Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Public Media Under Fire: Why Project 2025 Is Reshaping NPR and PBS

Media criticism
News media's vital to democracy, Americans say; then a partisan divide yawns
Tero Vesalainen/Getty Images

This past spring and summer, The Fulcrum published a 30-part, nonpartisan series examining Project 2025—a sweeping policy blueprint for a potential second Trump administration. Our analysis explored the proposed reforms and their far-reaching implications across government. Now, as the 2025 administration begins to take shape, it’s time to move from speculation to reality.

In this follow-up, we turn our focus to one of the most consequential—and quietly unfolding—chapters of that blueprint: Funding cuts from NPR and PBS.


Last week, Congress approved a proposal from the Trump administration to eliminate $1.1 billion in funding previously allocated to NPR, PBS, and their affiliated member stations.

Following the vote, NPR CEO Katherine Maher denounced the cuts as an “irreversible loss,” describing them as “an unwarranted dismantling of beloved local civic institutions” and “an act of Congress that disregards the public will.”

Two Republican senators, Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski, joined Democrats in opposing the measure. Nonetheless, the Senate version of the bill retains the cuts to public broadcasting.

Because the Senate revised the legislation, it must now return to the House for final approval. If the House adopts the Senate’s version, the bill will head to President Trump’s desk for signature. Under the 1974 Impoundment Control Act, which regulates congressional handling of presidential rescission requests, the deadline for passage is Friday, marking the end of a strict 45-day window.

Whether this legislation supersedes Trump’s Executive Order is a complex constitutional question. In practical terms, the bill reinforces rather than repeals the restrictions outlined in Trump’s May 1, 2025, directive, which instructed federal agencies and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to halt all direct and indirect support to NPR and PBS. The order also mandated revisions to existing contracts and funding rules to block future aid.

In short:

  • The executive order established the policy intent.
  • The legislation enforces it financially.

Absent judicial intervention or new congressional appropriations, both the executive order and the bill are poised to jointly eliminate public broadcasting funds beginning October 1, 2025. While laws passed by Congress can be challenged, such cases typically proceed only after enactment—and courts generally defer to Congress, viewing its legislation as an expression of the will of an elected body.

Now past the 100-day mark of his administration, President Trump’s policy rollout shows strong alignment with Project 2025—a 900-page blueprint for governance. Despite repeated campaign trail assertions that he had “nothing to do with” the document and had not read it, the resemblance between his actions and Project 2025’s recommendations is striking.

Earlier this year, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr notified NPR and PBS leadership that the agency had opened an investigation into content aired across their 1,500 member stations, as reported by The New York Times.

These stations are licensed by the FCC as noncommercial educational broadcasters. They operate on reserved frequencies, are exempt from licensing fees, and are legally prohibited from airing commercial advertisements. In a letter dated April 2023 to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Carr warned that certain broadcasts may breach federal standards:

“I am concerned that NPR and PBS broadcasts could be violating federal law by airing commercials. In particular, NPR and PBS member stations may be broadcasting underwriting announcements that cross the line into prohibited commercial advertisements.”

Carr further questioned the necessity of continued federal support for NPR and PBS, citing shifts in the media landscape. PBS CEO Paula Kerger responded by noting that the cuts would “devastate PBS member stations,” particularly in smaller and rural communities.

Carr is the author of the FCC chapter in Project 2025’s policy blueprint. Another section calls on Congress to defund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which provides grants to NPR and PBS.

According to Project 2025, "stripping public funding would, of course, mean that NPR, PBS, Pacifica Radio, and the other leftist broadcasters would be shorn of the presumption that they act in the public interest and receive the privileges that often accompany so acting."

Consequently, the document argues these outlets should no longer qualify as noncommercial educational broadcast stations.

The Fulcrum published over 30 columns in the three months leading up to last November’s election, offering a cross-partisan analysis of Project 2025. Our editorial stance was clear:

“We believed this would serve as a guide for citizens and elected representatives to safeguard the healthy democratic republic we all desire.”

