
What's next for PBS and NPR after Republicans strip funding?
But without funding from public television, his educational programming such as 'The Civil War' and 'Baseball' might never have existed, he told 'PBS News Hour' in an interview Thursday.
Even today, the acclaimed filmmaker whose works — including his upcoming project 'The American Revolution' — are broadcast on PBS, said his films get around 20% of their budgets from the Corp. for Public Broadcasting, the body Congress recently voted to defund.
Projects that receive a higher percentage of their funding through public media 'just won't be able to be made,' Burns said. 'And so there'll be less representation by all the different kinds of filmmakers. People coming up will have an impossible time getting started.'
The U.S. Senate this week passed the Trump administration's proposal to claw back $9 billion in federal funding previously allocated for foreign aid and public broadcasting, and the House of Representatives approved the package after midnight Friday, sending it to President Trump's desk.
The Corp. for Public Broadcasting, which administers the funds for NPR radio stations and PBS TV affiliates, is on track to lose $1.1 billion that had previously been budgeted for the next two years.
The impact of those cuts will be deeply felt across both NPR and PBS, leaders of both organizations told The Times. Layoffs and reduced programming are expected, and the blows will disproportionately strike smaller markets that rely more heavily on federal funding.
'This is going to hit hardest in the places that need it the most,' said Gabriel Kahn, a professor at the USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism.
Stations in smaller markets are staffed significantly less than stations in larger cities, often because of the disparity in funding. The Corp. for Public Broadcasting acted as 'the great equalizer,' Kahn said, padding the budgets of smaller stations so they could continue operating.
'It's just going to be increasingly lonely out there as these voices, who were of the community and generally very well trusted, are going to disappear,' Kahn said. 'Because within a year, you're not going to be able to hear these things on the radio anymore in a lot of places.'
The cuts fulfill a longtime dream of conservatives and libertarians, who bristle at the notion of public funds supporting media organizations, especially ones they view as left-leaning. Republicans have for decades called for cuts to public broadcasting because of the perceived liberal slant of its programming.
Trump has called NPR and PBS government-funded 'left-wing propaganda.'
But several prominent voices in media and politics were quick to call attention to the harm the cuts will have, especially on communities where the local stations rely heavily on federal funding.
'A PBS station is really like the public library. It's one of those important institutions that may be the only place where people have access to local news,' Burns said. 'There's a kind of sense of local accountability, and as news becomes nationalized and even internationalized, there's a loss there.'
PBS President Paula Kerger expressed similar concerns.
'Many of our stations which provide access to free unique local programming and emergency alerts will now be forced to make hard decisions in the weeks and months ahead,' Kerger said in a statement Thursday.
Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, one of two Republicans to vote against the package, said she strongly opposes the cuts to public media in a statement after the vote. She referenced a 7.3 magnitude earthquake in Alaska this week that triggered a tsunami warning as an example of the public service stations provide.
'My colleagues are targeting NPR but will wind up hurting — and, over time, closing down — local radio stations that provide essential news, alerts and educational programming in Alaska and across the country.'
Public media outlets in Southern California's urban areas, which can turn to wealthy locals for donations, are less dependent on federal funding than stations in smaller markets. But they will still feel an immediate loss.
Washington, D.C.-based NPR has two major affiliates serving the Los Angeles area: LAist, or KPCC-FM (89.3), and KCRW-FM (89.9).
LAist, based in Pasadena, was set to receive $1.7 million, about 4% of its annual budget. Alejandra Santamaria, president and chief executive of LAist, said the money is equivalent to 13 journalist positions at the local news operation. KCRW in Santa Monica was expecting $264,000 from the Corp. for Public Broadcasting.
PBS SoCal, which operates member stations KOCE and KCET in Orange and Los Angeles counties, respectively, is facing a loss of $4.3 million in federal funding, according to Andy Russell, president and chief executive of the stations.
Connie Leyva, executive director of KVCR Public Media in San Bernardino, which operates PBS and NPR affiliates, said earlier this week that the Senate action will mean losing $540,000, about 6% of its operating budget. Thus, she has to consider cutting five positions on an already lean staff.
Kahn, the USC professor who is also the publisher and editor of Crosstown L.A., a nonprofit newsroom focused on local reporting and data journalism, said the cuts could have unintended consequences for Trump's own voters.
