Coming PBS, NPR cuts already hurting many stations
July 18 (UPI) -- A bill rescinding $1.1 billion in funds to public broadcasting is awaiting President Donald Trump's signature, and many critics, including some Republicans, say it will devastate some rural areas and even put the country in danger.
The claw-back bill will cut $9 billion in total, including major reductions to foreign aid. It passed the House early Friday morning.
The public stations already have received funding from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to get them through September. Once that money runs out, more than 100 PBS and NPR stations are at risk of closing. The cuts will hit especially hard in rural areas.
For example, a magnitude 7.3 earthquake hit off the coast of Alaska on Wednesday. Public media helped broadcast a tsunami alert, said Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska.
"Their response to today's earthquake is a perfect example of the incredible public service these stations provide," Murkowski said Wednesday on X. "They deliver local news, weather updates, and, yes, emergency alerts that save human lives."
Murkowski was one of two Republican senators who voted against the bill.
The effects of the cutting off of funding could be even wider-reaching than expected, obsersers said.
"Failing stations will create a cascade effect in this highly connected and interdependent system, impacting content producers and leading to the potential collapse of additional distressed stations in other areas of the country," Tim Isgitt, CEO of advisory firm Public Media Company, told The New York Times.
An analysis by non-profit Public Media Company identified 78 public radio organizations and 37 TV organizations that will likely close. They rely on funding from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting for about 30% of their budgets.
"I think unfortunately this is cutting off their constituents' noses to spite NPR's face," NPR CEO Katherine Maher said Wednesday on CNN. "It doesn't help anyone to take this funding away."
PBS President and CEO Paula Kerger said in a statement that the cuts "will be especially devastating to smaller stations and those serving large rural areas."
"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," she said.
Reporting on local issues will see cuts, too.
Michigan's WKAR Public Media general manager Shawn Turner said he has already had to lay off nine staffers because of the impending cuts, noting that about 16% of WKAR's budget comes from federal funding.
The cuts will prevent the newsroom from doing investigations into issues like the impact of tariffs on Michigan's manufacturing industry, he said.
"We've been able to ask [reporters] to begin to do a deep dive in really understanding how that's going to impact the community so that we have that reporting ready to go," Turner said. "Our ability to do that going forward is going to be limited."
Native American areas will also suffer from the cuts.
They pose "an immediate threat to the survival of small, rural, and Tribal stations across the country," said Loris Taylor, head of Native Public Media.
"These hyperlocal stations, many of which are the only source of local news, emergency alerts, educational programming, and cultural preservation, operate with limited resources and rely on [the Corporation for Public Broadcasting] funding to stay on the air."
Taylor heads a network of 57 Native radio stations. She had privately implored Sen. Mike Rounds, R-S.D., to reject the package, The New York Times reported Wednesday.
"Without this federal support, Native and rural communities stand to lose critical lifelines that connect them to the rest of the nation," she said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Associated Press
a minute ago
- Associated Press
Republicans and independents have warmed on the Supreme Court, but Democrats haven't: AP-NORC poll
WASHINGTON (AP) — Americans' views of the Supreme Court have moderated somewhat since the court's standing dropped sharply after its ruling overturning Roe v. Wade in 2022, according to a new poll. But concern that the court has too much power is rising, fueled largely by Democrats. The survey from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found that about a third of U.S. adults have 'hardly any confidence at all' in the court, but that's down from 43% three years ago. As the new AP-NORC polling tracker shows, about half of Americans have 'only some confidence' in the court, up from 39% in July 2022, while a relatively small number, about 1 in 5, have 'a great deal of confidence,' which hasn't shifted meaningfully in the past few years. The moderate increase in confidence is driven by Republicans and independents. Still, views of the nation's highest court remain more negative than they were as recently as early 2022, before the high-profile ruling that overturned the constitutional right to abortion. An AP-NORC poll conducted in February 2022 found that only around one-quarter of Americans had hardly any confidence in the court's justices. Persistent divide between Republicans and Democrats The partisan divide has been persistent and stark, particularly since the Dobbs ruling, when Democrats' confidence in the nine justices plummeted. The survey shows Republicans are happier than