NPR, PBS face funding threat as House Republicans cite political bias
The headquarters of PBS and NPR in Arlington, Virginia, and Washington, D.C., respectively, on Feb. 18, 2025. (Kayla Bartkowski, left, and Anna Moneymaker, both Getty Images)
Listen to article
Republican lawmakers intensified their calls to dismantle and defund the United States' public broadcasting system, with leaders from NPR and PBS defending their editorial integrity and public service missions in a tense congressional hearing.
During testimony before the House's Delivering on Government Efficiency (DOGE) subcommittee, Georgia Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene said, 'We believe that you all can hate us on your own dime,' arguing against federal support for what Republicans described as politically biased media.
The remarks come a day after President Donald Trump expressed support for eliminating funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which distributes nearly $500 million in federal funding annually to public media outlets.
NPR and PBS leaders, including CEOs Katherine Maher and Paula Kerger, were pressed on past editorial decisions and content, particularly NPR's limited coverage of Hunter Biden's laptop in the run-up to the 2020 election.
Maher, who joined NPR in 2024, conceded the network had made a mistake in not covering the story more seriously.
'We made a mistake,' she said, also acknowledging regrets over past anti-Trump social media posts written before her tenure.
The hearing reflected longstanding Republican criticisms that public broadcasters skew left in their news programming. Rep. James Comer of Kentucky cited his past support for NPR but said he no longer recognises the content, describing it as 'disinformation.'
Greene criticised PBS for content she deemed inappropriate, including a 'drag queen' photo mistakenly uploaded to a local station's website and documentaries featuring transgender individuals. Kerger clarified that such content was part of adult programming and not targeted at children.
Democrats on the panel accused Republicans of using the hearing to distract from larger national security concerns. 'If shame was still a thing, this hearing would be shameful,' said Rep. Stephen Lynch of Massachusetts.
Some lawmakers resorted to satire. Rep. Robert Garcia of California asked if Elmo, a character from Sesame Street, had ever been a member of the Communist Party. 'He's a puppet,' Kerger replied. 'But, no.'
Maher told the committee NPR's weekly listenership had dropped from 60 million in 2020 to 42 million in 2024, though it has risen slightly in the past year. She denied that the network is politically biased and highlighted efforts to diversify viewpoints in coverage.
Critics of public broadcasting have cited an essay by former NPR editor Uri Berliner, published Wednesday, in which he called for the network to stop accepting taxpayer funding and to acknowledge its progressive leanings.
Kerger warned that cuts to federal funding could devastate smaller PBS stations, particularly those in rural areas. 'This is an existential moment for them,' she said.
Following the hearing, the Committee to Protect Journalists defended NPR and PBS, calling them essential to public access to reliable information.
CEO Jodie Ginsberg said, 'Casting them as propaganda machines undeserving of taxpayer support is a dangerous mischaracterisation.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
40 minutes ago
- Express Tribune
America's immigration dilemma: Law, accountability, and the crisis within
For decades, America has prided itself as a land of opportunity—a magnet for dreamers, workers, and refugees. But today, under the aggressive implementation of ICE-led deportations, spearheaded by President Donald Trump's renewed enforcement drive, the country finds itself fractured. The issue is no longer just about legality—it has become a battleground of narratives, identity, and accountability. President Trump insists that 'millions and millions' of illegal immigrants—whom he categorizes as violent criminals, traffickers, sex offenders, and pedophiles—have 'invaded' the U.S. According to him, his administration's duty is to remove these threats through mass deportations, often carried out with military-style precision. ICE raids in cities like Los Angeles, where five individuals with criminal pasts were arrested on June 7, are presented as success stories. But a deeper question lurks behind these headlines: if such individuals are indeed dangerous and illegal, how did they get into the country in the first place? As a legal immigrant myself, my family and I embarked on a long and arduous journey. We applied in 2007 for family-sponsored immigration and were not approved until 2024. Seventeen years of background checks, verification of employment, travel history, character assessment, and criminal records—all under the scrutiny of U.S. immigration services. It is a stringent, sometimes grueling, system that leaves little room for error. If followed diligently, it is almost impossible for someone with a dubious past to pass through. This raises troubling questions. How do individuals with criminal records—those labeled as drug dealers, violent offenders, or sex criminals—make it into the U.S. undocumented? What loopholes exist? And more importantly, who allowed it? Beyond bureaucratic lapse, another profound and often overlooked truth must be acknowledged: every wave of immigration has often been triggered by destruction caused by the United States and its allies. The Syrian crisis, spurred by U.S.