Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Project 2025’s Media Agenda: The Executive Order Threatens NPR and PBS

News

Project 2025’s Media Agenda: The Executive Order Threatens NPR and PBS
NPR headquarters | James Cridland | Flickr

President Donald Trump signed an executive order late Thursday evening to eliminate federal funding for NPR and PBS. The order directs the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) and other agencies to cease both direct and indirect public financing for these public broadcasters.

In a social media post, the administration defended the decision, asserting that NPR and PBS "receive millions from taxpayers to spread radical, woke propaganda disguised as 'news.’" The executive order argues that government-funded media is outdated and unnecessary, claiming it compromises journalistic independence.


However, CPB, which distributes approximately $535 million annually to public broadcasters, has pushed back, emphasizing its status as a private nonprofit organization not subject to presidential authority. PBS President Paula Kerger condemned the order as “blatantly unlawful,” while NPR announced plans to challenge it through legal avenues.

This move follows previous efforts by the Trump administration to defund cultural and educational institutions, including the Kennedy Center and the National Endowment for the Humanities. The order's legality is unclear at this time, and it is expected to face legal challenges.

The defunding of NPR and PBS is very much in line with Heritage Foundation's policy guide, which includes a section on CPB, which funds NPR and PBS. The guide argues that public funding for these organizations should be eliminated, citing concerns about bias.

During the campaign, Trump repeatedly distanced himself from Project 2025, saying he had "nothing to do with" the initiative, had not read it, and did not plan to. Additionally, he called some of its proposals "abysmal" and "ridiculous" on his Truth Social platform. However, despite these claims, many of his policies since taking office have closely aligned with recommendations from Project 2025

Thursday night’s executive order, signed by President Trum,p states:

"Unlike in 1967, when the CPB was established, today the media landscape is filled with abundant, diverse, and innovative news options. Government funding of news media in this environment is not only outdated and unnecessary but corrosive to the appearance of journalistic independence."

It directs the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) to "cease federal funding for NPR and PBS" to the extent the law allows. The order further states:

"Which viewpoints NPR and PBS promote does not matter. What does matter is that neither entity presents a fair, accurate, or unbiased portrayal of current events to tax-paying citizens."

These arguments have been central to efforts to eliminate federal funding for public broadcasting, including recent executive orders and legislative proposals.

The order is expected to face legal challenges, as CPB argues that it operates independently and is not subject to direct presidential authority.

Advocates for NPR and PBS emphasize their vital role in providing free, high-quality news, educational programming, and cultural content, particularly for rural and underserved communities lacking reliable media access. PBS enhances early childhood learning through programs like Sesame Street, while NPR offers in-depth journalism that fosters an informed citizenry. Additionally, public broadcasting is crucial for delivering emergency alerts, disaster coverage, and public safety information in areas where commercial media are scarce.

Public broadcasting has long enjoyed bipartisan support, ensuring Americans access to non-commercial media that serve the public good rather than corporate interests. The funding—approximately $500 million annually—accounts for less than 0.01% of the federal budget, making cost a negligible factor.

PBS and NPR executives warn that defunding public broadcasting would devastate communities that rely on it for trusted news, education, and emergency alerts. PBS CEO Paula Kerger has emphasized the organization's role as an essential service providing universal access to free, high-quality content.

The recent Executive Order is dramatic, but its implications could be even more sweeping if the administration fully implements Project 2025’s recommendations. Among them is a proposal to strip NPR of its noncommercial status and reclassify it as a commercial entity—a move that would force it off the FM dial and open its frequencies to religious broadcasters.

Meanwhile, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), under Trump-appointed leadership, has already scrutinized NPR and PBS's underwriting practices, questioning whether their sponsorship acknowledgments constitute prohibited commercial advertising.

The most extreme recommendation in Project 2025 is the complete revocation of NPR’s noncommercial status, a shift that could fundamentally alter public broadcasting in the United States.

NPR and PBS have long served as vital pillars of American public media, providing in-depth journalism, educational programming, and cultural storytelling free from commercial influence. Their continued existence ensures access to diverse voices and independent reporting—an essential counterbalance in a rapidly shifting media landscape.