'The irony, of course, is that these are areas that generally support Trump with high margins, and they're are also areas that have the greatest allegiance to their local public radio station,' he said.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

17 minutes ago
GOP Rep. Tim Burchett doubles down on call for release of Epstein files
Tennessee Republican Rep. Tim Burchett on Sunday again called for the release of the Department of Justice's evidence against the late accused pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, part of a growing cadre of Republicans calling for transparency in the case. Speaking with "This Week" co-anchor Martha Raddatz, Burchett said he wanted the Epstein files to be released, but cautioned against releasing material that might expose the identities of victims and others in the files who may be innocent. But Burchett pushed back against criticism leveled by President Donald Trump, who earlier this week called Republicans demanding the release of the documents 'foolish' and baselessly claimed the Epstein files were a hoax concocted by Democrats. 'Was I a little ticked off he said that stuff? Sure, I was, but I'm a big boy, Ma'am,' Burchett said. 'We're playing in the big leagues right now.' Trump has since directed Attorney General Pam Bondi to move to unseal grand jury evidence in Epstein's case, which Burchett called 'a start.' 'I don't think we're ever going to get to the bottom of … all of it, Ma'am,' Burchett said. 'You know, this town doesn't give up its secrets very easy.' Asked by Raddatz if he believed Bondi should resign, Burchett said he criticized her communication on the issue but stopped short of calling for her to step down. 'I have a saying: It's not how you start, it's how you finish. If she finishes strong on this, then I'm all for it,' Burchett said. 'I'm sure the learning curve is steep, and I think she blundered in the beginning, I really do, as most Americans do.'


Atlantic
18 minutes ago
- Atlantic
Naturalized Citizens Are Scared
On a bookshelf near my desk, I still have the souvenir United States flag that I received during my naturalization ceremony, in 1994. I remember a tenderhearted judge got emotional as the room full of immigrants swore the Oath of Allegiance and that, afterward, my family took me to Burgerville to celebrate. The next morning, my teacher asked me to explain to my classmates—all natural-born Americans—how I felt about becoming a citizen at age 13. One girl had a question: 'So Chris can never be president?' I wasn't worried about becoming president—I just wanted to get to the computer lab, where we were free to slaughter squirrels in The Oregon Trail. But her question revealed that even kids know there are two kinds of citizens: the ones who are born here, and the ones like me. The distinction is written into the Constitution, a one-line fissure that Donald Trump used to crack open the country: 'Now we have to look at it,' Trump said, after compelling Barack Obama to release his birth certificate in 2011. 'Is it real? Is it proper?' Nearly 25 million naturalized citizens live in the U.S., and we are accustomed to extra scrutiny. I expect supplemental questions on medical forms, close inspection at border crossings, and bureaucratic requests to see my naturalization certificate. But I had never doubted that my U.S. citizenship was permanent, and that I was guaranteed the same rights of speech, assembly, and due process as natural-born Americans. Now I'm not so sure. Last month, the Department of Justice released a civil-enforcement memo listing the denaturalization of U.S. citizens as a top-five priority and pledging to 'maximally pursue' all viable cases, including people who are 'a potential danger to national security' and, more vague, anyone 'sufficiently important to pursue.' President Trump has suggested that targets could include citizens whom he views as his political enemies, such as Zohran Mamdani, the New York City mayoral candidate who was born in Uganda and naturalized in 2018: 'A lot of people are saying he's here illegally,' Trump said. 'We're going to look at everything.' Looking at everything can be unnerving for naturalized citizens. Our document trails can span decades and continents. Thankfully, I was naturalized as a child, before I had much background to check, before the internet, before online surveillance. I was born in Brazil, in 1981, during the twilight of its military dictatorship, and transplanted to the United States as a baby through a byzantine international-adoption process. My birth mother had no way of knowing for sure what awaited me, but she understood that her child would have a better chance in the 'land of the free.' I don't consider myself 'a potential danger to national security' or 'sufficiently important to pursue,' but I also don't believe that American security is threatened by international students, campus protesters, or undocumented people selling hot dogs at Home Depot. I'm a professor who writes critically about American power, I believe in civil disobedience, and I support my students when they exercise their freedom of conscience. Because I was naturalized as a child, I didn't have to take the famous civics test—I was still learning that stuff in school. I just rolled my fingertips in wet ink and held still for a three-quarter-profile photograph that revealed my nose shape, ear placement, jawline, and forehead contour. My parents sat beside me for an interview with an immigration officer who asked me my name, where I lived, and who took care of me. But these days, I wonder a lot about that civics test. It consists of 10 questions, selected from a list of 100, on the principles of democracy, our system of government, our rights and responsibilities, and milestones in American history. The test is oral; an official asks questions in deliberately slow, even tones, checking the responses against a list of sanctioned answers. Applicants need to get only six answers correct in order to pass. Democracy is messy, but this test is supposed to be easy. However, so much has changed in the past few years that I'm not sure how a prospective citizen