
What Corp. for Public Broadcasting Shutdown Means For NPR, PBS
'Despite the extraordinary efforts of millions of Americans who called, wrote, and petitioned Congress to preserve federal funding for CPB, we now face the difficult reality of closing our operations,' CPB President and CEO Patricia Harrison said in a statement. She added that the organization would work to support its partners during the transition 'with transparency and care.'
The loss of federal support, enacted as part of a broader $9 billion rescissions package signed by Trump in July, will not bring an immediate end to national programming like PBS NewsHour or NPR's Morning Edition. But the decision is expected to pose serious challenges to the network of smaller, often rural public broadcasters that have long depended on CPB funding for their survival.
The majority of the CPB's roughly 100 employees will be laid off when the federal fiscal year ends on September 30, according to a press release. A smaller team will remain through January to complete financial and legal obligations, including final disbursements and the expiration of system-wide music licenses.
Harrison, who has led the CPB since 2005, called the decision to shut down 'difficult' but inevitable given the scale of the funding withdrawal. 'Public media has been one of the most trusted institutions in American life,' she said in her statement, 'providing educational opportunity, emergency alerts, civil discourse, and cultural connection to every corner of the country.'
Here's what to know about the funding cuts.
What is the Corporation for Public Broadcasting?
Founded in 1967 under the Public Broadcasting Act, CPB was created as a nonpartisan nonprofit to channel federal appropriations to public television and radio stations across the United States, including affiliates of PBS and NPR.
While national organizations like NPR and PBS generate their own revenue and receive only a small share of direct federal funding, their local member stations rely heavily on CPB grants. In many smaller and rural markets, federal money accounts for 25% or more of a station's total budget.
In addition to distributing funding, the CPB also helped stations remain in legal compliance and negotiated system-wide rights, such as royalties for music and content use.
Why did Republicans push to eliminate CPB funding?
Trump and his allies have long accused NPR and PBS of leaning left politically and argued that taxpayer dollars should not support news organizations they see as ideologically biased.
'NO MORE FUNDING FOR NPR, A TOTAL SCAM!' Trump wrote on Truth Social on April 10, calling the organization 'A LIBERAL DISINFORMATION MACHINE.'
After gaining unified control of Congress this year, Republicans pushed to eliminate CPB's funding through a process known as a rescission—a formal cancellation of previously approved federal spending. The Trump Administration proposed eliminating $1.1 billion that had already been appropriated for the CPB through fiscal year 2027. Congress approved the measure in July as part of a broader $9 billion package of rescinded funds, which also included cuts to foreign aid.
Only four Republicans in both chambers of Congress broke with their party and voted with all Democrats against the package: Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania and Mike Turner of Ohio.
'If you don't like what's going on within NPR, you think that there's too much bias there, we can address that,' Sen. Murkowski said in a floor speech ahead of the vote. 'But you don't need to gut the entire Corporation for Public Broadcasting.' In an op-ed for the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, she warned that the loss of CPB's $12 million in funding for Alaska's public stations—which covers between 30 and 70% of each stations' budgets—would be 'devastating.'
Sen. Collins expressed similar concerns: 'I share the frustration with the biased reporting by NPR, and I would support defunding it. Nevertheless, local TV and radio stations continue to provide important coverage. In Maine, this funding supports the emergency alert network, coverage of high school basketball championships, a locally produced high school quiz show, and classical music stations.'
The Senate Appropriations Committee on Thursday advanced a bill that would eliminate future funding for CPB altogether—a move that Harrison said 'will cause irreparable harm, especially to small and rural public media stations.'
'The absence of future funding eliminates CPB's ability to fulfill our statutory mission—providing support to nearly 1,500 local public media stations and making needed investments that help stations serve their communities,' Harrison said before announcing the decision to wind down operations.
Despite the push in Congress to eliminate funding for public broadcasting, most Americans still support public media. A Harris Poll conducted in July on behalf of NPR found that 66% of U.S. adults favor continued federal funding for public radio, including 58% of Republicans and 77% of Democrats. 66% of respondents said that federal funding for public radio is a good value for taxpayer dollars.
What does this mean for NPR, PBS, and local stations?
National programming like PBS NewsHour, All Things Considered, and children's shows will not disappear overnight. But the loss of CPB funding threatens the financial stability of the local stations that carry these shows—particularly those in rural or underserved regions that have long depended on federal support to stay on the air.
Without CPB grants, some stations may be forced to reduce staff, cut programming, or shut down altogether. That could have a significant impact in smaller communities, where public media stations are often among the few remaining sources of local journalism. Researchers have classified many rural areas as 'news deserts' due to the decline of local newspapers and commercial outlets. Public broadcasters have filled that gap in many communities by providing access to local news coverage, educational content, and emergency alerts.