The recent Executive Order raises fundamental questions about the future of NPR and PBS, challenging their role in American public media.

David Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.


Read More

Who’s Responsible When AI Causes Harm?: Unpacking the Federal AI Liability Framework Debate
the letters are made up of different colors

Who’s Responsible When AI Causes Harm?: Unpacking the Federal AI Liability Framework Debate

This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.

Key takeaways

  • The U.S. has no national AI liability law. Instead, a patchwork of state laws has emerged which has resulted in legal protections being dependent on where an individual resides.
  • It’s often unclear who is legally responsible when AI causes harm. This gap leaves many people with no clear path to seek help.
  • In March 2026, the White House and Congress introduced major proposals to establish a federal standard, but there is significant disagreement about whether that standard should prioritize protecting innovation or protecting people harmed by AI systems.

Background: A Patchwork of State Laws

Without a national AI law, states have been filling in the gaps on their own. The result is an uneven landscape where a person’s legal protections depend entirely on which state they live in.

Keep ReadingShow less
Teenager admiring electronic hobby robot.

Explore how China is overtaking the U.S. in the global innovation race, from electric vehicles to advanced research, and why America’s fragmented science policy, talent loss, and weak industrial strategy threaten its technological leadership.

Getty Images, Willie B. Thomas

America’s Greatest Geopolitical Blind Spot

The global hierarchy of innovation is undergoing a structural shift that Washington is dangerously slow to acknowledge. For decades, the prevailing narrative in the United States was that China was merely the "world’s factory"—a nation capable of mass-producing Western designs but inherently lacking the creative spark to invent its own. This assumption has been shattered. Today, Beijing is no longer playing catch-up; in sectors ranging from electric vehicles and next-generation nuclear power to hypersonic missiles, China is setting the pace.

The central challenge is that China has mastered the entire innovation ecosystem, while the United States has allowed its own to fracture. Innovation is not just about a "eureka" moment in a laboratory; it is a relay race that begins with basic scientific research, moves through the training of specialized talent, and ends with the large-scale commercialization of "hard tech." China is currently winning every leg of that race.

Keep ReadingShow less
An illustration of a person standing alone on a platform and looking at speech bubbles.

A bold critique of modern democracy and rising authoritarian ideas, exploring how AI-powered swarm digital democracy could redefine participation and governance.

Getty Images, Andriy Onufriyenko

The Only Radical Move Forward: Swarm Digital Democracy

We are increasingly told that democracy has failed and that its time has passed. The evidence proffered is everywhere, we are told: Gridlock, captured institutions, performative elections, a public that senses, correctly, that its voice rarely translates into real power. Into this vacuum step dystopic movements like the Dark Enlightenment and harder strains of Right-wing populism, offering a stark diagnosis and an even starker cure: Abandon the illusion of popular rule and return to forms of authority that are decisive, hierarchical, and unapologetically exclusionary. They present themselves as bold, clear-eyed, rambunctious, alive, and willing to act where others hesitate. And all to save the world from itself.

But this framing depends on a sleight of hand: It assumes that what we have been living under is, in fact, democracy, and that its failures are the failures of democracy itself. That is the first mistake.

Keep ReadingShow less
Judge's Gavel Hammer as a Symbol of Law and Order with Processor CPU AI Chip.

Elon Musk’s xAI company is challenging AI regulations in Colorado after losing in California, arguing that limits on artificial intelligence violate free speech. As Connecticut enforces its own AI law, this case could shape the future of AI regulation, corporate accountability, and constitutional rights in the United States.

Getty Images, Alexander Sikov

xAI Pushes Free Speech Theory Into New AI Lawsuits

Elon Musk's AI company, xAI, is on a legal road trip. After losing in California, it filed suit in Colorado asking a court to declare the state's artificial intelligence regulations unconstitutional. The argument is essentially the same one that already failed. Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

For Connecticut residents, this is not just the next state in the alphabet that has passed AI legislation. Connecticut was one of the first states in the nation to adopt an AI law, requiring companies to disclose when AI is being used in critical decisions like employment, housing, credit, or healthcare. That law is already drawing scrutiny from the technology industry. What xAI tried to do in California and now in Colorado is a preview of what we may face in Connecticut.

Keep ReadingShow less