logo
Republican urges Trump to reconsider proposed broadcasting cuts

Republican urges Trump to reconsider proposed broadcasting cuts

The Hilla day ago

Rep. Mark Amodei (R-Nev.) on Monday urged the Trump administration to reconsider a request to Congress for public broadcasting cuts, warning of the potential impact some local communities face if funding is yanked back.
In a joint statement, Amodei and Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.), co-chairs of the Public Broadcasting Caucus, defended public broadcasting funding, saying local stations' ability to 'continue offering free, high-quality programming would be eliminated if the federal funding is rescinded.'
'Rescinding this funding would also isolate rural communities, jeopardizing their access to vital resources they depend on,' they said, while noting public broadcasting 'represents less than 0.01 percent of the federal budget, yet its impact reaches every congressional district.'
'Cutting this funding will not meaningfully reduce the deficit, but it will dismantle a trusted source of information for millions of Americans,' the statement continued.
President Trump last week sent Congress a request for $8.3 billion in cuts to the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and foreign aid, and more than $1 billion in cuts to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which provides some funding to NPR and PBS.
The move kickstarts a special process that would allow Republicans to begin codifying some of the cuts pursued by Trump's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) despite widespread Democratic opposition.
Some Republicans see the first batch of proposed cuts as potentially the easiest one to deal with, as many in the party have been critical of foreign aid and funds going to outlets like PBS and NPR, which they've accused of political bias.
But there are Republicans in both chambers who have expressed concerns about the scope of the proposed package of cuts, including how clawing back funds for public broadcasting programs would impact folks back home.
'You go to rural America, public television is how you get emergency broadcasting and all that kind of stuff,' Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho), a spending cardinal, said Thursday.
'I look at Idaho Public Television, they're a great organization, and we don't see the politics that some states do in them, or at least they believe they see that and stuff,' Simpson said, although he added that he still intended to support the package if it comes to the floor.
Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) also told reporters earlier last week that, before he agrees to the funding clawback, he wanted to know what the cuts 'would do to my Native American populations who use the AM radio, I think FM in some areas, to actually communicate throughout those rural areas.'
'I tell folks we've got some stuff in public radio that for Native Americans who don't have anything else to communicate with out there for emergencies and so forth,' he said.
Amodei and Goldman said in the new statement that 'of the 544 radio and television stations that receive federal funding, 245 serve rural communities and collectively support more than 5,950 local jobs.'
'Rural broadcasters face significant challenges in raising private funds, making them particularly vulnerable if government funding is cut,' they also said.
'Public media has demonstrated a willingness to listen to the American public and adapt. While we reaffirm that public media must be objective and legitimate concerns about content should be addressed, funding decisions should be objective as well.'
The plan being considered in Congress calls for rescinding $535 million in funding for the CPB in both fiscal 2026 and 2027.
'These funds would be used to subsidize a public media system that is politically biased and an unnecessary expense to the taxpayer. Enacting the rescission would eliminate Federal funding for CPB,' the administration's rescissions request said of the proposed cuts last week.
The CPB also reacted to the recent request in a statement at the time, as well as the president's budget request for fiscal 2026. It said the request would cut 'all funding for public media except $30 million in closeout costs for CPB.'
'Federal funding for the public broadcasting system is irreplaceable. Public media serves all – families and individuals, in rural and urban communities – free of charge and commercial free,' CPB said. 'American taxpayers rely upon and trust public media for high quality educational content, information, and life-saving alerts.'
'The path to better public media is achievable only if funding is maintained. Otherwise, a vital lifeline that operates reliable emergency communications, supports early learning, and keeps local communities connected and informed will be cut off with regrettable and lasting consequences.'
At the same time, hardline conservatives are dialing up pressure on Congress to further cut spending and lock in Trump's DOGE cuts.
'Raise money,' Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) told The Hill last week when asked about concerns over the proposed public broadcasting cuts. 'I mean, look, my bottom line is, we're $36 trillion in debt. You tell me where we're gonna find the cuts. Here's $9 billion. Let's go.'
'We got, I don't know, about $4 trillion more to go if you want to get the balance. So, I know we're not gonna get all that done in one fell swoop, but there's just no more room in the end.'
'And I've got my concerns about the merits on both PBS and NPR and by the way, I say that like I'm an Austin City Limits guy,' he added. 'I love it, but you don't think there's some rich people in Austin that can fund Austin City Limits?'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

‘Come and get me': Gavin Newsom has entered the meme war
‘Come and get me': Gavin Newsom has entered the meme war

Washington Post

time26 minutes ago

  • Washington Post

‘Come and get me': Gavin Newsom has entered the meme war

California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) has found himself in the center of the internet's spotlight after squaring off with President Donald Trump on social media over the deployment of military troops to counter protesters in Los Angeles. While police deployed tear gas and shot at protesters in Los Angeles with rubber bullets on Monday, Newsom shared a screenshot on TikTok of a Washington Post headline reporting that California would sue Trump over the National Guard's presence, paired with a trending sound sampled from the movie 'Mean Girls. ' The video was captioned 'We will not stand while Donald Trump illegally federalizes the National Guard' and was liked more than 255,000 times.

