WVIA discusses risks posed by Trump federal funding cuts aimed at NPR, PBS
WVIA is scrambling to keep President Donald Trump from cutting federal funds the media outlet uses to operate.
Carla McCabe, the president and CEO of the PBS and NPR affiliate that serves Northeast Pennsylvania, said federal funds are vital, because removal puts 'the future of the entire system at risk.'
She issued a statement regarding an order executed by Trump on Thursday aiming to cut federal funding to both networks.
WVIA's PBS and NPR memberships include Channel 44 WVIA-TV, and its sister radio station, 89.9 WVIA-FM.
'Federal funding represents about 20% of WVIA's budget,' McCabe said. 'With it, we deliver independent journalism to the region, vital storytelling, enriching cultural programming, educational services on radio, television, online, and in the classroom and community.'
*
Carla McCabe, President and CEO of WVIA in Scranton, PA. (WVIA / Submitted)
*
Democratic candidate Representative Matt Cartwright and his Republican challenger Rob Bresnahan Jr. exchange pleasantries prior to the start of the WVIA produced Pennsylvania 8th Congressional District Debate, held in October 2024.
*
President Donald Trump issued an order to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to revoke federal funding to PBS and NPR on Thursday. The funding could have regional implications, specifically on Scranton's WVIA-TV and WVIA-FM's ability to provide programming, education and other services to Northeast Pennsylvania.
Show Caption
1 of 3
Carla McCabe, President and CEO of WVIA in Scranton, PA. (WVIA / Submitted)
Expand
The order, which the White House Office of Communications blasted via email to the media after 11 p.m. on Thursday night, stated that Trump's executive order instructed the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to remove all federal funding from National Public Radio and Public Broadcasting Service.
The order, titled 'Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Biased Media,' cited that government funding of the news media outlets today is 'outdated and unnecessary,' and 'corrosive to the appearance of journalistic independence,' and stated that tax dollars used to fund the outlets should be expected by Americans to fund 'only fair, accurate, unbiased, and nonpartisan news coverage.'
McCabe said covering local history, local people, community events and environmental stories is part of the work the stations do, and without federal funding, there would be a 'negative impact' on their 'service to the community,' including the inability to deliver important supports for the area's youngest population.
'WVIA provides critical education resources for 3-to-4-year old children in the region who do not attend preschool,' McCabe said. 'In 2024, WVIA Education engaged more than 95,000 students through partnerships with local school districts, including early childhood education classroom visits and resources and vital career readiness resources for 5th through 12th graders.'
McCabe said the organization America's Public Television Stations, or APTS, is representing them and 'America's 170 public television licensees' in the 'federal legislative, regulatory and related matters' in Washington, D.C.
Kate Riley, the president and CEO of America's Public Television Stations, issued a statement regarding Trump's order, saying the organization is 'deeply concerned' by it, and that it 'defies the will of the American people,' and would 'devastate' public safety, educational and local service missions, citing emergency alerting capabilities and PBS KIDS educational programming, among others.
'By eliminating funding for PBS and NPR, this executive order would destroy the local-national partnership that is essential to local public television stations' ability to provide their communities with the mix of local, regional, independent and national programming that their communities rely on,' Riley said, adding the outlets provide 'a lifeline in hundreds of communities.'
'We will be reviewing this executive order more closely and working to prevent the negative impact it would have on the public media system and the American people,' the statement concluded.
In an email issued by the White House Office of Communications on Friday morning with the subject line, 'President Trump Finally Ends the Madness of NPR, PBS,' a long list of programming examples 'of the trash that has passed for 'news' at NPR and PBS' were outlined.
Among them are a 'children's program that featured a drag queen named 'Lil' Miss Hot Mess,' in 2021 on PBS, a PBS-produced movie 'celebrating a transgender teenager's so-called 'changing gender identity,'' and Sesame Street's partnering with CNN on 'a one-sided narrative to 'address racism' amid the Black Lives Matter riots.'
NPR was criticized for exploring 'the racial origins of fat phobia,' and for declaring that the Declaration of Independence contained 'flaws and deeply ingrained hypocrisies.'
