PBS sues Trump administration over defunding
In the claim, PBS relies on similar arguments, saying Mr Trump was overstepping his authority and engaging in 'viewpoint discrimination' because of his claim that PBS' news coverage is biased against conservatives.
'PBS disputes those charged assertions in the strongest possible terms,' lawyer Z W Julius Chen wrote in the case, filed in a US court in Washington.
'But regardless of any policy disagreements over the role of public television, our constitution and laws forbid the president from serving as the arbiter of the content of PBS's programming, including by attempting to defund PBS.'
It was the latest of many legal actions taken against the administration for its moves, including several by media organisations impacted by Mr Trump's orders.
A PBS spokesman said that 'after careful deliberation, PBS reached the conclusion that it was necessary to take legal action to safeguard public television's editorial independence, and to protect the autonomy of PBS member stations'.
Mr Trump's order 'would have profound impacts on the ability of PBS and PBS member stations to provide a rich tapestry of programming to all Americans,' Mr Chen wrote.
PBS said the US Department of Education has cancelled a 78 million dollar grant to the system for educational programming, used to make children's shows like Sesame Street, Clifford the Big Red Dog and Reading Rainbow.
Besides Mr Trump, the claim names other administration officials as defendants, including US education secretary Linda McMahon, treasury secretary Scott Bessent and homeland security secretary Kristi Noem.
PBS says its technology is used as a backup for the nationwide wireless emergency alert system.
The administration has fought with several media organisations. Government-run news services like Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty are also struggling, The Associated Press has battled with the White House over press access and the Federal Communications Commission is investigating television news divisions.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NBC News
an hour ago
- NBC News
Trump administration continues to target international students. What to know and what could be next.
Lawsuits, next-day countersuits, backtracking and mass confusion. International students find themselves at the center of a dizzying legal landscape as the Trump administration continues to crack down on immigration. Here's what to know as the Trump administration keeps attempting to put up legal barriers to international students' ability to study in the U.S. What's the latest? Just Wednesday, a judge granted Harvard an extension on an injunction that blocked the administration's attempt last week to stop the Ivy League school from enrolling foreign-born students. An estimated 4,700 or more foreign-born students have been impacted since the Trump administration began revoking visas and terminating legal statuses in March. A few have also been detained in high-profile cases. In just the past two weeks, students across the country were granted a nationwide injunction against the administration. Some scholars have been released from Immigration and Customs Enforcement as well. Meanwhile the State Department announced that it is 'aggressively' targeting an additional group of Chinese scholars out of national security concerns. But in spite of its legal losses, the federal government has doubled down on its efforts to target international students. On Tuesday, the Trump administration stopped scheduling new student visa interviews for those looking to study in the U.S., according to an internal cable seen by NBC News. Meanwhile, the State Department is preparing to expand its social media screening of applicants, the cable said. The next day, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that the government would be looking to revoke the visas of Chinese students 'with connections to the Chinese Communist Party or studying in critical fields.' It's still unclear what 'critical fields' the administration will be looking into and what types of connections to the CCP are under scrutiny. The State Department referred NBC News to comments by spokesperson Tammy Bruce during a news briefing Thursday in which Bruce said the department does not discuss the details of its visa process due to privacy concerns. 'We use every tool that we have to vet and to make sure we know who's coming in,' Bruce said. 'In this particular case, the United States is putting America first by beginning to revoke visas of Chinese students as warranted.' How did the Trump administration revoke the visas and statuses of international students? For months, there was mass confusion among schools and international students about the criteria the government used to abruptly terminate visas and statuses, with little to no notice to students. But in late April, the Department of Homeland Security revealed at a hearing that it used the National Crime Information Center, an FBI-run computerized index that includes criminal history information. The agency said fewer than two dozen employees ran the names of 1.3 million foreign-born students through the index, populating 6,400 'hits.' And from there, many students experienced terminations of their records in the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS), which maintains information about nonimmigrant students and exchange visitors. The method was sharply criticized by legal