Democrats and independents with the conservative-dominated court, which includes three justices appointed by President Donald Trump, a Republican. Few Republicans, just 8%, view the court dimly, down from about 1 in 5 in July 2022. For independents, the decline was from 45% just after the Dobbs ruling to about 3 in 10 now. The views among Democrats were more static, but they are also slightly less likely to have low confidence in the justices, falling from 64% in summer 2022 to 56% now. In recent years, the court has produced historic victories for Republican policy priorities. The justices overturned Roe, leading to abortion bans in many Republican-led states, ended affirmative action in college admissions, expanded gun rights, restricted environmental regulations and embraced claims of religious discrimination. Many of the court's major decisions from this year are broadly popular, according to a Marquette Law School poll conducted in July. But other polling suggests that most don't think the justices are ruling neutrally. A recent Fox News poll found that about 8 in 10 registered voters think partisanship plays a role in the justices' decisions either 'frequently' or 'sometimes.' Last year, the conservative majority endorsed a robust view of presidential immunity and allowed Trump to avoid a criminal trial on election interference charges. In recent months, the justices on the right handed Trump a string of victories, including a ruling that limits federal judges' power to issue nationwide injunctions. Katharine Stetson, a self-described constitutional conservative from Paradise, Nevada, said she is glad that the court has reined in 'the rogue judges, the district judges around the country' who have blocked some Trump initiatives. Stetson, 79, said she is only disappointed it took so long. 'Finally. Why did they allow it get out of hand?' she said. Growing concerns the court is too powerful Several recent decisions were accompanied by stinging dissents from liberal justices who complained the court was giving Trump too much leeway and taking power for itself. 'Perhaps the degradation of our rule-of-law regime would happen anyway. But this court's complicity in the creation of a culture of disdain for lower courts, their rulings, and the law (as they interpret it) will surely hasten the downfall of our governing institutions, enabling our collective demise,' Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote when the court ruled on nationwide injunctions. The July AP-NORC poll found a growing similar sentiment. About 4 in 10 U.S. adults now say the court has 'too much' power in the way the federal government operates these days. In April, about 3 in 10 people were concerned about the court's power. The shift is largely due to movement among Democrats, rising from about one-third in April to more than half now. Debra A. Harris, a 60-year-old retired state government worker who now lives in Winter Haven, Florida, said the court's decisions in recent years 'just disgust me to my soul.' Harris said the court has changed in recent years, with the addition of the three justices appointed by Trump. 'I find so much of what they're doing is based so much on the ideology of the Republican ticket,' Harris said, singling out last year's immunity decision. 'We don't have kings. We don't have dictators.' George Millsaps, who flew military helicopters and served in Iraq, said the justices should have stood up to Trump in recent months, including on immigration, reducing the size of the federal workforce and unwinding the Education Department. 'But they're bowing down, just like Congress apparently is now, too,' said Millsaps, a 67-year-old resident of Floyd County in rural southwest Virginia. ___ The AP-NORC poll of 1,437 adults was conducted July 10-14, using a sample drawn from NORC's probability-based AmeriSpeak Panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for adults overall is plus or minus 3.6 percentage points. ___ Follow the AP's coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court at
Fox News
a minute ago
- Fox News
We can't abolish America's largest teachers union. But Congress can do something else
For decades, the National Education Association (NEA) – the country's largest teachers union – has amassed nearly unrivaled political power with which to pursue its own narrow self-interest and impose its radical social and economic agenda. COVID-19 placed the NEA under the microscope as never before, offering the union an opportunity for some much-needed introspection. In 2021, the Wall Street Journal editorial board proclaimed what informed conservatives have long known and what, by that time, had become obvious to the public at large: The NEA is "the ideological and institutional vanguard of progressive politics," a "powerful wing of the Democratic Party," and intent on "invading" public schools with "progressive politics." But instead of abandoning its partisan special interests and returning to its early mission of "[promoting] the cause of education in the United States," the NEA emerged from the pandemic determined to double down on every one of its harmful, misguided beliefs and ideologies. The NEA's annual Representative Assembly, held this month in Portland, generated headlines and mockery as copies of the