would answer those questions today. Are the correct answers to the test still true of the United States? What does the Constitution do? The Constitution protects the basic rights of Americans. One of the Constitution's bedrock principles can be traced back to a revision that Thomas Jefferson made to an early draft of the Declaration of Independence, replacing 'our fellow subjects' with 'our fellow citizens.' As with constitutional theories of executive power, theories of citizenship are subject to interpretation. Chief Justice Earl Warren distilled the concept as 'the right to have rights.' His Court deemed the revocation of citizenship cruel and unusual, tantamount to banishment, 'a form of punishment more primitive than torture.' By testing the constitutional rights of citizenship on two fronts—attempting to denaturalize Americans and to strip away birthright citizenship—Trump is claiming the power of a king to banish his subjects. In the United States, citizens choose the president. The president does not choose citizens What is the ' rule of law'? Nobody is above the law. Except, perhaps, the president, who is immune from criminal prosecution for official acts performed while in office. Trump is distorting that principle by directing the Department of Justice, the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, and ICE to enforce his own vision of the law without regard for constitutional norms. Civil law is more malleable than criminal law, with fewer assurances of due process and a lower burden of proof. ICE raids rely on kinetic force to fill detention cells. Denaturalization cases can rely on stealthy legal proceedings. In 2018, the Trump administration stripped a man of his citizenship. He was married to a U.S. citizen and had been naturalized for 12 years. The administration accused him of fraudulently using an alias to apply for his papers after having been ordered to leave the country. In an article for the American Bar Association, two legal scholars argued that this was more likely the result of a bureaucratic mix-up. Whatever the truth of the matter, the summons was served to an old address, and the man lost his citizenship without ever having had the chance to defend himself in a hearing. The DOJ is signaling an aggressive pursuit of denaturalization that could lead to more cases like these. In the most extreme scenarios, Americans could be banished to a country where they have no connection or even passing familiarity with the language or culture. What stops one branch of government from becoming too powerful? Checks and balances. Denaturalization efforts may fail in federal court, but the Trump administration has a habit of acting first and answering to judges later. When courts do intervene, a decision can take weeks or months, and the Supreme Court recently ruled that federal judges lack the authority to order nationwide injunctions while they review an individual case. FBI and ICE investigations, however, can be opened quickly and have been accelerated by new surveillance technologies. How far might a Trump administration unbound by the courts go? Few people foresaw late-night deportation flights to El Salvador, the deployment of U.S. Marines to Los Angeles, a U.S. senator thrown to the ground and handcuffed by FBI agents for speaking out during a Department of Homeland Security press conference. To many Americans who have roots in countries with an authoritarian government, these events don't seem so alien. What is one right or freedom from the First Amendment? Speech. And all the rights that flow from it: Assembly. Religion. Press. Petitioning the government. During the McCarthy era, the Department of Justice targeted alleged anarchists and Communists for denaturalization, scrutinizing the years well before and after they had arrived in the U.S. for evidence of any lack of 'moral character,' which could include gambling, drunkenness, or affiliation with labor unions. From 1907 to 1967, more than 22,000 Americans were denaturalized. Even if only a handful of people are stripped of their citizenship in the coming years, it would be enough to chill the speech of countless naturalized citizens, many of whom are already cautious about exercising their First Amendment rights. The mere prospect of a lengthy, costly, traumatic legal proceeding is enough to induce silence. What are two ways that Americans can participate in their democracy? Help with a campaign. Publicly support or oppose an issue or policy. If, apparently, it's the 'proper' campaign, issue, or policy. What movement tried to end racial discrimination? The civil-rights movement. The question of who has the right to have rights is as old as our republic. Since the Constitutional Convention, white Americans have fiercely debated the citizenship rights of Indigenous Americans, Black people, and women. The Fourteenth Amendment, which established birthright citizenship, and equal protection under the law for Black Americans, was the most transformative outcome of the Civil War. Until 1940, an American woman who married a foreign-born man could be stripped of her citizenship. Only through civil unrest and civil disobedience did the long arc of the moral universe bend toward justice. The 1964 Civil Rights Act opened the door for the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, which ended the national-origin quotas that had limited immigration from Asia, Africa, and the Caribbean. The act 'corrects a cruel and enduring wrong in the conduct of the American Nation,' President Lyndon B. Johnson said as he signed the immigration bill at the foot of the Statue of Liberty. The possibility of multiracial democracy emerged from the civil-rights movement and the laws that followed. Turning back the clock on race and citizenship, and stoking fears about the blood of America, is a return to injustice and cruelty. What is one promise you make when you become a United States citizen? To support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Now Americans like me have to wonder if we can hold true to that promise, or whether speaking up for the Constitution could jeopardize our citizenship.


