Corporation for Public Broadcasting can keep board members despite judge's ruling
By Jonathan Stempel
(Reuters) -A federal judge said that three board members of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting can keep their seats, even as he denied the nonprofit a preliminary injunction to block U.S. President Donald Trump from removing them.
In a decision on Sunday, U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss in Washington, D.C. said the nonprofit recently used indirect authority it obtained from Congress to protect its independence, by changing its bylaws to make it harder to remove directors at will, including by Trump.
"The President is not free to remove directors and then unilaterally to appoint their replacements, thereby using his power to remove as an effective tool for altering board policy," Moss wrote. "Rather, the President's appointment authority is tempered by the requirement that he proceed only with the advice and consent of the Senate."
Moss nonetheless said the CPB was unlikely to prevail on the merits, and could not show irreparable harm because it could still function and "in all likelihood" has blocked Trump from exercising unilateral authority to remove board members.
Created by Congress in 1967, the CPB provides financial support for the Public Broadcasting Service, National Public Radio and more than 1,500 locally managed public radio and TV stations.
It sued after Trump fired three of its five directors -- Diane Kaplan, Laura Ross and Thomas Rothman - ostensibly without providing a reason. PBS and NPR are also suing to block the Trump administration from canceling their federal funding.
"We are very pleased that the court recognized CPB is an independent, non-profit corporation, free from governmental control or influence," CPB President Patricia Harrison said in a statement.
Harrison said the nonprofit looks forward to continuing its work "to ensure accurate, unbiased and nonpartisan public media is available for all Americans."
CPB received $535 million of federal funding for its current fiscal year.
The White House and many Republicans have argued that the government should not provide funding to support programming that they consider too liberal.
A White House spokesperson on Monday said CPB is "creating media to support a particular political party on the taxpayers' dime. Therefore, the President is exercising his lawful authority to limit funding to NPR and PBS."
The case is Corporation for Public Broadcasting et al v Trump et al, U.S. District Court, District of Columbia, No. 25-01305.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBS News
19 minutes ago
- CBS News
GOP leaders cite L.A. immigration protests to push for quick passage of Trump's "big, beautiful bill"
Washington — The White House and Republican leaders in Congress are urging lawmakers to quickly get behind the centerpiece of President Trump's legislative agenda, saying the ongoing immigration protests in Los Angeles adds urgency to the push to secure additional resources for border security. House Speaker Mike Johnson said on X on Monday that the legislation, which addresses Mr. Trump's tax, energy and immigration priorities, "provides the ESSENTIAL funding needed to secure our nation[']s borders." Republicans call the legislation the "one big, beautiful bill." "The lawlessness happening in LA is ANOTHER reason why we need to pass the One Big Beautiful Bill IMMEDIATELY," Johnson said, pledging that Congress will support Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents who he said are "fighting to keep Americans safe against illegal aliens AND the radical left." White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt shared a similar message earlier Monday, saying the scenes unfolding in some areas of Los Angeles "prove that we desperately need more immigration enforcement personnel and resources." "America must reverse the invasion unleashed by Joe Biden of millions of unvetted illegal aliens into our country," Leavitt said in a post on X. "That's why President Trump's One Big, Beautiful Bill funds at least one million annual removals and hires 10,000 new ICE personnel, 5,000 new customs officers, and 3,000 new Border Patrol agents." Speaker of the House Mike Johnson holds a press conference after the House narrowly passed a bill forwarding President Trump's agenda at the U.S. Capitol on May 22, 2025, in Washington, legislation is now in the hands of the Senate after the House narrowly approved it last month following weeks of intraparty disagreement over its components. Though the bulk of the funding allocated in the legislation goes toward tax cuts, it also includes resources aimed at bolstering border security and defense. It provides $46.5 billion for the border wall, $4.1 billion to hire Border Patrol agents and other personnel and more than $2 billion for signing and retention bonuses for agents. It also imposes an additional $1,000 fee for people who are filing for asylum in the U.S. The disagreement among Republicans over the bill has largely centered on cuts meant to offset the bill's spending, including restrictions to Medicaid. In the House's razor-thin GOP majority, the disagreements threatened to tank the bill's progress at every stage. And as the bill moved to the Senate for consideration last week, Johnson warned the upper chamber against making significant changes that would throw off the delicate balance. Senate Republicans initially voiced support for separating the complicated tax components and border security provisions into two separate bills to deliver Mr. Trump a victory on immigration early on in his tenure. But House Republicans opposed the approach, expressing doubts that the president's agenda could pass through the narrow GOP majority in the lower chamber in separate parts. Senate Republicans are now seeking to amend the House-passed bill, sending it back to the House for approval with a goal of getting the legislation to the president's desk by the July 4 holiday. And with a 53-seat majority, the upper chamber can afford to lose just three Republicans. Last week, opposition from Elon Musk threatened to throw a wrench into the legislation's progress, after he stoked concerns by fiscal hawks about the bill's impact on the deficit. The episode, which began with Musk calling the bill "a disgusting abomination," erupted into a dramatic and public feud between Musk and the president last week. But the dispute did not appear to spark significant new opposition the the bill in Congress. The urgency expressed Monday surrounding securing additional border resources comes as Mr. Trump called for the National Guard to enforce order in the L.A. area amid protests over activity by ICE, prompting a clash with California Gov. Gavin Newsom. Newsom warned that the move would inflame the situation, while urging that there is no shortage of law enforcement. The governor indicated late Sunday that his office plans to sue the Trump administration over Mr. Trump's move. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem defended the president's move on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan" Sunday, claiming Newsom "has proven that he makes bad decisions." "The president knows that [Newsom] makes bad decisions, and that's why the president chose the safety of this community over waiting for Gov. Newsom to get some sanity," Noem added.
