: Loyalty Oaths
The 1939 Hatch Act prohibits government employees from using their position to engage in partisan activity, and prohibits their membership in any organization that advocates the overthrow of the United States. At the dawn of the Cold War, President Harry Truman used the latter provision to authorize investigations of government employees concerning their loyalty to their country, and also the administration of oaths declaring such loyalty. The Truman loyalty program, which spread to the states and to private organizations, led to the firing of many people who were either innocent of disloyalty or who had previously belonged to communist or communist-affiliated organizations (as had many intellectuals during the Great Depression) but refused to endanger others by naming them to the authorities. The program was a catastrophe for civil liberties. Still, the stated goal, however ghastly its application, was defensible: Federal employees were expected to be loyal to the United States and not to its Cold War adversary, the Soviet Union. Now loyalty oaths are back; the Trump White House is imposing them on already-beleaguered civil servants. Only this time Trump is violating the Hatch Act by demanding that they be partisan, and by requiring that employees be loyal not to the United States but to Donald Trump. The 47th president has achieved the impossible. He's making Truman's loyalty program look good. To apply for a civil service job, you click onto this website. The Office of Management and Budget, for example, is looking for an economist. (It could use one!) The job pays in the range of $120,579 to $156,755, and an undergraduate degree in economics or its rough equivalent appears to be a minimal requirement. Your education must be at an accrediting institution recognized by the Education Department, which as of Wednesday looks like a problem for a Columbia PhD, and may soon be a problem for a Harvard PhD. Our prospective OMB economist has to fill out this questionnaire. The questions are fairly anodyne and have to do with reasonable-sounding job requirements. Are you able to analyze 'economic resource allocations, structure, and the behavior of specific sectors'? Do you have experience presenting research and analysis to senior officials? Are you competent to review congressional testimony to be given by your boss? According to a May 29 memo by the White House Office of Personnel Management, this questionnaire will soon be expanded to include a loyalty test. Our prospective OMB economist will have to answer some variation on the following question: 'How would you help advance the President's Executive Orders and policy priorities in this role? Identify one or two relevant Executive Orders or policy initiatives that are significant to you, and explain how you would help implement them if hired.' It is conceivable that this might be an appropriate question to pose to a political appointee. Trump already makes applicants to political positions grovel in all sorts of humiliating ways. 'What part of President Trump's campaign message is most appealing to you and why?' When was your 'MAGA revelation'? The purpose is to privilege cultish loyalty over basic competence, and on the evidence the screeners have done a splendid job. But civil servants are not supposed to be screened based on political loyalty. Even under normal presidents, an executive order is a set of directions to an agency chief, not to rank-and-file civil servants. The agency chief directs civil servants to convert these directions into a proposed rule. The proposal is then put out for public comment to find out whether the rule (and perhaps the executive order requiring it) is faulty. The rule is then finalized, acquiring the force of law. Only then is a civil servant required to follow it. As I say, that's how it works under a normal president. Under the aberration that is Donald Trump, executive orders often have no role other than to express Trump's crotchets, partisan or otherwise. When they call for action, they often violate existing law and/or the Constitution (to which federal hires must also pledge loyalty). One executive order instructed the attorney general not to enforce, for 75 days, a congressionally-enacted ban on TikTok. The delay was later renewed twice, and will likely be renewed again this month, even though the Supreme Court upheld the TikTok ban. Civil servants aren't supposed to choose between upholding executive-branch policies and upholding Supreme Court decisions. OPM wants to make this choice explicit. Another executive order commanded government agencies not to issue documents recognizing the citizenship of children born in the United States to noncitizens, even though the Constitution states that such children are 'natural born citizens.' Rather surprisingly, the Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments about this. If, as expected, it rules against Trump, civil servants will once again be compelled to choose between Trump and the Supreme Court, which amounts to choosing between Trump and the Constitution. That's just executive orders. How would our prospective OMB economist support Trump's plans to annex Greenland, or make Canada the 51st state, or rename the Gulf of Mexico? How would this person help Trump reorder cryptocurrency regulations to maximize the Trump family's participation in this exciting if dubious new financial industry? How would our OMB applicant support his president's conclusion that Taylor Swift is no longer 'HOT'? I'm going to have a real problem getting this OMB job. I went to Harvard, I didn't major in Economics, I've never reviewed anybody's congressional testimony except to criticize it in print, I oppose the Trump executive orders described above and plenty more, and I hadn't noticed Taylor Swift ever stopped being HOT. It's probably better that I don't work for OMB, not only for me (Russell Vought would be my boss!) but also for America. Also, I like the job I have now. So I can't say it's any kind of tragedy that the new requirements screen me out. But it's easy to imagine plenty of people who would be ideal for this job but who can't stomach pledging loyalty to the most corrupt president in United States history. It is correspondingly hard to imagine anybody willing to take the required oath who would be even minimally competent. The Hatch Act was passed to prevent such abuses; so were the Pendleton Civil Service Act and the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (both ignored by the Trump's 'Schedule F' initiative). Harry Truman subjected the civil service to considerable stress when he imposed his loyalty program. Lives were ruined. But the fallout from Trump's loyalty program will probably be worse.