Those stations may seek new funding from state governments or private donors, but these solutions are not likely to fully replace the funding CPB provided.
The New York Times reported that roughly 120,000 new donors have contributed an estimated $20 million in annual value to public media over the last three months, according to the Contributor Development Partnership, a firm that analyzes fundraising data. Total donations this year are about $70 million ahead of last year's pace—a sharp uptick sparked in part by public concern over the loss of federal support.
The day Congress approved the rescissions, member stations saw a spike in giving, the Times reported. Rocky Mountain Public Media in Colorado received more than 6,600 donations in one weekend, including a $500,000 gift. WUNC in North Carolina raised over $1 million. WMNF in Tampa brought in more than $280,000—unusually high numbers for both.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
a minute ago
- Yahoo
FACT FOCUS: Trump says he's cut drug prices by up to 1,500%. That's not possible
Days after he sent letters instructing top pharmaceutical manufacturers to use a 'most favored nation' pricing model for prescription drugs, President Donald Trump told reporters on Sunday that he had cut costs by up to 1,500%. But Trump's grandiose claim is mathematically impossible. Here's a closer look at the facts. TRUMP: "You know, we've cut drug prices by 1,200, 1,300, 1,400, 1,500%. I don't mean 50%, I mean 14 — 1,500%.' THE FACTS: This is false. Cutting drug prices by more than 100% would theoretically mean that people are being paid to take medications. The Trump administration has taken steps to lower prescription drug prices, but experts say there's no indication costs have seen such a massive drop. Geoffrey Joyce, director of health policy at the University of Southern California's Schaeffer Center, called Trump's claim 'total fiction' made up by the Republican president. He agreed that it would amount to drug companies paying customers, rather than the other way around. 'I find it really difficult to translate those numbers into some actual estimates that patients would see at the pharmacy counter,' said Mariana Socal, an associate professor of health policy and management at Johns Hopkins University who studies the U.S. pharmaceutical market. She added that Trump's math is 'really hard to follow.' Asked what Trump was using to back up his claim, White House spokesman Kush Desai said: 'It's an objective fact that Americans are paying exponentially more for the same exact drugs as people in other developed countries pay, and it's an objective fact that no other Administration has done more to rectify this unfair burden for the American people.' The White House provided a chart of price differentials for drugs in the U.S. and comparable countries, but did not offer any other evidence. On Sunday, Trump also described cuts to drug prices as a future development, not that already happened. 'So we'll be dropping drug prices,' he said. 'It will start over the next two to three months by 1,200, 1,300 and even 1,400%.' Prices for most prescription drugs — unbranded generics are the exception — are higher in the U.S. than they are in other high-income countries. This is in large part due to the way drug prices are negotiated in the United States. Trump made his recent appeal in letters to 17 pharmaceutical manufacturers, the White House announced last week. He asked them to reduce costs in the U.S. by matching the lowest prices of prescriptions drugs in other comparably developed countries. Some drugmakers have since indicated that they are open to cutting costs. This move follows an executive order Trump signed in May setting a 30-day deadline for drugmakers to electively lower prices in the U.S. or face new limits in the future over what the government will pay. The federal government has the most power to shape the price it pays for drugs covered by Medicare and Medicaid. It's unclear what — if any — impact the Trump administration's efforts will have on millions of Americans who have private health insurance. Socal pointed out that if drug manufacturers had cut costs to the extent Trump claims, they would be shouting it from the rooftops, especially given the heat they've taken over the years for their pricing practices. 'My expectation would be that they would make announcements — public announcements — and that those announcements would come way in advance of the actual effective dates when those price cuts would come into effect,' she said. Joyce agreed that there has been no indication of a substantial cut. 'Not at all, not at all, none whatsoever,' he said. 'And let alone 1,500.' ___ Find AP Fact Checks here:
Yahoo
a minute ago
- Yahoo
Former BLS commissioner explains damage of Trump's BLS firing
President Trump's surprise firing of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) commissioner has raised concerns about potential political interference in labor data. William Beach, former BLS commissioner and Economic Policy Innovation Center (EPIC) senior fellow in economics, joins to explain how jobs data is collected and why the integrity of the process is critical to public trust. To watch more expert insights and analysis on the latest market action, check out more Market Domination. I guess to start, Bill, let me just get your reaction on that news of Trump firing the BLS chief. What do you make of it, Bill? How important is it? What's at stake? I was I was very surprised when he did that. I, in fact, it caught me when I was in my pickup truck. I had to I had to come over to the side and just sat there for about 40 minutes fielding calls. Uh, so, what do I make of it? Well, it first off, it damages BLS a bit because as your previous experts pointed out, uh, now, there's this uh this cover, this uh this appearance that