CPB to cease operations

[TheBigA]

Related to CPB closure:

Citing First Amendment, federal judge blocks Trump order to end funding for NPR and PBS

A federal judge has agreed to permanently block the Trump administration from implementing a presidential directive to end federal funding for National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service.

apnews.com

The exec order was before the president went to congress for recission. He used basically the same argument in the recission. However, congress approved it anyway, so that's not covered by this decision. It came up during the hearing:

The judge agreed with government attorneys that some of the news outlets’ legal claims are moot, partly because the CPB no longer exists.

“But that does not end the matter because the Executive Order sweeps beyond the CPB,” Moss added. “It also directs that all federal agencies refrain from funding NPR and PBS — regardless of the nature of the program or the merits of their applications or requests for funding.”

The other agencies would be FEMA or the Department of Education. The earlier lawsuit NPR filed against CPB was related to the EO.

My take is that if this ruling stands, it could lead to litigation over the recission.

 

[ted chittenden]

Related to CPB closure:

Citing First Amendment, federal judge blocks Trump order to end funding for NPR and PBS

A federal judge has agreed to permanently block the Trump administration from implementing a presidential directive to end federal funding for National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service.

apnews.com

The exec order was before the president went to congress for recission. He used basically the same argument in the recission. However, congress approved it anyway, so that's not covered by this decision. It came up during the hearing:



The other agencies would be FEMA or the Department of Education. The earlier lawsuit NPR filed against CPB was related to the EO.

My take is that if this ruling stands, it could lead to litigation over the recission.

I note with interest that the two agencies involved--The Department of Education and FEMA are ones that President Trump would either like to eliminate entirely (Education) or minimize its services (FEMA). Given that, this ruling, even if held up on appeal, may wind up having very little effect on the NPR/PBS situation.

 

[TheBigA]

I note with interest that the two agencies involved--The Department of Education and FEMA are ones that President Trump would either like to eliminate entirely (Education) or minimize its services (FEMA). Given that, this ruling, even if held up on appeal, may wind up having very little effect on the NPR/PBS situation.

I just mentioned them as examples. Regardless, the president doesn't have the power to eliminate the department of education. He doesn't have the power to eliminate CPB. They voluntarily ceased operations due to lack of funding. But they still exist in the public broadcasting act,

 

[TV Guy that still loves radio]

I just mentioned them as examples. Regardless, the president doesn't have the power to eliminate the department of education. He doesn't have the power to eliminate CPB. They voluntarily ceased operations due to lack of funding. But they still exist in the public broadcasting act,

But he’s already won. Unfortunately.

 

[Joey1986]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but this injunction seems to me like an example of locking the stable door after the horse has bolted.

 

[TheBigA]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but this injunction seems to me like an example of locking the stable door after the horse has bolted.

In a way, yes. This administration acts first and deals with consequences later. That's not just the president but also the FCC. We have never had an administration this out of control. Previous presidents had institutional advisors who would have pointed out the potential unconstitutional aspects of the EO.

They obviously realized the EO wasn't going to get the job done. That's why they proceeded with Plan B, which was recission of CPB funding. That was a far more extreme action, but it could be executed quicker. The EO took ten months to litigate in the courts. The recission happened in less than a month. They're both temporary. The recission only covers two years.

 

[ron772]

In a way, yes. This administration acts first and deals with consequences later. That's not just the president but also the FCC. We have never had an administration this out of control. Previous presidents had institutional advisors who would have pointed out the potential unconstitutional aspects of the EO.

They obviously realized the EO wasn't going to get the job done. That's why they proceeded with Plan B, which was recission of CPB funding. That was a far more extreme action, but it could be executed quicker. The EO took ten months to litigate in the courts. The recission happened in less than a month. They're both temporary. The recission only covers two years.

The recission was always on the table as the endgame. The EO was more of a backstop or "Plan B". Recission was also less certain to succeed, since it needed both chambers of Congress with tight GOP control. That's why it's more damaging and permanent than an EO. Congress has the purse strings, and they are the ones that defunded Public Media. You can't sue them for defunding something. While they were clearly responding to the administration's desires, it was Congress that did the actual defunding prior to the President's signature. Officially it was not just one man, but the entire Congress (unlike the EO).

Defunding is only temporary if you define everything as temporary. CPB existed for 50 years. Once money comes out of the budget, it is 100x harder to get it back in vs. if it's already there. It's possible that a Democratic Congress could re-fund Public Media, but what that will look like and how it would be executed is no longer clear.

The EO strike-down does very little for local stations. But it does allow other federal agencies to disperse funds to NPR and PBS should they have grants pending or open.

 

[TheBigA]

While they were clearly responding to the administration's desires, it was Congress that did the actual defunding prior to the President's signature. Officially it was not just one man, but the entire Congress (unlike the EO).

The basis for the recission was just ruled unconstitutional. The mistake the president made in both cases was saying public media is biased. That's not for him to say. Had he simply said the funding was wasteful and unnecessary, it would not have been unconstitutional.

If this ruling holds through appeal, it could lead to that specific recission being reversed:

The Supreme Court has the power of judicial review, which allows it to strike down laws passed by Congress that are deemed unconstitutional. This power is derived from Article III of the Constitution, which establishes the federal judiciary and vests the Supreme Court with judicial power.

Of course by the time all this happens, a new congress will be in power, and they can also reverse the actions of the previous congress.

 

[ted chittenden]

The basis for the recission was just ruled unconstitutional. The mistake the president made in both cases was saying public media is biased. That's not for him to say. Had he simply said the funding was wasteful and unnecessary, it would not have been unconstitutional.

If this ruling holds through appeal, it could lead to that specific recission being reversed:



Of course by the time all this happens, a new congress will be in power, and they can also reverse the actions of the previous congress.

