‘Devastating': US public broadcasters condemn Trump cuts to key programs
The House signed off on the bill early on Friday morning, after Wednesday's key decision in the Senate to pass $9bn in spending cuts, slashing public broadcasting as well as foreign aid. The PBS president and CEO, Paula Kerger, said that the Senate's approval of the package 'goes against the will of the American people'.
'These cuts will significantly impact all of our stations, but 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,' Kerger said.
'Despite today's setback, we are determined to keep fighting to preserve the essential services we provide to the American public.'
Related: US House passes Trump plan to cut $9bn from foreign aid, public broadcasting
Similarly, NPR's CEO, Katherine Maher, said: 'Nearly three in four Americans say they rely on their public radio stations for alerts and news for their public safety.
Kate Riley, the president and CEO of the advocacy group America's Public Television Stations, said the organization was 'devastated that the Senate voted to eliminate federal funding to the local public television stations throughout this country that provide essential lifesaving public safety services, proven educational services and community connections to their communities every day for free'.
The head of Native Public Media, Loris Taylor, called the Senate's decision 'deeply troubling'.
Taylor, who heads a network of 57 Native radio stations and four T stations, had privately implored the South Dakota Republican senator Mike Rounds to reject the package, the New York Times reported on Wednesday.
Following the Senate's passage of the bill, which Rounds ultimately endorsed, Taylor said: 'It poses an immediate threat to the survival of small, rural, and Tribal stations across the country. 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.
'Without this federal support, Native and rural communities stand to lose critical lifelines that connect them to the rest of the nation.'
Echoing similar sentiments, Tom Abbott, the general manager of the KFSK community radio in Petersburg, Alaska, said: 'This destructive rescission of CPB funding – the substantial majority of which goes to local stations per statutory formula – will result in immediate and serious cuts to stations' local services and in some cases the total closure of stations, particularly in rural communities.'
Abbott said: 'KFSK is about to lose 30% of our budget for this fiscal year, which began on July 1. We have a staff of five with an additional two part-time high school students and a Columbia University School of Journalism graduate student employed as our summer news intern. We will be forced to reduce our staff and therefore reduce our local service.'
He added: 'Our broadcast day is nearly 60% locally produced content, ironically this revenue cut will likely result in more NPR-produced content in the event we can continue to raise enough donations locally to remain relevant and on the air.'
LaFontaine Oliver, the president and executive chair of New York Public radio, shared similar concerns over the cuts' impacts on smaller stations.
'While CPB funding represents a relatively modest percentage of New York Public Radio's revenue, approximately 4%, the loss of CPB funding will still have a notable impact on our ability to serve audiences in our city and region with local news, community conversation, and cultural and classical music programming,' Oliver said.
'But we know that federal funding accounts for a much more significant amount of the budget for stations in smaller markets and rural areas, places that often lack commercial broadcast options, and those communities will feel the impact most swiftly and deeply,' he added.
As part of NYPR's response to the threats from the Trump administration over public broadcasting, the station created a new role for LaFontaine – executive chair – this week. The station said this new role was created to allow LaFontaine 'to focus on the long-term sustainability of NYPR and the broader public radio system'.
'He'll be focusing on fundraising from foundations, members and other public sources, forging new collaborations and finding ways to support smaller stations,' NYPR added.
Related: Why is the media paying millions to Trump? – podcast
Other stations have also begun making internal changes. Earlier this week, the San Francisco-based TV and radio station KQED announced that it was making a 15% reduction to its workforce, citing 'a number of concurrent attempts to eliminate or impair federal funding for public media.'
KQED's president, Michael Isip, said: 'We are deeply troubled that the Senate voted to eliminate congressionally approved federal funding for public media … If enacted, this bill poses serious financial challenges to NPR, PBS, and all local stations like KQED.
'Ultimately, the greatest impact will be on the communities we serve who rely on us for emergency communications, educational programming and services for our youngest learners, and trustworthy local news and information. This will be especially devastating in rural areas where their local public media station is their only local source for critical media services.'