The email called PBS and NPR outlets entities that 'receive tens of millions of dollars in taxpayer funds each year to spread radical, woke propaganda disguised as 'news.''
McCabe did not elaborate on whether the cut in federal funding appeared to be vindictive.
'No comment,' she said.
Patricia Harrison, president and CEO of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, said her group is not a federal executive agency and is not subject to the president's authority.
'In creating CPB, Congress expressly forbade 'any department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over educational television or radio broadcasting … ,' Harrison said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
40 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Former Minnesota House speaker and husband killed in politically motivated shooting, Gov. Walz says
CHAMPLIN, Minn. — Former Minnesota House Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband were killed Saturday in a politically motivated shooting, Gov. Tim Walz said. A second state legislator and his wife were wounded in a separate attack. Both targeted lawmakers are Democrats. Officials say the suspect in the shootings was still at large. Mayor Ryan Sabas of the town of Champlin earlier announced that state Sen. John Hoffman and state Rep. Hortman had been shot, and that Hoffman's wife was also shot. Walz and other authorities said at a news conference that the assailant was posing as a law enforcement officer. Investigators were working to establish motive for the attacks, officials said. Walz said the shootings were targeted. Hortman was the top House Democratic leader in the state Legislature and a former House speaker. She was first elected in 2004. Hortman, a lawyer, was married with two children. Hoffman, also Democrat, was first elected in 2012. He runs Hoffman Strategic Advisors, a consulting firm. He previously served as vice chair of the Anoka Hennepin School Board, which manages the largest school district in Minnesota. Hoffman is married and has one daughter. Both Hoffman and Hortman represent districts located north of Minneapolis. The shootings happened at a time when political leaders nationwide have been attacked, harassed and intimidated during a time of deep political divisions. Former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, leader of Giffords, a national gun violence prevention group, said in a statement: 'I am horrified and heartbroken by last night's attack on two patriotic public servants. My family and I know the horror of a targeted shooting all too well. An attack against lawmakers is an attack on American democracy itself. Leaders must speak out and condemn the fomenting violent extremism that threatens everything this country stands for.' Giffords was shot in the head in 2011 by a gunman who killed six people and injured 12 others. She stepped down from Congress in January 2012 to focus on her recovery.
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
The decline of coal isn't a conspiracy — it's the market reality
A core misunderstanding fuels a recent lawsuit that has made headlines. The Republican attorneys general of Texas and 10 other states have accused some of the nation's largest asset managers of 'colluding' to harm coal companies, claiming falsely that the decline of coal is the result of some coordinated political vendetta rather than simple, demonstrable market economics. With the Justice Department and Federal Trade Commission joining the conversation, it is important to delve into the details and consider market trends over the past few decades. Coal's decline in the U.S. did not start with asset managers or so-called 'environmental, social and governance' or ESG investment policies. It started decades ago, with the shale gas revolution, when fracking technology unleashed an abundant, cheap and cleaner-burning alternative. U.S. Energy Information Administration data show that U.S. coal production was 1.13 trillion short tons in 2001, but by 2020 that number had declined to 535 billion short tons — its lowest level since 1965. Natural gas outcompeted coal because it made economic sense. It has lower operating costs, fewer regulatory burdens and, perhaps most importantly, reduced environmental impact. Add in the drop in the cost of renewables, and coal's decline was predictable. Asset managers saw the writing on the wall and adjusted their investments, as their fiduciary duty to their clients demands. This is about economics, not ideology — business decisions, not politics. Power utilities, manufacturers and even global markets have made decisions based on price, efficiency and reliability. We know this because coal's decline happened in both public and private coal companies. Coal companies themselves have noted the decline in prior Securities and Exchange Commission annual reports. Capital flows based on competitive advantage, not political talking points. What these attorneys general attempt to frame as 'coal collusion' is, in fact, a textbook example of fiduciary responsibility and following industry direction. Asset managers have a legal duty to