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
Yahoo
7 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump aides want Texas to redraw its congressional maps to boost the GOP. What would that mean?
This coverage is made possible through Votebeat, a nonpartisan news organization covering local election administration and voting access. Sign up for Votebeat Texas' free newsletters here. Republicans representing Texas in Congress are considering this week whether to push their state Legislature to take the unusual step of redrawing district lines to shore up the GOP's advantage in the U.S. House. But the contours of the plan, including whether Gov. Greg Abbott would call a special session of the Legislature to redraw the maps, remain largely uncertain. The idea is being driven by President Donald Trump's political advisers, who want to draw up new maps that would give Republicans a better chance to flip seats currently held by Democrats, according to two GOP congressional aides familiar with the matter. That proposal, which would involve shifting GOP voters from safely red districts into neighboring blue ones, is aimed at safeguarding Republicans' thin majority in Congress, where they control the lower chamber, 220-212. The redistricting proposal, and the Trump team's role in pushing it, was first reported by The New York Times Monday. Without a Republican majority in Congress, Trump's legislative agenda would likely stall, and the president could face investigations from newly empowered Democratic committee chairs intent on scrutinizing the White House. Here's what we know about the plan so far: On Capitol Hill, members of the Texas GOP delegation huddled Monday night to discuss the prospect of reshaping their districts. Most of the 25-member group expressed reluctance about the idea, citing concerns about jeopardizing their districts in next year's midterms if the new maps overextended the GOP's advantage, according to the two GOP aides, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the private deliberations. Rep. Jodey Arrington, R-Lubbock, was skeptical of the idea. 'We just recently worked on the new maps,' Arrington told The Texas Tribune. To reopen the process, he said, 'there'd have to be a significant benefit to our state.' The delegation has yet to be presented with mockups of new maps, two aides said. Each state's political maps must be redrawn once a decade, after each round of the U.S. census, to account for population growth and ensure every congressional and legislative district has roughly the same number of people. Texas lawmakers last overhauled their district lines in 2021. There's no federal law that prohibits states from redrawing district maps midcycle, said Justin Levitt, an election law professor at Loyola Marymount University and a former deputy assistant attorney general in the Department of Justice's civil rights division. Laws around the timing to redraw congressional and state district maps vary by state. In Texas, the state constitution doesn't specify timing, so the redrawing of maps is left to the discretion of the governor and the Legislature. Lawmakers gaveled out of their 140-day regular session last week, meaning they would need to be called back for a special session to change the state's political maps. Abbott has the sole authority to order overtime sessions and decide what lawmakers are allowed to consider. A trial is underway in El Paso in a long-running challenge to the state legislative and congressional district maps Texas drew after the 2020 U.S. Census. If Texas redraws its congressional maps, state officials would then ask the court to toss the claims challenging those districts 'that no longer exist,' Levitt said. The portion of the case over the state legislative district maps would continue. If the judge agrees, then both parties would have to file new legal claims for the updated maps. It isn't clear how much maps could change, but voters could find themselves in new districts, and Levitt said redrawing the lines in the middle of the redistricting cycle is a bad idea. 'If the people of Texas think that their representatives have done a bad job, then when the [district] lines change, they're not voting on those representatives anymore,' Levitt said. 'New people are voting on those representatives.' The National Democratic Redistricting Committee, Democrats' national arm for contesting state GOP mapmaking, said the proposal to expand Republicans' stronghold in Texas was 'yet another example of Trump trying to suppress votes in order to hold onto power.' 'Texas's congressional map is already being sued for violating the Voting Rights Act because it diminishes the voting power of the state's fast-growing Latino population,' John Bisognano, president of the NDRC said. 'To draw an even more extreme gerrymander would only assure that the barrage of legal challenges against Texas will continue.' When Republicans in charge of the Legislature redrew the district lines after the 2020 census, they focused on reinforcing their political support in districts already controlled by the GOP. This redistricting proposal would likely take a different approach. As things stand, Republicans hold 25 of the state's 38 congressional seats. Democrats hold 12 seats and are expected to regain control of Texas' one vacant seat in a special election this fall. Most of Texas' GOP-controlled districts lean heavily Republican: In last year's election, 24 of those 25 seats were carried by a Republican victor who received at least 60% of the vote or ran unopposed. The exception was U.S. Rep. Monica De La Cruz, R-Edinburg, who captured 57% of the vote and won by a comfortable 14-point margin. With little competition to speak of, The Times reported, Trump's political advisers believe at least some of those districts could bear the loss of GOP voters who would be reshuffled into neighboring, Democratic-held districts — giving Republican hopefuls a better chance to flip those seats from blue to red. The party in control of the White House frequently loses seats during midterm cycles, and Trump's team is likely looking to offset potential GOP losses in other states and improve the odds of holding on to a narrow House majority. Incumbent Republicans, though, don't love the idea of sacrificing a comfortable race in a safe district for the possibility of picking up a few seats, according to GOP aides. In 2003, after Texas Republicans initially left it up to the courts to draw new lines following the 2000 census, then-U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, a Sugar Land