PBS Sues Trump Administration Over Defunding Effort
PBS and one of its affiliates in Minnesota has sued the Trump administration over its efforts to defund funding for the public broadcaster.
The suit, filed in a U.S. District Court in Washington D.C., argues that the administration is violating PBS and its stations First Amendment rights, and that efforts to influence funding decisions from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting are unlawful.
More from The Hollywood Reporter
NPR Sues Donald Trump For "Textbook Retaliation" Over Executive Order Cutting Federal Funding
Music Insiders Slam Live Nation's Trump Ally Board Appointee Amid DOJ Suit: "It's Just So Obvious"
How PBS Plans to Celebrate the American Semiquincentennial in 2026 (Exclusive)
'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,' a spokesperson for PBS says.
'The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) is creating media to support a particular political party on the taxpayers' dime,' White House deputy press secretary Harrison Fields says. '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.'
Trump has signed both an executive order targeting funds for public broadcasting, and has pursued rescission packages, while also trying to get Congress to withhold funding from its budget.
'The EO makes no attempt to hide the fact that it is cutting off the flow of funds to PBS because of the content of PBS programming and out of a desire to alter the content of speech. That is blatant viewpoint discrimination and an infringement of PBS and PBS Member Stations' private editorial discretion,' the lawsuit states. 'The EO also seeks to impose an unconstitutional condition on PBS Member Stations' receipt of federal funds by prohibiting them from using federal funds to access PBS programming and services. And the EO smacks of retaliation for, among other things, perceived political slights in news coverage. That all transgresses the First Amendment's protection of both speech and freedom of the press.'
'If allowed to stand, the EO would override Congress's decision to remove the administration of federal funding for public television from the government's editorial purview,' the filing continues. 'And it would have profound impacts on the ability of PBS and PBS Member Stations to provide a rich tapestry of programming to all Americans. PBS and Lakeland PBS bring suit to preserve their ability to serve their viewers and communities without political interference, as both Congress and the First Amendment mandate.'
Best of The Hollywood Reporter
How the Warner Brothers Got Their Film Business Started
Meet the World Builders: Hollywood's Top Physical Production Executives of 2023
Men in Blazers, Hollywood's Favorite Soccer Podcast, Aims for a Global Empire
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
29 minutes ago
- The Hill
Private prison operator blocked from housing ICE detainees at shuttered facility
A judge in Kansas issued a Wednesday ruling determining that a private prison operator could not use its shuttered facility to house detainees from the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Leavenworth County Judge John Bryant granted a temporary restraining order blocking CoreCivic from housing individuals in the custody of ICE. The order was issued after a March lawsuit was thrown out in May on technical grounds, according to the Associated Press. CoreCivic did not immediately reply to The Hill's request for comment on the ruling. Earlier this year, executives applied to use their 1,033-bed facility to help the Trump administration facilitate removals in its crackdown on illegal immigration. CoreCivic said it would lose $4.2 million each month it wasn't open, according to legal files reviewed by AP. The company applied for a permit to use the grounds for ICE operations but withdrew its application in May alleging it didn't need permission from the city to determine which detainees to house. 'It became clear to CoreCivic that there was not a cooperative relationship,' said Taylor Concannon Hausmann, an attorney for the private prison operator, speaking in court, as reported by the AP. However, city attorney Joe Hatley urged the company to 'follow the rules' and obtain the proper permit for operations. The CoreCivic property is located 10 miles away from the Kansas City International Airport and has previously worked with federal officials to house pre-trial detainees, according to the AP. In 2021, the Tennessee-based company stopped working for the U.S. Marshals Service after former President Biden urged the Justice Department to cease contracts with private prison operators. Multiple inmate violations were flagged in addition to reported suicides and killings. The Trump administration has been working with the private sector to undertake deportation efforts, including the GEO Group, which is planning to reopen New Jersey's Delaney Hall to hold individuals awaiting removal. Democrats have protested the use of the facility for federal purposes citing concerns about federal operations within Newark, a designated sanctuary city.
