Judge Rejects Corporation For Public Broadcasting's Motion To Block Donald Trump From Removing Board Members
A federal judge on Sunday declined to issue an order to prohibit Donald Trump from removing three board members of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, as the administration seeks to zero out funding for public media stations, PBS and NPR.
U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss wrote that the CPB had failed to meet the threshold to issue a preliminary injunction to halt Trump's effort to remove Sony's Tom Rothman, as well as Laura Ross and Diane Kaplan.
More from Deadline
ABC News Suspends Terry Moran Over X Post That Called Trump Official Stephen Miller A "World-Class Hater"
'60 Minutes' Correspondent Scott Pelley Says Trump Lawsuit Settlement & Apology Would Be "Very Damaging" To Reputation Of CBS And Paramount
Trump Deploys 2,000 Troops To L.A. As Backlash & Protests To ICE Raids Surge; POTUS Action "Purposefully Inflammatory," Newsom Warns
But Moss' ruling does not mean that Trump will be able to wrest control of the board. The judge also cautioned that Trump could not unilaterally appoint their replacements, and noted that the corporation had recently changed its bylaws that restricts the president's actions.
Moss wrote, 'Although the case presents important questions regarding the status of the Corporation and its relationship with the federal government, the Court must leave those questions for another day. For present purposes and on the present record, it is enough to conclude that Plaintiffs have failed to carry their burden of demonstrating that they are likely to prevail on the merits of their claim for injunctive relief or that Plaintiffs are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief.'
Read the judge's public broadcasting decision.
The CPB is the nonprofit corporation set up by Congress to distribute funds to public media, largely radio and TV stations.
The CPB sued the Trump administration in April, after three board members got notices that they were being removed. The CPB cited the Public Broadcasting Act, which forbids 'any department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States' from exercising 'any direction, supervision, or control over . . . the Corporation.'
PBS and NPR have filed their own lawsuits against the Trump administration over the president's executive order to restrict further funding for their networks.
Rothman, Ross and Kaplan were among the five current board members of the CPB. There are four vacancies. The board members are appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate.
Moss, an appointee of President Barack Obama, wrote that one of the arguments presented by CPB lawyers was 'novel,' that removal of a board member also required Senate approval. CPB attorneys also argued that the president was an 'officer' of the United States, and therefore was restricted from exercising control over the corporation.
Moss write that he need not resolve that question here. For present purposes, the Court can assume (as seems likely) that Congress intended to preclude the President (or any subordinate officials acting at his direction) from directing, supervising, or controlling the Corporation. But Congress did provide the President with appointment power, and that authority carries with it at least some ability to influence the affairs of the Corporation.'
The judge cautioned that Trump cannot just install replacement board members.
He wrote that 'the President is not free to remove directors and then unilaterally to appoint their replacements, thereby using his power to remove as an effective tool for altering Board policy. Rather, the President's appointment authority is tempered by the requirement that he proceed only with the advice and consent of the Senate.'
He added, It is unlikely, moreover, 'that the President can shortcut this process by filling vacancies on an interim basis. To start, if the Corporation is private entity, as Plaintiffs posit, the directors are not 'officers' of the United States, and it is thus doubtful that the President could fill a vacancy in any manner other than that prescribed in the statute, in the D.C. Nonprofit Corporation Act, or in the Corporation's articles of incorporation or bylaws. The PBA is consistent with that premise and provides that '[a]ny vacancy in the Board . . . shall be filled in the manner consistent with' the Act.'
After a court hearing in the case last month, the CPB board changed its bylaws to try to put further safeguards on its independence. The new bylaws read, 'No Director may be removed from the Board by any person or authority, including the President of the United States, without a two-thirds vote of the other Directors confirming such removal. In the event the Corporation's President appoints one or more members of the Designated Body, such members may not be removed from the Designated Body by any person or authority, including the President of the United States, without a two-thirds vote of the other Directors and serving members of the Designated Body confirming such removal.'
Perhaps more urgent for public media advocates is a pending congressional vote on whether the $535 million in annual federal funding to public broadcasting should be clawed back.
The White House last week sent a package to Capitol Hill to rescind the funding for CPB in fiscal year 2026 and 2027. The corporation gets an advanced appropriation from Congress, so the money for those years already was allocated.
More to come.