-led regime change attempts, created millions of refugees—many welcomed into the United States. The U.S. invasion of Iraq unleashed chaos, civil war, and displacement, compelling thousands of Iraqis to seek shelter abroad. Libya, after being bombed into anarchy, witnessed similar refugee outflows. Palestinians displaced by decades of unending Israeli occupation, often with U.S. political and military backing, have also found refuge in America. The collapse of Afghanistan after two decades of NATO occupation led to a mass exodus—especially of Afghans who worked with Western forces. Most arrived with no paperwork or formal identity verification, given the country's primitive recordkeeping systems. Yet, many were fast-tracked into the U.S., bypassing the very scrutiny imposed on legal immigrants from stable nations. This uncomfortable truth demands moral clarity: if undocumented immigrants are subject to the full weight of the law, then those policymakers and officials who created the conditions for their displacement, or allowed their entry without due diligence, must also be held accountable. It is a shared responsibility—one that begins not at the border, but in the war rooms and foreign policy chambers where these crises were ignited. There appears to be no structured inquiry or investigation into the root causes. No commissions, no accountability frameworks to identify the officials, agencies, or politicians who enabled mass illegal entry. Immigration enforcement in the U.S. has historically vacillated depending on who is in power. One administration turns a blind eye, quietly encouraging mass entry. The next tries to reverse it through high-profile crackdowns. But in the absence of institutional accountability, this cyclical dysfunction persists—feeding public anger and polarizing communities. ICE is now being weaponized not just to remove the undocumented, but to reassert political dominance. The use of unmarked vehicles, masked officers, and sudden, forceful detentions—often in front of children and elders—conveys a message of fear. It is not surprising that over 10,000 protesters recently marched through downtown Los Angeles against these raids. Many carried Mexican flags—none carried the American flag. This wasn't just a protest; it was a symptom of deeper social unrest. Critics argue that these ICE actions, while legal under the Supreme Court's allowance of 24-hour deportation notice, are being carried out in a manner that undermines constitutional due process. Rights of asylum seekers, refugees, and even undocumented residents with long-standing ties to communities are brushed aside in the name of executive orders. A nation built by immigrants is now turning its state machinery against them. Supporters of Trump's policy, on the other hand, insist that deporting illegals—especially criminals—is not just constitutional, but necessary. They point to the Clinton-era deportations of over 12 million people, Obama's deportation of 5 million, and Bush's expedited removal protocols. 'This is not new,' they argue. 'It's enforcement overdue.' But many dissenters challenge this logic. They argue that Trump is not fixing immigration—he's weaponizing it. He's framing all undocumented migrants as threats, fueling fear for political gain. His critics claim that this dehumanization is less about justice and more about re-election. Trump's rhetoric plays to a base who feel left behind—using immigrants as scapegoats for economic and social frustrations. This divide is not only ideological—it's generational, racial, and geographic. Many immigrants, including legal ones like myself, find ourselves in a complicated space. On one hand, we support the rule of law. On the other, we reject the vilification of all migrants and the blanket criminalization of entire communities. Let us remember: America is a nation of immigrants. Even Donald Trump is the grandson of Friedrich Trump, a German immigrant who arrived in the U.S. in 1885. The German Chancellor once presented Trump with his grandfather's immigration file during a White House visit—a reminder that no one, not even the president, is far removed from the immigrant experience. The real issue is not race, religion, or ethnicity. The only legitimate distinction should be between legal and illegal entry. But even that must be addressed humanely, within the framework of rights and due process. It cannot become a pretext for racial profiling, family separation, or fear campaigns. The lack of systemic accountability is the root of this chaos. Who failed to enforce border laws? Who allowed the lapse? Was it intentional? Was there bribery? Was it negligence or political strategy? These are the questions no one in Washington wants to answer. The consequences of this negligence go beyond borders. As seen in the Los Angeles protest, foreign governments—like Mexico—may begin to leverage their diaspora as political tools. If unchecked, this tactic could be replicated by other countries, introducing a dangerous element of foreign interference in domestic American affairs. In my observation of reactions on X (formerly Twitter), two dominant narratives have emerged: one, defending ICE's actions and Trump's policies as lawful and overdue; the other, denouncing the excessive force and racial undertones as unconstitutional and inhumane. Some comments suggest this is less about criminals and more about silencing immigrants—legal and illegal alike—through fear and exclusion. What, then, is the way forward? First, no society or country elsewhere in the world may be destroyed, and no country, especially one as powerful as the United States, should ever tolerate illegal immigration. The law must be upheld. But enforcement must be precise, proportional, and humane. Second, there must be rigorous accountability. Politicians, departments, and border enforcement agencies that failed in their duty must face consequences. Only then can the system regain public trust. Third, investment must be made into technology, manpower, and processes that make it virtually impossible for undocumented migrants—especially those with criminal records—to enter undetected. The U.S. has done this before during the post-9/11 anti-terrorism era. It can do it again. This is not just about protecting borders. It's about preserving the spirit of America—a land where laws are enforced, but justice is never blind to humanity. If illegal immigration is the dragon, it must be slain at its roots. Not with brutality, but with policy, accountability, and moral clarity. Let us hope that sanity prevails. Let us hope that the United States rises above political theatrics and embraces a model of immigration that is lawful, just, and worthy of the ideals it claims to defend.