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Aldi cuts its prices in Salisbury, up to 33% off 400+ items
Aldi is renewing what has become an annual summer tradition: cutting prices on hundreds of seasonal products. The Germany-based discount grocery chain said it will be reducing prices on nearly 25% of its products – more than 400 items including meat and produce – at its more than 2,400 stores. Prices will be reduced as much as 33% on the 400+ products over the summer, Aldi chief commercial officer Scott Patton told USA TODAY. Nearly one in four households shop at Aldi stores, he said, citing Circana data. Aldi has a story in north Salisbury, located at 30248 Dagsboro Road. Aldi's move comes as about two-thirds of Americans (67%) said they remained very concerned about food and consumer goods prices, according to a Pew Research Center survey of 3,589 adults in April. "Summer's for grilling out, camping, concerts, and quality time with friends and family – not stressing over grocery bills," he said. "That's why we decided to offer even lower prices on ALDI favorites all summer long. Our unique business model with smaller store footprints, 90% private brands and strong supplier partnerships means we can deliver real savings where other grocers can't." Starbucks: Upcoming coffee competition draws top baristas for latte art, blind tasting challenges Aldi, which plans to open 225 more stores in the U.S. this year, said its price cuts – kicking in June 5 through Labor Day – will likely save shoppers about $100 million – similar to the amount of money shoppers collectively saved with its reductions last year and more than the $60 million saved in 2023. "Last year's shopper response was overwhelming. Our customers loved it because they could stock up on summer staples without stretching their budgets," Patton said. "Aldi has always been known for quality at low prices, and when we can deliver even more savings for our shoppers, we do." Clancy's: Chili Lime Potato Chips - was $1.89, is now $1.79. Friendly Farms: 2% Ultra-Filtered Milk – was $4.39, is now $3.89. Millville: Protein Pancake Mix – was $3.79, is now $3.49. Mama Cozzi's: Mini Pizza Bagels – was $6.29, is now $5.99. Summit: Popz Prebiotic Soda - was $1.59, is now $1.49. Mike Snider is a reporter on USA TODAY's Trending team. You can follow him on Threads, Bluesky, X and email him at mikegsnider & @ & @mikesnider & msnider@ What's everyone talking about? Sign up for our trending newsletter to get the latest news of the day This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Aldi cuts prices for summer 2025: Check out the deals
The Hill
31 minutes ago
- The Hill
Anthropic CEO: GOP AI regulation proposal ‘too blunt'
Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei criticized the latest Republican proposal to regulate artificial intelligence (AI) as 'far too blunt an instrument' to mitigate the risks of the rapidly evolving technology. In an op-ed published by The New York Times on Thursday, Amodei said the provision barring states from regulating AI for 10 years — which the Senate is now considering under President Trump's massive policy and spending package — would 'tie the hands of state legislators' without laying out a cohesive strategy on the national level. 'The motivations behind the moratorium are understandable,' the top executive of the artificial intelligence startup wrote. 'It aims to prevent a patchwork of inconsistent state laws, which many fear could be burdensome or could compromise America's ability to compete with China.' 'But a 10-year moratorium is far too blunt an instrument,' he continued. 'A.I. is advancing too head-spinningly fast. I believe that these systems could change the world, fundamentally, within two years; in 10 years, all bets are off.' Amodei added, 'Without a clear plan for a federal response, a moratorium would give us the worst of both worlds — no ability for states to act, and no national policy as a backstop.' The tech executive outlined some of the risks that his company, as well as others, have discovered during experimental stress tests of AI systems. He described a scenario in which a person tells a bot that it will soon be replaced with a newer model. The bot, which previously was granted access to the person's emails, threatens to expose details of his marital affair by forwarding his emails to his wife — if the user does not reverse plans to shut it down. 'This scenario isn't fiction,' Amodei wrote. 'Anthropic's latest A.I. model demonstrated just a few weeks ago that it was capable of this kind of behavior.' The AI mogul added that transparency is the best way to mitigate risks without overregulating and stifling progress. He said his company publishes results of studies voluntarily but called on the federal government to make these steps mandatory. 'At the federal level, instead of a moratorium, the White House and Congress should work together on a transparency standard for A.I. companies, so that emerging risks are made clear to the American people,' Amodei wrote. He also noted the standard should require AI developers to adopt policies for testing models and publicly disclose them, as well as require that they outline steps they plan to take to mitigate risk. The companies, the executive continued, would 'have to be upfront' about steps taken after test results to make sure models were safe. 'Having this national transparency standard would help not only the public but also Congress understand how the technology is developing, so that lawmakers can decide whether further government action is needed,' he added. Amodei also suggested state laws should follow a similar model that is 'narrowly focused on transparency and not overly prescriptive or burdensome.' Those laws could then be superseded if a national transparency standard is adopted, Amodei said. He noted the issue is not a partisan one, praising steps Trump has taken to support domestic development of AI systems. 'This is not about partisan politics. Politicians on both sides of the aisle have long raised concerns about A.I. and about the risks of abdicating our responsibility to steward it well,' the executive wrote. 'I support what the Trump administration has done to clamp down on the export of A.I. chips to China and to make it easier to build A.I. infrastructure here in the United States.' 'This is about responding in a wise and balanced way to extraordinary times,' he continued. 'Faced with a revolutionary technology of uncertain benefits and risks, our government should be able to ensure we make rapid progress, beat China and build A.I. that is safe and trustworthy. Transparency will serve these shared aspirations, not hinder them.'