Forbes
18 minutes ago
- Forbes
Retailers In The Crosshairs Over Tariff-Driven Price Hikes
Close-up on a woman shopping at a convenience store and checking her receipt while exiting In survey after survey, consumers overwhelmingly expect Trump's tariffs to increase prices, a view reinforced by numerous experts, including the Federal Reserve's Jerome Powell, who said in June, 'Everyone that I know is forecasting a meaningful increase in inflation in coming months from tariffs.' Despite June reports that the consumer price index only ticked up 0.3%, which Goldman Sach's' Kay Haigh said 'remained muted,' and that the producer price index, which measures wholesale price increases, didn't move at all, consumers aren't reassured. They see prices rising before their eyes, which is backed up by findings from Harvard Business School's Pricing Lab, which tracks prices from four major U.S. retailers on a daily basis. The July 17 report found prices on both imported and domestic goods are going up. As consumers try to reconcile conflicting reports and what their 'lying eyes' are seeing, a new Harris Poll report suggests they are going to point the finger not on distant government officials in Washington, but closer to home: on retailers and brands they regularly do business with. Corporate Greed Takes Blame 'Sixty-three percent of Americans believe that companies are taking advantage of the economic climate to boost profits,' said Harris Poll CEO John Gerzema, based upon a recent survey among 2,000 adult Americans. Further, 62% believe businesses are lowering product quality while raising prices, another blow to corporate reputations and a threat to brand loyalty. Retailers must tread carefully in these rough waters. Consumers will do business with brands they trust. The widespread feeling is that corporations are putting profits ahead of the people they serve. 'Consumers must be able to trust that businesses are not taking advantage of them during this period of high economic anxiety,' Gerzema continued. 'Those who demonstrate themselves as allies right now will build future differentiation and goodwill.' An additional threat to customer loyalty was uncovered in a related Axios/Harris Poll earlier this year. More Americans – 39% – hold businesses accountable for their financial struggles compared to 30% who blame government policies. Meanwhile, another 30% cite their own financial decisions for their economic hardships. These consumers are likely to change their shopping behavior in an effort to regain control and correct course. Businesses Have A Choice Even as the Pricing Lab finds domestic retail prices going up, the increased tariff rates that are set to take effect on Aug. 1 are going to be a bigger blow and one that will put even greater stress on consumers and corporations that have to decide how to cover them. The Budget Lab at Yale just reported that consumers face an overall average effective tariff rate of 20.6%, the highest since 1910. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York posted a report in June that 75% of manufacturers have started to pass through tariff costs to consumers, including nearly one-third that have passed along all associated tariffs, greater than the 25% that have held prices steady. In the middle, 24% have passed on 50% or less of tariff costs and 20% are in the range between 51% and 99%. Manufacturers also indicated that the cost of their tariffs goods increased by an average of 20% over thel ast six months, a pretty sizeable markup and inline with the Budget Lab's assessment. For retailers and their product partners, Gerzema advised caution in passing along too many of the tariff costs. 'It's a question of whose side are you on? With tariffs creating greater uncertainty and price sensitivity, leaders must explain how their business is responding and the steps they are taking to protect future customer value, not just margin.' Somebody's Got To Pay Drawing on insights from the Harris Poll, Gerzema encourages companies to adopt a fair and transparent approach to pricing. When price hikes are unavoidable, he advises clear, empathetic communication to maintain trust and goodwill. In cases where tariffs drive up costs, a 'less is more' philosophy applies—businesses are better served by absorbing a portion of the impact rather than transferring the full burden to consumers. As the Fed's Powell said ,'All through that [supply] chain, people will be trying not to be the ones who can take up the cost, but ultimately, the cost of the tariff has to be paid. And some of it will fall on the end consumer.'