Best of Deadline
2025 TV Series Renewals: Photo Gallery
2025 TV Cancellations: Photo Gallery
'Stick' Soundtrack: All The Songs You'll Hear In The Apple TV+ Golf Series
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Axios
25 minutes ago
- Axios
Amid backlash, Tesla remained resilient in Texas
Even as Tesla deliveries plunged nationally this year amid Elon Musk's very visible (if short-lived) alliance with President Trump, there was at least one state where Tesla registrations were up: Texas. Why it matters: The registration data, obtained by Axios through public information requests, indicates loyalty to the brand in its home base, including Texas' large urban and suburban counties. The depth of conservatives' enthusiasm for Musk's automobiles now faces a major test amid the absolute meltdown last week between the Tesla CEO and the president. By the numbers: Texans registered 12,918 new Teslas in the first three months of 2025, a period when Musk, who contributed more than $250 million to a pro-Trump super PAC during the 2024 election campaign, was enmeshed in the Trump administration as the overseer of DOGE, the president's cost-cutting initiative. Over the same period in 2024, Texans registered 10,679 Teslas. That's a 21% increase year over year. The intrigue: The spike in Texas registrations came as Tesla was flailing elsewhere. Tesla's vehicle deliveries plunged 13% globally in the first quarter of 2025 (336,681 electric vehicles) compared with Q1 2024 (386,810). Tesla vehicles were torched at showrooms and the brand's reputation cratered. Zoom in: Tesla saw year-over-year improvements in its sales in some of the most populous Texas counties. In Travis County, new Tesla registrations grew from 1,369 in the first quarter of 2024 to 1,424 during the first quarter of 2025. In Harris County, they grew from 1,526 to 1,837 during the same period. Tesla registration grew from 1,316 to 1,546 in Collin County and from 990 to 1,146 in Dallas County. In Bexar County, registrations grew from 631 to 664. What they're saying:"It's homegrown pride," is how Matt Holm, president and founder of the Tesla Owners Club of Austin, explains the car company's resilience to Axios. "And regardless of all the drama going on these days, people can differentiate between the product and everything else going on, and it's just a great product." "Elon has absolutely and irreversibly blown up bridges to some potential customers," says Alexander Edwards, president of California-based research firm Strategic Vision, which has long surveyed the motivations of car buyers. "People who bought Teslas for environmental friendliness, that's pretty much gone," Edwards tells Axios. Yes, but: The company had been enjoying an increasingly positive reputation among more conservative consumers. Musk was viewed favorably by 80% of Texas Republicans polled by the Texas Politics Project in April — and unfavorably by 83% of Democrats. In what now feels like a political lifetime ago, Trump himself even promoted Teslas by promising to buy one in support of Musk earlier this year. "In some pockets, like Austin, you have that tech group that loves what Tesla has to offer, can do some mental gymnastics about Musk, and looks at Rivian and says that's not what I want or might be priced out," Edwards says. Between the lines:"Being in the state of Texas, you're naturally conditioned to think you're better than everyone else in the U.S. And when you buy a Tesla" — a status symbol — "that's what you're saying. It doesn't surprise me that there's an increase in sales" in Texas, Edwards says. Plus: Tesla's resilience in Texas could have practical reasons as well, Edwards says. Texas homes — as opposed to, say, apartments in cities on the East Coast — are more likely to have a garage to charge a car in, he adds. What's next: Musk said late last month that Tesla was experiencing a "major rebound in demand" — without providing specifics. But that was before things went absolutely haywire with Trump and Tesla stock took a bath last week.


E&E News
27 minutes ago
- E&E News
House Republicans plan scrutiny of Clean Air Act rules
House Republicans are again taking aim at the Clean Air Act, citing the need to bolster the United States' global competitiveness. The Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment will hold a hearing this week titled 'Short-Circuiting Progress: How the Clean Air Act Impacts Building Necessary Infrastructure and Onshoring American Innovation.' 'American innovation should not be stifled by unreasonable government red tape and regulatory overreach,' said committee Chair Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.) and subcommittee Chair Morgan Griffith (R-Va.) in a statement. Advertisement The hearing will be the latest in recent years to focus on various aspects of the landmark environmental law, which was last amended in 1990.


E&E News
27 minutes ago
- E&E News
House to vote on TVA transparency, gas cylinder bills
The House is slated to vote this week on one bill to require the Tennessee Valley Authority to open its meetings to the public and another to strengthen safety standards for certain imported gas cylinders. Both bills advanced out of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee with bipartisan votes in recent months. This week's votes are set to happen under suspension of the rules, requiring a two-thirds majority. H.R. 1373, the 'Tennessee Valley Authority Transparency Act,' would require the board of the federally owned Appalachian electric utility to meet at least four times a year, in gatherings that are open to the public and preceded by formal public notices. Advertisement The legislation, spearheaded by Reps. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.) and Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.), is part of an increase in legislative scrutiny of TVA. Earlier this year, the House passed legislation to increase financial reporting requirements for the authority.