Trump tariffs may remain in effect while appeals proceed, U.S. Appeals court decides
Trump tariffs may remain in effect while appeals proceed, U.S. Appeals court decides

Yahoo

time27 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Trump tariffs may remain in effect while appeals proceed, U.S. Appeals court decides

By Dietrich Knauth (Reuters) -A federal appeals court allowed President Donald Trump's most sweeping tariffs to remain in effect on Tuesday while it reviews a lower court decision blocking them on grounds that Trump had exceeded his authority by imposing them. The decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C. means Trump may continue to enforce, for now, his "Liberation Day" tariffs on imports from most U.S. trading partners, as well as a separate set of tariffs levied on Canada, China and Mexico. The appeals court has yet to rule on whether the tariffs are permissible under an emergency economic powers act that Trump cited to justify them, but it allowed the tariffs to remain in place while the appeals play out. The tariffs, used by Trump as negotiating leverage with U.S. trading partners, and their on-again, off-again nature have shocked markets and whipsawed companies of all sizes as they seek to manage supply chains, production, staffing and prices. The ruling has no impact on other tariffs levied under more traditional legal authority, such as tariffs on steel and aluminum imports. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled on May 28 that the U.S. Constitution gave Congress, not the president, the power to levy taxes and tariffs, and that the president had exceeded his authority by invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a law intended to address "unusual and extraordinary" threats during national emergencies. The Trump administration quickly appealed the ruling, and the Federal Circuit in Washington put the lower court decision on hold the next day while it considered whether to impose a longer-term pause. The ruling came in a pair of lawsuits, one filed by the nonpartisan Liberty Justice Center on behalf of five small U.S. businesses that import goods from countries targeted by the duties and the other by 12 U.S. states. Trump has claimed broad authority to set tariffs under IEEPA. The 1977 law has historically been used to impose sanctions on enemies of the U.S. or freeze their assets. Trump is the first U.S. president to use it to impose tariffs. Trump has said that the tariffs imposed in February on Canada, China and Mexico were to fight illegal fentanyl trafficking at U.S. borders, denied by the three countries, and that the across-the-board tariffs on all U.S. trading partners imposed in April were a response to the U.S. trade deficit. The states and small businesses had argued the tariffs were not a legal or appropriate way to address those matters, and the small businesses argued that the decades-long U.S. practice of buying more goods than it exports does not qualify as an emergency that would trigger IEEPA. At least five other court cases have challenged the tariffs justified under the emergency economic powers act, including other small businesses and the state of California. One of those cases, in federal court in Washington, D.C., also resulted in an initial ruling against the tariffs, and no court has yet backed the unlimited emergency tariff authority Trump has claimed. Errore nel recupero dei dati Effettua l'accesso per consultare il tuo portafoglio Errore nel recupero dei dati Errore nel recupero dei dati Errore nel recupero dei dati Errore nel recupero dei dati

Judge tosses lawsuit over Trump's firing of US African Development Foundation board members
Judge tosses lawsuit over Trump's firing of US African Development Foundation board members

Associated Press

time27 minutes ago

  • Associated Press

Judge tosses lawsuit over Trump's firing of US African Development Foundation board members

A federal judge has tossed out a lawsuit over President Donald Trump's dismantling of a U.S. federal agency that invests in African small businesses. U.S. District Judge Richard Leon in Washington, D.C., dismissed the case on Tuesday, finding that Trump was acting within his legal authority when he fired the U.S. African Development Foundation's board members in February. In March, the same judge ruled that the administration's removal of most grant money and staff from the congressionally created agency was also legal, as long as the agency was maintained at the minimum level required by law. USADF was created as an independent agency in 1980, and its board members must be confirmed by the U.S. Senate. In 2023, Congress allocated $46 million to the agency to invest in small agricultural and energy infrastructure projects and other economic development initiatives in 22 African countries. On Feb. 19, Trump issued an executive order that said USADF, the U.S. Institute of Peace, the Inter-American Foundation and the Presidio Trust should be scaled back to the minimum presence required by law. At the time, USADF had five of its seven board seats filled. A few days later, an administration official told Ward Brehm that he was fired, and emails were sent to the other board members notifying them that they had also been terminated. Those emails were never received, however, because they were sent to the wrong email addresses. The four board members, believing they still held their posts because they had not been given notice, met in March and passed a resolution appointing Brehm as the president of the board. But Trump had already appointed Pete Marocco as the new chairman of what the administration believed to now be a board of one. Since then, both men have claimed to be the president of the agency, and Brehm filed the lawsuit March 6. Leon said that even though they didn't receive the emails, the four board members were effectively terminated in February, and so they didn't have the authority to appoint Brehm to lead the board. An attorney for Brehm did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Another lawsuit over the dismantling of the agency is still pending before the same judge. In that case, two USADF staffers and a consulting firm based in Zambia that works closely with USADF contend that the Trump administration's efforts to deeply scale back the agency wrongly usurps Congress' powers. They also say Marocco was unlawfully appointed to the board, in part because he was never confirmed by the Senate as required. Leon's ruling in Brehm's case did not address whether the Trump administration had the power to install Marocco as board chair on a temporary basis.

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