Republican, embarked instead on a bold course of action to consolidate GOP power in the state. He, along with his Republican allies, redrew the lines as the opening salvo to a multistate redistricting plan aimed at accumulating power for his party in states across the country. Enraged by the power play, Democrats fled the state, depriving the Texas House of the quorum it needed to function. The rebels eventually relented under threat of arrest, a rare power in the Texas Constitution used to compel absent members back to return to Austin when the Legislature is in session. The lines were then redrawn, cementing the GOP majority the delegation has enjoyed in Washington for the past two decades. However, what's at play this time is different than in the early 2000s, when Republicans had a newfound majority in the Legislature and had a number of vulnerable Democratic incumbents they could pick off. Now, Republicans have been entrenched in the majority for decades and will have to answer the question of whether there's really more to gain, said Kareem Crayton, the vice president of the Brennan Center for Justice's Washington office. 'That's the tradeoff. You can do that too much so that you actually make them so competitive that the other side wins,' Crayton said. 'That's always a danger.' Texas Republicans are planning to reconvene Thursday to continue discussing the plan, according to Rep. Beth Van Duyne, R-Irving, and Rep. Wesley Hunt, R-Houston, who said they will attend the meeting. Members of Trump's political team are also expected to attend, according to Hunt and two GOP congressional aides familiar with the matter. Natalia Contreras is a reporter for Votebeat in partnership with the Texas Tribune. She's based in Corpus Christi. Contact Natalia at ncontreras@ Disclosure: New York Times has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here. Big news: 20 more speakers join the TribFest lineup! New additions include Margaret Spellings, former U.S. secretary of education and CEO of the Bipartisan Policy Center; Michael Curry, former presiding bishop and primate of The Episcopal Church; Beto O'Rourke, former U.S. Representative, D-El Paso; Joe Lonsdale, entrepreneur, founder and managing partner at 8VC; and Katie Phang, journalist and trial lawyer. Get tickets. TribFest 2025 is presented by JPMorganChase.
Associated Press
7 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Consultant on trial for AI-generated robocalls mimicking Biden says he has no regrets
LACONIA, N.H. (AP) — A political consultant told a New Hampshire jury Wednesday that he doesn't regret sending voters robocalls that used artificial intelligence to mimic former President Joe Biden and that he's confident he didn't break the law. Steven Kramer, 56, of New Orleans, has long admitted to orchestrating a message sent to thousands of voters two days before New Hampshire's Jan. 23, 2024, presidential primary. Recipients heard an AI-generated voice similar to the Democratic president's that used his catchphrase 'What a bunch of malarkey' and, as prosecutors allege, suggested that voting in the primary would preclude voters from casting ballots in November. 'It's important that you save your vote for the November election,' voters were told. 'Your votes make a difference in November, not this Tuesday.' Kramer, who faces decades in prison if convicted of voter suppression and impersonating a candidate, said his goal was to send a wake-up call about the potential dangers of AI when he paid a New Orleans magician $150 to create the recording. He was getting frequent calls from people using AI in campaigns, and, worried about the lack of regulations, made it his New Year's resolution to take action. 'This is going to be my one good deed this year,' he recalled while testifying in Belknap County Superior Court. He said his goal wasn't to influence an election, because he didn't consider the primary a real election. At Biden's request, the Democratic National Committee dislodged New Hampshire from its traditional early spot in the 2024 nominating calendar but later dropped its threat not to seat the state's national convention delegates. Biden did not put his name on the ballot or campaign there but won as a write-in. Kramer, who owns a firm specializing in get-out-the-vote projects, argued that the primary was a meaningless straw poll unsanctioned by the DNC. At the time the calls went out, voters were disenfranchised, he said. Asked by his attorney, Tom Reid, whether he did anything illegal, Kramer said, 'I'm positive I did not.' Later, he said he had no regrets and that his actions likely spurred AI regulations in multiple states. Kramer, who will be questioned by prosecutors Thursday, also faces a $6 million fine by the Federal Communications Commission but told The Associated Press on Wednesday that he won't pay it. Lingo Telecom, the company that transmitted the calls, agreed to pay $1 million in a settlement in August. The robocalls appeared to come from a former New Hampshire Democratic Party chair, Kathy Sullivan, and told voters to call her number to be removed from the call list. On the witness stand earlier Wednesday, Sullivan said she was confused and then outraged after speaking to one of the recipients and later hearing the message. 'I hung up the phone and said, 'There is something really crazy going on,'' she said. 'Someone is trying to suppress the vote for Biden. I can't believe this is happening.' Months later, she got a call from Kramer in which he said he used her number because he knew she would contact law enforcement and the media. He also described his motive — highlighting AI's potential dangers — but she didn't believe him, she testified. 'My sense was he was trying to convince me that he'd done this defensible, good thing,' she said. 'I'm listening to this thinking to myself, 'What does he thing I am, stupid?' He tried to suppress the vote.'
Washington Post
10 minutes ago
- Washington Post
National Guard troops have temporarily detained civilians in LA protests, commander says
WASHINGTON — National Guard troops already have temporarily detained civilians in the Los Angeles protests over immigration raids , the commander in charge said Wednesday, but they quickly turned them over to law enforcement. Maj. Gen. Scott Sherman, speaking in an interview with The Associated Press and one other media outlet, also said about 500 of the National Guard troops have been trained so far to accompany agents on immigration operations . Photos of Guard soldiers providing security for the agents have already been circulated by immigration officials.