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Kash Patel Sends Ominous Threat in Response to L.A. Protests
The FBI says it will act on its own to squash the Los Angeles anti-ICE protests. FBI Director Kash Patel issued an ominous threat to the city and its residents late Sunday night, claiming that his agency would intervene in the multiday anti-Trump display without explicit direction. 'Just so we are clear, this FBI needs no one's permission to enforce the constitution,' Patel posted on X. 'My responsibility is to the American people, not political punch lines. LA is under siege by marauding criminals, and we will restore law and order. I'm not asking you, I'm telling you.' In a move that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem should agree with, California announced it would sue the federal government Monday, arguing that the Trump administration's order to send hundreds of National Guard troops toward Los Angeles, without coordination with the state's governor, was an unconstitutional breach of power. Hours earlier, FBI Public Affairs Assistant Director Ben Williamson shared that Patel had gotten off a call with 'senior leadership' addressing what they referred to as 'riots' in L.A., specifying that Patel and FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino had 'offered all necessary resources from FBI HQ' to address the situation. Williamson said the pair 'reiterated the position that any perpetrator who attacks or interferes with law enforcement will be aggressively pursued and brought to justice.' Bongino made it plain that one of the agency's primary targets would be individuals suspected of assaulting officers, writing on X that he and Patel had notified all FBI teams to pursue suspected individuals 'long after order is firmly established.' 'We will not forget. Even after you try to,' Bongino posted. But Republicans have so far not been very successful at pinpointing wrongdoing in Los Angeles. Instead, some viral videos circulating in conservative circles of protest-related violence in the city are actually not from the weekend at all, but were instead taken in 2020 during the Black Lives Matter protests.
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
500 Marines ‘prepared to deploy' to LA: Northern Command
Approximately 500 U.S. Marines are 'prepared to deploy' to Los Angeles amid rising tensions between protesters and law enforcement over President Trump's immigration policies, according to a statement from U.S. Northern Command. The Marines are 'in a prepared to deploy status should they be necessary to augment and support the [Defense Department's] protection of federal property and personnel efforts,' reads the statement released Sunday. The notice came a day after Trump announced he had authorized the deployment of approximately 2,000 California Army National Guard troops, 300 of whom were deployed Sunday at three locations in the Los Angeles area: Los Angeles, Paramount and Compton. The federalization of the California National Guard represents a rare and legally murky step that bypassed the consent of California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D), who said Sunday evening that he plans to bring a lawsuit against the Trump administration for bypassing him. The last time the federal government mobilized National Guard members without the consent of a governor was in 1965, when former President Lyndon Johnson sent Guard members to Selma, Ala., to protect civil rights protesters there. The National Guard is relatively limited in its scope, since members are deployed specifically to protect federal buildings, which includes the downtown Los Angeles detention center where much of the unrest centered. The military is generally barred from carrying out domestic law enforcement duties. Declaring the Insurrection Act is seen as a potential path around those restrictions. Trump did not rule out invoking the Insurrection Act during a gaggle with reporters before boarding Air Force One on Sunday, but he suggested the current protests against immigration raids had not yet risen to insurrection. Shortly after the gaggle, Trump issued a statement on Truth Social claiming that 'violent, insurrectionist mobs are swarming and attacking our Federal Agents to try and stop our deportation operations.' He said he directed relevant Cabinet officials, including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, 'to take all such action necessary to liberate Los Angeles from the Migrant Invasion, and put an end to these Migrant riots.' Hegseth said Sunday morning that Marines were ready to be deployed to Los Angeles if needed. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