Business Recorder
2 hours ago
- Business Recorder
Israeli left-wing leader says war must end, government ‘doesn't represent' the people
JERUSALEM: Israeli left-wing opposition leader Yair Golan called on Monday for an immediate end to the Gaza war and said that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government no longer represented most Israelis. 'Today the government of Israel doesn't represent the vast majority of Israelis,' said Golan, chairman of the Democrats party and a former deputy army chief, days before a planned parliament vote which the opposition hopes would trigger a general election. He told journalists in a briefing that after more than 20 months of fighting, triggered by Hamas's October 7, 2023 attack, Israel 'should end the war as soon as possible'. Golan's party, a conglomeration of left-wing factions, has only four seats in Israel's 120-member legislature, making it one of its smallest political groups. But in a country where coalition building is essential to achieving a political majority, even relatively small parties can wield considerable power. Golan, a former deputy minister in a short-lived administration that replaced Netanyahu in 2021-2022, said that the current government – one of the most right-wing in Israel's history – was a threat to democracy. Israeli military retrieves body of Thai hostage from Gaza, defence minister says The opposition leader said he represents those 'who want to save Israeli democracy… from a corrupted future' and from the 'messianic-like and nationalistic and extremist vision of a very small faction in the Israeli society'. 'The vast majority wants to keep Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people and at the same time a free, egalitarian and democratic state,' Golan said. He said that the vast majority of Israelis wanted to see an immediate end to the war in Gaza, the return of all hostages held by Palestinian in a single exchange deal, and the establishment of a national commission of inquiry into Hamas's unprecedented 2023 attack, arguing that the Netanyahu government was opposed to these objectives. 'I believe that we can reach a hostages deal in a matter of days,' Golan said. 'I believe that by ending the war and freeing the hostages, we will be able to build an alternative to Hamas inside the Gaza Strip.' Criticising the government's Gaza war policies, the former army general has recently drawn condemnation in Israel for saying that 'a sane country… does not kill babies for a hobby'. Golan on Monday also said that most Israelis support legislation that would require ultra-Orthodox Jewish men, who are currently largely exempt from military service, to enlist. The issue has sparked tension between Netanyahu and ultra-Orthodox parties in his government, with lawmakers threatening to topple the prime minister if no agreement is reached this week. Some opposition parties are seeking to place a bill to dissolve parliament on Wednesday's plenary agenda, hoping to capitalise on the ultra-Orthodox revolt. 'The vast majority wants new elections as soon as possible,' Golan said.
Business Recorder
4 hours ago
- Business Recorder
Chinese and Hong Kong stocks gain ahead of Sino-US trade talks
Hong Kong: Chinese and Hong Kong stocks edged higher on Monday, led by the rare earth and technology sectors, as investors awaited high-level U.S.-China trade negotiations in London. Investors were cautiously positive as the world's two largest economies seek to defuse their trade dispute, with China grappling with slow exports and deflation while the U.S. faces eroding confidence in its assets and economy. U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and Trade Representative Jamieson Greer will meet China's Vice Premier He Lifeng in the first meeting under the two countries' economic and trade consultation mechanism. China's blue-chip CSI300 Index closed up 0.3% and the Shanghai Composite Index ended 0.4% higher. Hong Kong's benchmark Hang Seng advanced 1.6% to the highest level since March 21. The offshore yuan struggled for direction and was last traded at 7.1852 per dollar. Monday's meeting follows a rare leader-to-leader call between Chinese leader Xi Jinping and U.S. President Donald Trump on Thursday after tensions flared up again, with both sides accusing the other of violating a deal agreed last month. China, HK stocks close down as US-China call offers no clear progress on trade The two sides agreed a 90-day pause and a sharp reduction in tariffs after talks in Geneva in early May, which left U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods at 30% from May 14 to August 12 and Chinese duties on U.S. imports at 10%. That brought temporary relief from a trade war that could bring $600 billion in two-way trade to a standstill, disrupting supply chains and impacting the global economy. 'We think there could be some favourable outcomes from the meeting as Trump has hinted some positive signs,' analysts at China Securities said in a note, adding that any progress would offer markets some relief. Leading onshore markets higher on Monday, the strategically-important rare earths sector - expected to be a key focus of the talks - advanced 2.4% onshore in its best single-day performance in over a month. Technology shares led Hong Kong markets higher, with the Hang Seng Tech Index rising 2.8% to a one-month high. The subindex has gained over 20% since its April low, entering a technical bull market. Chinese stocks have been struggling for direction since April 2, when Trump announced sweeping 'reciprocal' tariffs that threatened to upend the global trade order. The CSI300 Index onshore has barely budged from the April 2 level, and the Hang Seng has gained around 4% during the period, both lagging the recovery among major global markets.