controversial resolutions approved by the union's delegates were leaked to the public, including everything from attacking democratically elected President Donald Trump as a "fascist" to undermining the enforcement of our immigration laws and, in a brazen display of the union's antisemitism, cutting ties with the pro-Jewish Anti-Defamation League. While the growing public outcry over their extremism led the NEA to stop making its convention resolutions publicly available, the dizzying array of woke material freely available on the union's website is even more shocking. For instance, some of the "important" documents posted online for attendees at the NEA's Portland convention included: a "Pronoun Guide" claiming that people who do not habitually share their pronouns are "unsafe"; a byzantine "Land Acknowledgement Guide" directing readers to fight "colonization" by reminding attendees at any event of the "dispossession of Indigenous land and people"; and a form to submit complaints to the NEA's "Committee on Equity & Ethnic Harmony" should any conference attendee breach social justice protocols. More concerning was the NEA's nine-page "report" for convention delegates highlighting the union's priorities and activities in the first half of the year. Among other things, the union boasted about: "taking the lead in filing lawsuits" against the Trump administration; fighting efforts to defund DEI in public schools; shuttering schools with strikes; fighting "authoritarianism" and engaging in "resistance" by supporting the "No Kings" rally and similar protests; backing "World Pride and LGBTQ+ Pride Month"; organizing "labor opposition" to immigration enforcement; and working to "flip" the U.S. House of Representatives to Democrats in 2026. Notably absent from the union's achievements? Improving student learning, promoting family values or using tax dollars efficiently. If this is what happens when NEA completely controls an event and its programming, the union's tremendous influence over classrooms is a five-alarm fire not just for public education, but the future of our country. Congressional action addressing the pernicious influence of the teachers unions is long overdue. That's why I (Mr. Fitzgerald) and Sen. Cynthia Lummis from Wyoming have introduced the Stopping Teachers Unions from Damaging Education Needs Today (STUDENT) Act, which would overhaul the NEA's federal charter to make the union more accountable and less partisan. The NEA received a federal charter by act of Congress in 1906, granting it special recognition shared by only 95 organizations, including such storied American institutions as the Boy Scouts, the U.S. Olympic Committee and the VFW – company which the NEA no longer deserves to keep. Congressional Republicans have long proposed addressing the NEA's ideological extremism by repealing its federal charter. But as the Freedom Foundation explained in a 2023 report, the NEA incorporated under the laws of the District of Columbia long before receiving its federal charter, meaning it would continue to exist and operate as it does now even if stripped of its special federal recognition. The STUDENT Act takes a different approach, rewriting the union's charter rather than repealing it. According to the Freedom Foundation's analysis, the NEA's charter lacks many of the safeguards and accountability mechanisms common in other federal charters intended to ensure the chartered organizations remain uncontroversial, patriotic and deserving of federal recognition. Under the STUDENT Act, the NEA would have to abide by the same rules as other federally chartered entities, such as refraining from partisan political advocacy and abiding by corporate transparency requirements. The legislation also addresses some of the worst NEA practices unique to its status as a labor union, requiring it to respect teachers' First Amendment right to refrain from union membership, prohibiting it from closing schools with damaging strikes, barring the union from advocating for the core concepts of critical race theory, and more. Perhaps most importantly, the STUDENT Act would end direct and indirect taxpayer subsidies for the NEA and its affiliates around the country. Conservatives recognize that the time for action is now, with more than 30 organizations around the country endorsing the STUDENT Act. Republicans in Congress scored a huge win for education freedom with the recent passage of school choice tax credits in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. But the next step in making public education great again should be taking on the NEA.
Washington Post
a minute ago
- Washington Post
This tariff court case could rein in the rampant Trump presidency
Donald Trump's destructive 'Liberation Day' tariffs, announced April 2, should result in a constructive judicial ruling that significantly sedates today's hyperactive presidency. Next Thursday, a federal appeals court will hear oral arguments about this: May the president, by making a declaration (that he claims is exempt from judicial review) of a national 'emergency' and 'an unusual and extraordinary threat,' impose tariffs (taxes paid by U.S. consumers) whenever he wants, at whatever level he wants, against whatever country he wants, on whatever products he wants, for as long as he wants?