there may be some bias, and that there may be some people working inside BLS to shape the numbers. I can tell you that it's simply not true and and it's it's just simply not the case that the commissioner, especially the commissioner, has anything to do with the preparation of the numbers or the estimation of the numbers. Much more likely, there's some senior person deep inside the bowels might, but the commissioner's just completely locked out of that thing, but the damage is done. Uh, even if St. Peter was the nominee and that was approved in committee and on the floor of the Senate, there would still be this this possibility in people's minds who don't follow BLS that closely, that, "Well," you you know, "Uh, a poor month, maybe 25,000 jobs." And they'll say, "Well, it it could have been a lot worse, and it probably was a lot worse, but St. Peter raised the number." So, uh yeah, we're going to take a long time to recover from this. I hope we can recover in a shorter amount of time than I'm I'm expecting, but I think damage was done. Can you walk us through, Bill, how does BLS collect the data? Can you walk us through that process? Well, sure, there're two surveys, and the survey we're talking about, the revisions, the big revisions, is a survey of business establishments. You know, somewhere around 600,000. The number varies from month to month. These are surveyed. This is a survey, and as a consequence, uh the it is a sample of the entire 12 million firms that are out there. So, we collect that sample in the time period in which the 12th of the month occurs. That should be a payroll period, with the 12th of the month, the date in there. And then the sample begins to come in. By the end of the first month, we have about 68% of that sample in, and it's on the basis of that that the estimate is done. So, on the basis of about 68 65 to 70% of the returned sample. Now, you notice I didn't say 100%. Um, that's because some firms don't get their sample in, so it the period of collection is kept open for 2 more months. Uh, by the end of the second month, we have about 83% of the sample in. By the end of the third month, we have 91 to 95% of the sample in, so it's a very complete survey. That sample is collected at the regional level, sent to the National Office. In the National Office, which is here in Washington, now at the Suitland Federal Center, that the there are people who take the sample return and using formulas, mathematics, statistics, they expand that sample up to hit national targets for, say, individual industries, like banking or finance or something of that nature. And then, on the basis of those, we sum it all up, and that's the national number that's reported first Friday. That's the 73,000 additional net jobs in the economy. So, that's basically how it's done. Related Videos How Wall Street & DC are reacting to Trump's BLS firing Fmr. Commerce Sec. Wilbur Ross explains Trump's BLS suspicions Trump to announce new Fed governor & BLS head this week Bill Dudley on Fed Disagreement, BLS Data Quality Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
a minute ago
- Yahoo
Oil prices fall on Trump's India tariff threats, OPEC+ output
Oil prices (CL=F, BZ=F) are under pressure on Monday after US President Trump threatened to raise tariffs on India due to its purchase of Russian oil and OPEC+ lifted production numbers. Yahoo Finance Senior Reporter Ines Ferré outlines what investors need to know. To watch more expert insights and analysis on the latest market action, check out more Market Domination. Oil futures are sliding this coming against the backdrop of OPEC plus hiking oil production and potential supply disruptions linked to Russia. For more, bring in Yahoo Finance senior market reporter, Ines Ferre. Ines. Yeah, Josh, we saw Brent today down more than 1 and a half percent, and WTI also down almost 2%. This is because of that September output hike from OPEC Plus. Now, Goldman Sachs says that they do not expect any more hikes from OPEC Plus. This pretty much now unwinds the 2.2 million barrels per day, those voluntary cuts that they had installed over the last couple of years. So, for now, this should be the last output hike. As far as Brent futures are concerned and where they're going for the rest of the year, well, Goldman Sachs is saying that they're going to go lower. They're predicting $64 per barrel for Brent by the fourth quarter of this year. So we're about $4 away from that. And also, as far as 2026 is concerned, they're predicting that Brent is going to go down to $56 per barrel. They're talking about more supply coming into the market with non-OPEC members that have new production coming on, like US shale, like Brazil, also Norway, as well. So that really limits the amount of more output hikes that OPEC Plus could do without creating a surplus, Josh. And Ines, we also saw some headlines about India's oil purchases from Russia. What can you tell us about that? Yeah. So, well, President Trump has really been pressuring India to stop purchasing oil from Russia. Essentially, basically saying that they are funding Russia, Russia's initiatives in Ukraine, in the war in Ukraine. So, Trump saying that he will substantially increase tariffs on India. But Indian Prime Minister Modi has said they're going to continue buying Russian oil. He also said that Indians should purchase domestic products. I will say that what Wall Street is looking at is if Russian production were to somehow be compromised, or if that would be decreased, then you would see an upside risk to oil prices. In this case, India is kind of stuck in this sort of push that Trump has been doing in order to end the war in Ukraine, and him using tariffs and pointing to oil purchases because India has been a big buyer of Russian oil since the war in Ukraine started. All right. Thank you, Ines. Appreciate it.