and policy experts, who pointed out that the database relies on cities, counties, states and other sources to voluntarily report their data. This means that it may not have the final dispositions of cases, potentially leading to errors in identifying students. At another hearing in April, Elizabeth D. Kurlan, an attorney for the Justice Department, said that going forward, Immigration and Customs Enforcement will not be terminating statuses based solely on findings in the crime information center. She also told the court that ICE would be restoring the legal status of international students who had their records terminated until the agency developed a new framework for revocations. Shortly afterward, an internal memo to all Student and Exchange Visitor Program personnel, which is under ICE jurisdiction, showed an expanded list of criteria for the agency to terminate foreign-born students' legal status in the U.S., including a 'U.S. Department of State Visa Revocation (Effective Immediately).' Though students would typically have the right to due process and defend themselves before their status is terminated, visa revocation itself is now grounds for the termination of status, according to the memo. The administration has also taken aim at students who have been active in pro-Palestine protests, including Columbia student Mahmoud Khalil and Tufts University student Rümeysa Öztürk, who were both detained in March. Öztürk has since been released from ICE custody. 'Every time I find one of these lunatics, I take away their visas,' Rubio said at a news conference in March. Has anyone been successful in challenging the Trump administration? Students across the U.S. from Georgia to South Dakota have been winning their lawsuits against the Trump administration, with judges siding with plaintiffs and allowing them to stay in the U.S. Last week, a judge issued an injunction blocking the Trump administration from terminating the legal statuses of international students at universities across the U.S. It's the first to provide relief to students nationwide. The day after the Trump administration terminated Harvard's Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification — a move that would force the university's foreign students, roughly a fourth of its student body, to either transfer or lose their legal status — the Ivy League school sued the administration. And hours later, a judge issued an injunction. In addition to Öztürk, others who were detained are no longer in ICE custody, including Georgetown scholar Badar Khan Suri and Mohsen Mahdawi, a U.S. permanent resident who was born and raised in a refugee camp in the occupied West Bank. The judge in Khan Suri's case ruled that his detention was in violation of the First Amendment, which protects the right to free speech, and the Fifth Amendment, which protects the right to due process. What might be next for international students? Though the recent nationwide injunction provides some relief, students can still be vulnerable to visa revocation. Legal experts say the temporary restraining order blocks the government from arresting or detaining students, or terminating their legal statuses. But it's possible that visas can still be revoked. And many expect the Trump administration to hit back. 'This is a federal district court decision. It is not a final decision, and it seems likely that the executive branch will appeal this decision,' Elora Mukherjee, director of the Immigrants' Rights Clinic at Columbia Law School. Mukherjee also added that the Chinese international students referred to in Rubio's new statement are likely not protected by the injunction either. 'What they're likely to claim in court in defense of this policy is that the secretary of state and the executive branch deserves deference with regard to quote, unquote, foreign affairs,' Mukherjee said. However, with backlash already brewing, Mukherjee said she expects that the policy will be challenged legally, with immigration attorneys and activists arguing that it is unconstitutional. Legal experts said that with many decisions surrounding international students' fate far from decided, foreign-born scholars should first and foremost remain in the country. She also said it's important to seek legal counsel in the event that students are also eligible for other forms of relief, including asylum or other humanitarian visas. Razeen Zaman, director of immigrant rights at the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, said it's particularly important for American citizens to speak out against the immigration policies on behalf of foreign-born students, as many of these students may not be able to push back themselves. 'You have to have a certain amount of resources to be able to do that. You have to have a certain amount of connections. There's even some people who are too afraid to seek counsel,' Zaman said. 'U.S. citizens have the most protections. … And the reality is, even if you're stopped at the border, they do have to still let you in as a U.S. citizen.' And given how the Supreme Court on Friday allowed the Trump administration to revoke the temporary legal status of more than 500,000 immigrants from four Latin American countries, Zaman said, it's likely that even more groups will be targeted without fierce advocacy and protest. 'This is about the First Amendment today. It's Chinese people, the CCP, whoever they decide is tied to the Chinese government,' Zaman said.
Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Telegraph
Trump is breaking up with the tech bros, here's why
As Elon Musk steps down from his role at the White House, there are signs Donald Trump's love affair with Silicon Valley could be on the rocks. The president sailed to election victory in November buoyed up by a wave of support from tech billionaires. But as his America First measures on immigration, university funding, tariffs and energy begin to bite, a tech bro break-up looms. 'There's definitely some buyer's remorse on the right,' said Nu Wexler, a former policy communications executive at Google. Having previously blocked the president from all Meta platforms, Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg sought to make amends first by dining with Mr Trump at his Mar-a-Lago resort in November, and then by donating $1 million to his inauguration fund. Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon, caused outrage in February when he shook up The Washington Post's opinion section, ordering the paper to support 'personal liberties and free markets', in a move widely interpreted as a courtesy to Mr Trump. He also made overtures to the first lady, paying $40 million for a Melania Trump documentary – nearly three times the next highest bid. Meanwhile, Tim Cook, the Apple CEO, was hailed as tech's Trump whisperer after he donated $1 million and is said to have sweetened the deal with promises to start manufacturing products in the US. Their support for Mr Trump was not without reason. During the election campaign, the president promised to unleash innovation by stripping back regulations he said hindered the development of artificial intelligence (AI) under the Biden administration. Mr Trump is currently also making good on promises to make permanent the cuts to corporate tax rates, which he slashed from 35 per cent to 21 per cent in his first term. And he has set about implementing a bold programme of financial services deregulation, particularly around cryptocurrency. But the flattery of Mr Trump has not had the anticipated effect. It was widely expected that antitrust lawsuits against Facebook, Google and Amazon would soon disappear. Yet Mr Trump has so far declined to intervene. Meanwhile, his relationship with Mr Cook appears to have soured after Mr Trump criticised the Apple billionaire for building factories in India. At the same time, the knock-on effects of Mr Trump's broader policy agenda have sent Silicon Valley reeling. Mr Musk said this week he was 'disappointed' with the president's 'big, beautiful' spending bill, warning that it 'undermines' the work of the Department for Government Efficiency (Doge) to bring down the deficit. Despite Mr Musk's comment, the pair apparently remain great friends, with the president presenting the billionaire with a golden key to the White House during a farewell press conference on Friday. However, Mr Musk's concerns were echoed by Chamath Palihapita, a former Facebook senior executive and host of the All In podcast, who warned that the financial markets would 'punish' the Trump administration for driving up national debt. Immigration, too, has proved a dividing line between Mr Trump's Maga base and his Silicon Valley allies, with Mr Musk pledging to 'go to war' over visas for skilled immigrants. Around 70 per cent of H-1B visa holders in the US are employed in the tech industry, and the SpaceX founder has likened the need to attract engineering talent from overseas to a professional sports team bringing in foreign players. The president's repeated attacks on universities have also set pulses racing in Silicon Valley, with the scientific research programmes that transformed America into a technology superpower facing billions of dollars in cuts. For decades, the US has stood unrivalled as the world's leader in scientific discovery and technological innovation thanks to government-backed projects that have created everything from the internet to mRNA vaccines. However, the amount of money disbursed in grants by the National Science Foundation, which funds much of the scientific research at American universities, has plummeted by 51 per cent this year so far, compared to the average over the past 10 years. 'Killing the golden goose' 'There are a lot of people in Silicon Valley who worry this is going to kill the golden goose,' said Darrell West, a senior fellow in the Center for Technology Innovation at Brookings Institution. 'A lot of America's competitive advantage has been in digital technologies, and we're now making it difficult to finance the next generation.' Mr Trump's tariffs agenda has triggered widespread alarm in the tech sector as well. Having successfully won an exemption from a 145 per cent tariff on iPhones assembled in China, Apple was caught off guard last week by Mr Trump threatening 25 per cent tariffs on all iPhones made outside the US. 'I don't want you building in India,' the president warned Mr Cook during his recent Middle East tour. Moreover, Mr Trump's moratorium on new clean energy projects risks driving up energy prices in California, where renewables account for 54 per cent of the state's total electricity generation. Data centres – sprawling warehouses full of computer servers that power AI – are reliant on cheap electricity to keep them running, with experts warning that even small increases in energy prices could have 'catastrophic' consequences. His plan to repeal the Inflation Reduction Act also spells bad news for California's world-leading energy storage industry by removing tax cuts that spurred investment in the technology. From the moment Mr Musk pranced on stage at a Trump rally in October wearing an 'Occupy Mars' T-shirt, some critics said the president and Silicon Valley made strange bedfellows. A far cry from the casual-dressing tech bros of San Francisco, whom Mr Trump recently called 'these internet people', the president is rarely seen without a suit and tie (when he's not on the golf course). 'Tech investors are not a logical fit for the grassroots Maga movement. It is more a relationship of convenience right now,' said Mr Wexler. A loveless marriage it may be. But a messy divorce could have devastating consequences for the future of Mr Trump's coalition. 'He's tacked his administration to tech billionaires. They're a very powerful group and very well connected,' said Mr West. 'If they start to turn on him, that's a political nightmare.'
