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

The U.S. Pentagon.

Buried in the 2027 NDAA, Section 224 could fundamentally reshape U.S.-Israel defense ties. Is Congress creating an irreversible military partnership?

Getty Images, Westend61

America Should Stay Single

As we wait to see what comes of ceasefire negotiations between the United States and Iran, the House just released its 2027 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Buried within it lies Section 224, titled the “United States-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative,” a provision representing what would be a radical departure from how we work with even our strongest allies, turning America’s relationship with a close collaborator into a permanent military-industrial integration. The U.S. has worked with NATO partners on co-production and shared supply chains in the past, but never like this. Many are calling it a merger. We should all be calling it off.

Section 224 could inextricably link the fate of our country’s defense to another’s. The Secretary of Defense would be directed to designate an executive agent to fuse ventures with Israel so significantly that it would touch almost every area of defense tech: AI, autonomous systems, energy, cyber, biotech, and beyond. It also proposes “network” and “data fusion,” which means, as the director of the Democratizing Foreign Policy program at the Quincy Institute warned, “the U.S. military’s data could soon be the Israeli military’s data.America First may soon sound more like a sarcastic punchline than a platform.

Keep ReadingShow less
AI Could Save Thousands—So Why Is Healthcare Still Hitting the Brakes?

Discover how generative AI in healthcare could reduce misdiagnoses, improve chronic disease management, and save hundreds of thousands of lives—if policymakers accelerate adoption instead of waiting for risk-free perfection.

Getty Images / Pakorn Supajitsoontorn

AI Could Save Thousands—So Why Is Healthcare Still Hitting the Brakes?

Imagine that the only way Americans traveled was on foot or on horseback. And assume that 100,000 people died each year because they couldn’t reach a hospital in time or firefighters arrived too late.

Suddenly, they learned that thanks to a technological breakthrough, cars and trucks will become widely available within three years.

Keep ReadingShow less
This 3D rendered image shows a central AI processing chip sitting atop a glowing blue printed circuit board.

Can AI profit-sharing help workers? Examining public wealth funds, AI taxes, economic transition policies, and the future of work.

Jason marz / Getty Images

There’s No Easy Path Through the AI Transition

“Trending” policy ideas tend to garner attention for all the wrong reasons: they seem like silver bullet solutions that will save us from taking on much harder reforms. Proposals to share profits from leading AI companies with the public are the latest example. It’s the rare policy scheme that seems to have united President Donald Trump, Senator Bernie Sanders, and CEOs at the leading AI labs. While the proposals for AI profit sharing vary in their precise details, a quick review of their likely outcomes should quickly deflate the popular excitement that has formed in response to calls for new taxes, public wealth funds, and the like. It’s important to reveal such limitations so that the AI policy discourse can move on to mechanisms more likely to address the real concerns of the American people.

In our first hypothetical world, the two leading AI labs—Anthropic and OpenAI—give away 3% of their equity. That’s not nothing! Based on current figures, such a contribution could kickstart a public wealth fund of about $55 billion. Let’s then imagine that fund earns 10% a year (a big “if” but let’s run with it). Per The Economist, this AI would reach a staggering $140 billion within ten years. How much would that benefit Americans? If annual payouts were 4% — what the publication reports is a proper amount to keep the fund going and growing — Americans would have an extra $20 in their pocket.

Keep ReadingShow less
For Imre Huss, Fixing Democracy Starts With Talking to a Stranger
a couple of people sitting at a table with cups of coffee

For Imre Huss, Fixing Democracy Starts With Talking to a Stranger

The Democracy Architects Council, presented by The Bridge Alliance Education Fund and Civics Unplugged, offers a paid, one-year fellowship for eight fellows ages 18 to 28, each selected for their work across a distinct sector of democratic life.

The youngest member of the Democracy Architects Council is building AI-powered civic tech, but he says the real work of democracy still happens face to face.

Keep ReadingShow less