Solve the daily Crossword
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump signs executive order making it easier to remove homeless people from streets
President Donald Trump signed an executive order Thursday making it easier for local jurisdictions to remove homeless people from the streets. The order directs Attorney General Pam Bondi to 'reverse judicial precedents and end consent decrees' that limit jurisdictions' abilities to relocate homeless people. It also redirects federal resources so that affected homeless people are transferred to rehabilitation and substance misuse facilities. It also directs Bondi to work with Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Housing and Urban Development Secretary Scott Turner and Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy to fast-track federal funding to states and municipalities that crack down on 'open illicit drug use, urban camping and loitering, and urban squatting, and track the location of sex offenders.' 'President Trump is delivering on his commitment to Make America Safe Again and end homelessness across America,' Leavitt said in a statement Thursday. 'By removing vagrant criminals from our streets and redirecting resources toward substance abuse programs, the Trump Administration will ensure that Americans feel safe in their own communities and that individuals suffering from addiction or mental health struggles are able to get the help they need.' Advocates for the homeless condemned the executive orders with some saying that it will make homelessness worse for communities. 'These executive orders ignore decades of evidence-based housing and support services in practice. They represent a punitive approach that has consistently failed to resolve homelessness and instead exacerbates the challenges faced by vulnerable individuals,' said Donald Whitehead, executive director of the National Coalition for the Homeless, in a press release. The National Homelessness Law Center said the order 'deprives people of their basic rights and makes it harder to solve homelessness' in a statement on Thursday. The group said the order will expand the use of police and institutionalization in response to homelessness, while increasing the number of people living in tents, cars and on the streets. Order follows high court decision The order comes a month after the Supreme Court ruled in favor of an Oregon city that ticketed homeless people for sleeping outside. Justices rejected arguments that such 'anti-camping' ordinances violate the Constitution's ban on 'cruel and unusual' punishment. The case had been watched closely by city and state officials who have struggled to respond to a surge in homelessness and encampments that have cropped up under bridges and in city parks across the nation. It was also followed by people who live in those encampments and are alarmed by efforts to criminalize the population rather than build shelters and affordable housing. Homelessness in the US soared to the highest level on record last year, driven by a lack of affordable housing, a rise in migrants seeking shelter and natural disasters, which caused some people to be displaced from their homes, according to the Department of Housing and Urban Development. More than 770,000 people experienced homelessness in 2024, an 18% increase from 2023. It was the largest annual increase since HUD began collecting the data in 2007 (excluding the jump from 2021 to 2022, when the agency didn't conduct a full count due to the Covid-19 pandemic). As a candidate, Trump railed against the nation's homeless crisis, telling supporters during a September campaign rally it was 'destroying our cities.' 'The homeless encampments will be gone,' Trump said in remarks from North Carolina. 'They're going to be gone. Oh, you have to see, you have to – some of these encampments, what they've done to our cities, and we've got to take care of the people.' CNN's Shania Shelton contributed to this report. Solve the daily Crossword
Axios
22 minutes ago
- Axios
Metro faces major shakeup as city waits for Supreme Court ruling in council size lawsuit
Metro leaders are one loss at the Tennessee Supreme Court away from having to completely remake Nashville's city government. The big picture: The size of the Metro Council would be reduced from its current 40 members to no more than 20 under a state law that has been the subject of a contentious two-year legal battle. Metro wants the Supreme Court to overturn a lower appeal's court's ruling upholding the law. The intrigue: The political reality around the court — all five members were appointed by Republican governors — makes the city's chances of a legal victory seem unlikely. It's possible the Supreme Court doesn't even take up the case. Between the lines: Since its formation in 1963, the Metro system of government favored the executive branch. With an unwieldy 40 members, legislative powers were watered down, and the mayor enjoyed significantly more control. Slashing the council in half could serve as a rebalancing. Flashback: In 2023, Republicans in the legislature passed a law capping the size of Metro Councils across the state at 20 members. Nashville's is the only such government in Tennessee with a council larger than 20, and some critics viewed the measure as retribution for its Metro Council refusing to bid on hosting the Republican National Convention in 2024. After a lower court panel ruled the law unconstitutional, the state won at the appeals court level and the law was upheld. State of play: City leaders insist they are not actively working on the details of reducing the council, but the uncertainty of the Supreme Court even taking up the case means behind-the-scenes conversations must begin. "For a matter of this complexity and potential magnitude, without presuming any particular outcome (in the legal challenge), as president of the