The possibilities we spoke of then are now becoming reality. The negative impact of Project 2025 on institutions that have served Americans for generations is no longer speculative. It is unfolding before our eyes.

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


Read More

 In an aerial view, the Stargate Oracle AI data center campus.

In an aerial view, the Stargate Oracle AI data center campus is seen on August 26, 2026 in Abilene, Texas

Brandon Bell/Getty Images

Is AI Worth the Cost to Communities?

Picture a family living on a quiet street in an idyllic small town. Then a data center moves in next door. Trees are knocked down for a sprawling industrial campus, an enormous windowless building rises, and a maddening hum continues day and night. The family closes its windows, abandons the backyard, and struggles to sleep. Open space disappears, electric bills rise, and the company announces plans to expand—all in the name of jobs, tax revenue, and so-called progress.

While the family is fictional, its experience is not. Across the country, communities are confronting noise, rising electricity demand, water consumption, lost open space, and data centers approved with little public discussion. These costs raise a question the technology industry would rather avoid: Are the promised benefits of the artificial-intelligence boom worth what communities are being asked to sacrifice?

Keep ReadingShow less
aerial view of an AI data center.

In an aerial view, the Stargate Oracle AI data center campus is seen on August 26, 2026 in Abilene, Texas. The Stargate Oracle AI data center will span roughly 4 million square feet and will be operated by Oracle for OpenAI. The facility is the first Stargate site to go live and is expected to be fully completed by the end of 2026.

Brandon Bell/Getty Images

Why Communities Nationwide Are Halting AI Data Centers

More Americans of all political stripes are growing anxious over the impacts of artificial intelligence (AI) and digital technologies, and a popular backlash is brewing. At university graduations, commencement speakers who have cited the alleged benefits of AI have been met with resounding boos from graduates who feel AI has displaced them from jobs. With no federal law regulating AI, all 50 state governments have proposed measures to regulate everything from employment algorithms to deepfakes to child safety.

Lately, the strongest protest has emerged in America's heartland, with one issue fueling local opposition: the rapid proliferation of massive data centers used for cloud storage and artificial intelligence computations. Across America, more than 4,400 data centers currently exist, and a University of Michigan report found that just one center can consume as much electricity as 2,000 homes. They also use large amounts of water for cooling, with a typical data center using 300,000 gallons of water each day (about the same as 1,000 households). But very large data centers can use an estimated 5 million gallons of water each day, which is similar to the daily usage of a town with 10,000 to 50,000 residents.

Keep ReadingShow less
Back view of crop anonymous female talking to a chatbot of computer while sitting at home

AI chatbots and online therapy promise easier mental health care, but technology may be eroding the boundaries, privacy and human connection that make psychotherapy effective.

David Espejo/Getty Images

Big Tech’s Solutions to Mental Health Bring Bigger Problems

While America is suffering a mental health crisis, the good news is that tens of millions of people are getting help. In 2023, 60 million adults reported having sought counseling or treatment in the previous year, and the numbers continue to rise.

Psychotherapy works because of what’s known as the therapeutic frame, a set of boundaries that create safety and structure for patients and clinicians. Sessions last 50 minutes. Fees are agreed upon prior to the start of treatment. The therapist remains neutral, shares little of their personal life, and holds confidentiality sacred.

Keep ReadingShow less
A New Standard for Ethical Immigration Reporting
people holding flag of U.S.A miniature
Photo by Frank Kastle on Unsplash

A New Standard for Ethical Immigration Reporting

Seven months ago, I attended the first day of my Reporting on Race class at USC. Taught by journalist and immigration reporting expert Jean Guerrero, the course offered growth I hadn’t yet imagined, showing me how much I could evolve as a journalist in just one semester.

For the next five months, I researched and reported on an immigration story of my choosing. I wrote about how educators in Los Angeles protect and advocate for students and communities living in fear of ICE deportations. These educators organized community street patrols to keep their neighborhoods safe. Finding sources and producing the final draft took months, but it was one of the most rewarding experiences of my journalism studies so far.

Keep ReadingShow less