evaluate long-term risks and returns for their clients. When coal projects increasingly face uncertain demand, regulatory headwinds and operational volatility, it is prudent investing to limit exposure. The lawsuit itself notes that coal production increased (incrementally) in 2021, the first year of the supposed 'conspiracy.' This further shows the inconsistency of the argument, raising questions about whether the lawsuit is really about coal or about weaponizing an economic trend — a dangerous precedent to set. We must be honest about what's happening to coal, and to energy more broadly. Rather than distort reality for short-term political gain, let's focus on developing solutions that respect our economic system, support innovation and ensure energy security. The real conversation we should be having is about ensuring energy abundance through all means. Let's talk about how to accelerate nuclear energy, streamline permitting for cleaner domestic production, invest in resilient grid infrastructure, and maintain American leadership in next-generation energy technologies. Allowing for a truly 'all of the above' energy strategy enables investments in diverse, dependable and secure energy sources. Climate, energy and market decisions are complex and intertwined. They deserve meticulous debate. It's time to refocus the conversation on pragmatism and opportunity — not partisan politicking. We should all care about America's energy future, and to best do so, we have to stop pretending market evolution is sabotage. The decline of coal in the U.S. is simply capitalism doing exactly what conservatives have always trusted it to do: adapt and allocate capital where it best serves growth, stability and prosperity. Benji Backer is the Founder and CEO of Nature Is Nonpartisan. He also serves as the executive chairman of the American Conservation Coalition and is the best-selling author of 'The Conservative Environmentalist: Common Sense Solutions for a Sustainable Future.'
Politico
an hour ago
- Politico
The week Trump rocked California: ‘He's pulling the trigger on everything all at once.'
California Democrats have long battled Donald Trump. But they've never faced such a ferocious offensive as they did this week. Between the deployment of federal agents to Los Angeles, the gutting of climate standards and the manhandling of the state's senior U.S. senator, the state absorbed one show of force after another from the president. And in the balance of power between the Trump administration and the nation's most populous state, California was on the losing end. 'We're at DEFCON 1 in the conflict between California and the Trump administration,' said Democratic strategist Katie Merrill. 'It's orders of magnitude more than what we've seen, ever.' Democrats in this deep-blue state have spent years working to shield California from a hostile White House, dating back to his first term. But for them, the week's events registered a new low — a multifront assault that not only threatened the state's liberal values, but exposed the limits of California's ability to control its destiny when the federal government has other ideas. 'The moment we've feared,' Gov. Gavin Newsom said in a Tuesday night address, 'has arrived.' Trump's focus on California is predictable. The state was a perennial first-term target term that Republicans and conservative media allies have relentlessly portrayed as dysfunctional and lawless. It has produced national Democratic figures, like Newsom and former Vice President Kamala Harris, who have eagerly hoisted the anti-Trump banner. Elected officials spent months preparing for a second Trump administration. They studied Project 2025 and set aside money to contest Trump's agenda in court. But the scale and aggressiveness of the onslaught has still stunned them. The harrowing stretch for California Democrats began with immigration raids across the Los Angeles area. Then, when protests sprang up, Trump deployed thousands of National Guard troops to the region over Newsom's objections. He then moved to eliminate California's vehicle emissions standards as his administration contemplated withholding education dollars over California's policies on transgender athletes. By Thursday, Democrats were watching with outrage a video clip of Padilla being forcibly removed from a Department of Homeland Security news conference, pulled to the ground and handcuffed. And that night, just hours after a federal judge ordered the president to end his unilateral deployment of the state's National Guard, an appeals court preserved his ability to do so, at least temporarily. It marked a major escalation of the Democratic state's long-running feud with the president to a new, existential echelon of antagonism. 'Federalizing the National Guard was in the 2025 plan, but we hoped he wouldn't do something so drastic and dramatic,' said Dana Williamson, who was Newsom's chief of staff until earlier this year. 