Metro Council, it would be irresponsible of me not to be thinking through various scenarios and contingencies," Vice Mayor Angie Henderson tells Axios. "This moment requires thoughtfulness and prudence as we await the response of the Tennessee Supreme Court." What he's saying:"If we have to face the reality of a smaller council, there will be multiple voices in the room, including the Planning Department, the mayor, the vice mayor and the council itself," Metro legal director Wally Dietz tells Axios. "It's a very complicated legal process inside Metro. But, we're not there yet." What we're watching: Here are the monumental logistical questions facing Metro leaders should the appeal to the Supreme Court fail. How many at-large members The current council consists of five at-large seats representing the entire county and 35 district seats representing smaller sections of town. If the council is reduced to 20, city leaders will have to determine how many at-large seats should remain. Some council members want to keep five at-large seats, while others have mentioned three or two. There figures to be some members who push for eliminating the at-large roles altogether and forming a council with 20 district seats. Staffing and funding The most time-consuming part of a district council member's job is dealing with zoning applications and constituent services. If the council shrinks, meetings, texts and emails double. That could lead to needing more staff and paying the council members higher salaries. Increasing the pay creates the possibility of the council being effectively a full-time job, compared to the part-time job it is for most members now. How to draw the district lines Metro already goes through redistricting every decade, and typically the lines are drawn so that incumbent members don't have to run against each other in the next election. It will be impossible to maintain that approach with just 20 seats. It could lead to intriguing match-ups on the ballot in 2027. A guiding principle in drawing the lines will be maintaining the percentage of minority representatives on the council. Flashback: In 2023, the Planning Department released proposed maps for a 20-person counci l. The maps were moot because Metro won the initial court challenge and the law was struck down. Revisiting the old maps is a guide to what the new council districts could look like. All eyes on 2027 If the council is cut in half, as many anticipate, it will create a political battle royale for the city in 2027. In the last election two years ago, business groups faced off against progressive activist organizations in backing different candidates in Metro Council races. Overall, the progressive groups won that battle, flexing their grassroots organizing strength to overcome the fundraising advantage of the pro-business organizations. The result has been a council skeptical of increasing policing funding for initiatives like license plate readers, as well as increased scrutiny on economic development measures.
Axios
22 minutes ago
- Axios
Canada won't play Minnesota's wildfire smoke blame game
Minnesotans are inhaling another plume of smoke from Canada this week, and an attempt to blame Canada's handling of wildfires is being met with eye-rolls north of the border. Why it matters: Experts say smoky summers are likely the new normal in Minnesota and many parts of North America unaccustomed to dealing with the haze as climate change turns the continent's forests into tinderboxes. "We need to learn to live with fire and, unfortunately, learn to live with smoke," Ed Struzik, a Canadian environmental journalist and wildfire expert, told Axios. Driving the news: Earlier this month, Minnesota's Republican Congressional delegation demanded the Canadian government deploy new technology and share its plans for mitigating wildfires and smoke. "Canada must take stronger action to manage its forests," U.S. Rep. Pete Stauber wrote on X. The letter didn't go over well in Canada. Manitoba Premier Wab Kinew called the letter's congressional authors " ambulance chasers." The big picture: Even if Canada's national government were to devote more time and money to wildfire prevention and response — as some of the country's fire chiefs recently demanded after a record-setting 2023 fire season — Canadian experts say the measures would probably not stop smoke from billowing over the U.S. border. Many of the lawmakers' critiques would be equally valid in the U.S., which has deployed a number of the same responses and a comparable amount of resources toward wildfire prevention, Struzik said. Between the lines: Fire is a healthy part of many ecosystems' life cycles, and a century of extinguishing even the smallest blazes in both countries means there is plenty of fuel on the ground ready to ignite, University of British Columbia forest ecologist Lori Daniels told Axios. Thanks to climate change, these lands are also rapidly becoming hotter and drier. Reality check: The Minnesota GOP delegation's letter identified arson as a key cause, but Struzik noted lightning starts the vast majority of all Canadian wildfires. "There's nothing you can do about lightning," Struzik said, especially when it lights a remote area that burns out of control — and belches a lot of smoke. Yes, but: Canada has been slower than the U.S. to embrace prescribed burns — one of the most effective ways to protect against future wildfires, University of British Columbia assistant professor Mathieu Bourbonnais told Axios. These strategically set, carefully managed fires thin forests that are likely to burn. North America's Indigenous peoples used these burns for generations to maintain forest health. Canada does fewer burns because more land there is publicly owned, and it's trickier to set such fires on public land, said Bourbonnais. (He's now helping create a prescribed burn training program.)