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
NPR lawsuit aims to strike a blow for press freedom against Trump's attacks
In the Trump administration's unprecedented war on the American media, a lawsuit brought by public broadcasters could mark a much-needed strike back for press freedom. The lawsuit, brought by NPR and three Colorado-based public radio stations, challenges an executive order that cut federal funding to what Donald Trump described as 'biased media', with lawyers arguing that the order violated the first amendment right to free speech. The decision by NPR, KSUT, Roaring Fork and Colorado Public Radio to take on Donald Trump comes as the president has targeted multiple news organizations through lawsuits and investigations – and as experts warn some outlets are acquiescing to Trump's war on the media. NPR's lawsuit could be a prominent pushback against that. The lawsuit argues that Trump's executive order, signed on 1 May, violates the first amendment by targeting NPR for news coverage the president considers 'biased'. NPR and its partners are aiming to have the order, which would strip direct and indirect funding from NPR and PBS, permanently blocked and declared unconstitutional. Experts believe NPR has a strong case, and that it could be Trump's attacks on public media that could hand NPR a win. The president and the White House have described NPR and PBS as being 'leftwing propaganda', and has criticized the network for discussing LGBTQ themes. 'Trump's honesty about why he wants to eviscerate federal funding for NPR and PBS could be his legal downfall,' Jessica Levinson, a professor at Loyola Law School and host of the Passing Judgment podcast, wrote in an op-ed for MSNBC. 'NPR has thus argued that Trump admitted that he's using his power as head of the executive branch of our government to target NPR and PBS because he disagrees with the content of their speech.' Levinson wrote: 'The Trump administration isn't targeting NPR because it covers political news. To the contrary; the administration appears to have explicitly admitted that it's targeting NPR because of what Trump considers to be its bias as it covers political news. NPR's lawsuit argues that, therefore, Trump's executive order is 'textbook retaliation and viewpoint-based discrimination.'' Trump's pursuit of NPR follows a pattern of the president's second term, with Trump keen to target media organizations he believes have reported on him negatively. The Associated Press, one of the world's premier news agencies which is relied upon by thousands of news outlets, was banned from the Oval Office and Air Force One after it refused to use Trump's preferred term of 'Gulf of America' to refer to the Gulf of Mexico. Trump is suing the owner of CBS News for $10bn, alleging the channel selectively edited an interview with Kamala Harris, which the network denies, and the Des Moines Register newspaper, which he accuses of 'election interference' over a poll from before the election that showed Kamala Harris leading Trump in Iowa. NPR has been vocal in its opposition to the lawsuit. 'It is evident from the president's executive order, as well as statements released by the White House and prior statements by the president that we are being punished for our editorial choices,' Katherine Maher, the CEO of NPR, said in an interview with the station this week. Maher added: 'We are not choosing to do this out of politics. We are choosing to do this as a matter of necessity and principle. All of our rights that we enjoy in this democracy flow from the first amendment: freedom of speech, association, freedom of the press. When we see those rights infringed upon, we have an obligation to challenge them.' The funding cut, NPR said, 'would have a devastating impact on American communities across the nation', adding: 'Locally owned public media stations represent a proud American tradition of public-private partnership for our shared common good.' 'The Corporation for Public Broadcasting [which distributes funds NPR and other public media] is creating media to support a particular political party on the taxpayers' dime,' Harrison Fields, a White House spokesperson, said in a statement. 'Therefore, the president is exercising his lawful authority to limit funding to NPR and PBS. The president was elected with a mandate to ensure efficient use of taxpayer dollars, and he will continue to use his lawful authority to achieve that objective.'