'He's pulling the trigger on everything all at once.' Trump's decision to enlist the National Guard and Marines in his immigration agenda — and in Los Angeles, a bastion of Latino political power — has made California a globally watched test case for the limits of federal power. Hours before Judge Charles Breyer issued his decision ordering Trump to end his deployment of the Guard, Padilla strode into a press conference to question Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and was forcibly restrained. Images of a supine Padilla surrounded by federal agents ignited universal Democratic condemnation and came to symbolize the stakes of California's fight with the federal government. Many Democrats argued the White House had pushed California to the precipice of authoritarianism. Federal pressure on California's political luminaries extended beyond Padilla's confrontation with Noem: Officials detained prominent union leader David Huerta; Sen. Josh Hawley launched an investigation into a Los Angeles-based immigrant advocacy group; and Border czar Tom Homan threatened to arrest anyone, including Newsom, who interfered with federal enforcement. 'This is about an abuse of power. This is about a desire to cross red lines time and time again,' said California Democratic Party Chair Rusty Hicks. 'We see that in other parts of the world,' Hicks added about Padilla. 'We don't see that here. If there weren't enough wakeup calls over the last week, that sure is one.' Padilla's treatment drew wall-to-wall coverage. But it was only one squall in the storm engulfing California. While the immigration raids plunged California into a political maelstrom, Newsom and other officials were also bracing against the threat of the Trump administration slashing funding as the president and education Secretary Linda McMahon assailed the state's policies on trans students. Then there was Trump's move to override some of California's signature climate change policies. 'They're looking to make California the punching bag,' said California Environmental Voters Executive Director Mike Young. 'We're flabbergasted and really disgusted by what's happening.' As a pillar of Democratic politics and the world's fourth-largest economy, California has long sought to mold a broader economic and political agenda. During Trump's first term, California passed a 'sanctuary' law shielding immigrants and struck an auto emissions deal that Newsom proclaimed as 'checkmate' over Trump. But it turned out to be just one move in a larger chess match. And Trump is demonstrating that he holds the most powerful pieces: a compliant Republican Congress, a conservative Supreme Court, and above all, federal supremacy over even large, wealthy states. 'The idea that the federal government can bigfoot the state government is coming to the fore,' said Loyola Law School professor Jessica Levinson. 'We are experiencing that, if you have a power struggle between the federal government and the states, chances are pretty high that the federal government wins.' While Newsom notched a victory on Thursday when a judge ordered Trump to relinquish control of the National Guard, it proved short-lived when an appeals court blocked the order for at least a few days, setting a hearing on the matter for Tuesday. The governor has walked back his threat to retaliate against withheld funding by blocking the flow of tax dollars from California to Washington. Republicans say the Constitution is squarely on their side, arguing they are rescuing California's citizens from ruinous immigration and climate policies. White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said in a statement that Trump 'rightfully stepped in to protect federal law enforcement officers' when Newsom would not. White House spokesperson Harrison Fields said Trump acted to squelch California's 'costly, unrealistic, and tyrannical' climate policies. 'The goal is to help California,' said GOP Rep. Kevin Kiley, who spearheaded the push to reverse Newsom's gas car phaseout, 'and unfortunately helping California means all too often fighting against or counteracting the politicians who hold power in our state.' Democrats say Trump is pushing limits of the law and regularly violating it. 'The lying has become more brazen. The overreach has become more evident,' said Xavier Becerra, the former state attorney general and former health secretary under President Joe Biden. 'They've dialed up the severity, the volatility of their actions, they've dialed up the intensity of their misrepresentations, but it's still at the end of the day the same unlawful actions the courts rejected the first time Donald Trump was president.' He said, 'This president won't take no for an answer. He'll continue to try to do it his way even if it runs counter to the Constitution.' California's current attorney general, Rob Bonta — whose office on Thursday sued to block the environmental rollback and then squared off with Department of Justice attorneys over the National Guard deployment — told reporters he was on pace to bring twice as many legal actions as during the first Trump administration. That reaction is of a newly urgent necessity, he suggested. 'The speed and the volume in Trump 2.0 is materially different,' Bonta said. 'The shamelessness and brazenness of the violations — they seem more severe.'