Do you *really* believe that the current U.S. Supreme Court would strike down either this EO or the recission as being unconstitutional? If you do, I do have some oceanfront property in Arizona...

 

[TheBigA]

Do you *really* believe that the current U.S. Supreme Court would strike down either this EO or the recission as being unconstitutional? If you do, I do have some oceanfront property in Arizona...

We'll see. They tend to rule in favor of free speech, regardless of the issue. The fact is that by the time they get to it, it'll be 2027.

I also think NPR & PBS have moved on from this, and have rebudgeted around the current situation.

 

[ron772]

The basis for the recission was just ruled unconstitutional.

Disagree. First, some Republicans (during the debate) said that there is a lot of merit to Public Media, but we shouldn't spend $1 billion of taxpayer money when the country is broke. Or that there's nothing wrong with Public Media content, as long as the taxpayers don't pay for it. They argued, "Why do they get money that I Heart doesn't?" Those arguments were prevalent among more moderate Republicans.

Plus you can't sue Congress based on your understanding on what you believe was their basis for voting for something, even if they all voted for recission because they think NPR and PBS are biased.

Re-funding would need to come from a future Congress.

 

[TheBigA]

Disagree. First, some Republicans (during the debate) said that there is a lot of merit to Public Media, but we shouldn't spend $1 billion of taxpayer money when the country is broke. Or that there's nothing wrong with Public Media content, as long as the taxpayers don't pay for it.

As I said, those views are fine, and if they were the only views in the EO, it wouldn't have been ruled unconstitutional. The unconstitutional part is predicating the defunding on biased reporting.

Plus you can't sue Congress based on your understanding on what you believe was their basis for voting for something, even if they all voted for recission because they think NPR and PBS are biased.

It wouldn't be based on my understanding. It would be based on a court ruling. But as I said in another thread, the real question is who would bring this lawsuit, since CPB is dissolved. Plus, as you say, the recission has an expiration date, and that is next January.

 

[ron772]

As I said, those views are fine, and if they were the only views in the EO, it wouldn't have been ruled unconstitutional. The unconstitutional part is predicating the defunding on biased reporting.

But it wasn't exclusively predicated on biased reporting. The EO might have been, but the recission was not. So there's no case there. If there had been, CPB or a group of stations would have tried, contingent on the EO being reviewed. Everything I've heard close to the ground said that it was likely the EO would be overturned by the Judge appointed by President Obama, but there would still be no way to litigate Congressional recission.

 

[TheBigA]

But it wasn't exclusively predicated on biased reporting.

Here's what the letter to congress says:

These funds would be used to subsidize a public media system that is politically biased and an unnecessary expense to the taxpayer. Enacting the rescission would eliminate Federal funding for CPB.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Proposed-Rescissions-of-Budgetary-Resources.pdf

So it was based on two things, the first being ruled by a court to be unconstitutional.

If there had been, CPB or a group of stations would have tried, contingent on the EO being reviewed.

All of these issues were discussed during the debate on recission, and it was obvious it was going to be a party line vote regardless of the facts. The congress was going to give its president what he wanted, and it was framed that way. A group of radio & TV GMs met with congress, and that's what they were told. Without this court ruling, any challenge would be based, as you said, on what a group believes. That's not strong enough to work in court. But if this EO decision is upheld all the way to the supreme court, that's a very different situation. But by the time that happens, we will have a new congress.

 

[SomeRadioGuy]

when people bring up how they hated taxpayer funding went to npr, pbs and their member stations i tell him "It amounts to about $3 per taxpayer per year. Hate it? Give me your address, ill mail you $3 out of my own pocket"

I've said this countless times here and on FB esp when i was at KSKO.

You know how many have taken me up on that offer?

none.

Why? Because repeating back to them what they said makes them realize what fools they sound like

 

[TheBigA]

Because repeating back to them what they said makes them realize what fools they sound like

We keep telling ourselves that we're the greatest, richest, most perfect country on earth. But when it comes to media, we become total cheapskates.

All of a sudden, we're broke, we're trillions in debt, and we can't afford a few bucks for media that isn't owned by a few big corporations.

The recission says the public media system is politically biased. But they also cut funding to hundreds of music stations.

 

[radiofan2023]

We keep telling ourselves that we're the greatest, richest, most perfect country on earth. But when it comes to media, we become total cheapskates.

All of a sudden, we're broke, we're trillions in debt, and we can't afford a few bucks for media that isn't owned by a few big corporations.

Look at how many people complain and refuse to read any article posted here that has a paywall. But if you went to their job and wanted them to work for free, they’d either get mad, laugh you out of their workplace, or both.

 

[TheBigA]

NPR announces it has received two very large grants, although neither of them are for news programming:

NPR Receives $113 Million in Donations Following Federal Funding Cuts

The gifts announced on Thursday are the largest since Joan B. Kroc, the widow of McDonald's mogul Ray Kroc, donated more than $200 million in 2003.

barrettmedia.com

They're each infrastructure grants, which is mainly what CPB funded at NPR.

 

[ted chittenden]

NPR announces it has received two very large grants, although neither of them are for news programming:

NPR Receives $113 Million in Donations Following Federal Funding Cuts

The gifts announced on Thursday are the largest since Joan B. Kroc, the widow of McDonald's mogul Ray Kroc, donated more than $200 million in 2003.

barrettmedia.com

They're each infrastructure grants, which is mainly what CPB funded at NPR.

Yet it is clear from the first donor (Mrs. Steve Balmer) that she *is* a supporter of NPR *and* its news offerings.

 

[radiofan2023]

Yet it is clear from the first donor (Mrs. Steve Balmer) that she *is* a supporter of NPR *and* its news offerings.

Her name as it says in the article is Connie Ballmer, not “Mrs. Steve Balmer”.