President Donald Trump took a new step on Tuesday in his ongoing clash with prominent cultural institutions by formally asking Congress to rescind $1.1 billion in federal funding that had been allocated to public broadcasters for the next two years. This move targets organizations such as NPR and PBS, both of which have long been in the crosshairs of conservative criticism over alleged partisan bias.
To move forward, this rescission request requires a simple majority in both the House and Senate within 45 days. Given Republicans’ narrow majorities in both chambers, the proposal could succeed with only minimal dissent from within their ranks.
The momentum for this move had been building for months. Earlier this spring, a House subcommittee hearing laid the foundation, with Republican lawmakers using the platform to accuse NPR and PBS of promoting partisan viewpoints. During that hearing, they argued for the removal of federal support funneled through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) to local public media outlets and their national counterparts.
At the hearing, PBS President and CEO Paula Kerger warned about the severe impact such cuts could have, particularly in rural areas where public stations often serve as the main providers of local programming and essential services. In a statement issued Tuesday following Trump’s request, Kerger said, “Without PBS member stations, Americans will lose unique local programming and emergency services in times of crisis. There’s nothing more American than PBS and we are proud to highlight real issues, individuals, and places that would otherwise be overlooked by commercial media.”
Similarly, Katherine Maher, President and CEO of NPR, expressed concern not only about the financial impact on local radio stations but also about the legality of the request. “The proposal, which is explicitly viewpoint-based and aimed at controlling and punishing content, violates the Public Broadcasting Act, the First Amendment, and the Due Process Clause,” she said in a statement. Maher warned that the abrupt withdrawal of funding would lead to “immediate budget shortfalls,” resulting in program cancellations and layoffs at public radio stations.
The move to eliminate public broadcasting funds is part of a broader $9.4 billion package of proposed budget clawbacks from the White House, which also includes cuts to foreign aid programs. House Speaker Mike Johnson emphasized that the proposed cuts had been developed with guidance from a government efficiency task force led by billionaire Elon Musk. “We thank Elon Musk and his DOGE team for identifying a wide range of wasteful, duplicative, and outdated programs, and House Republicans are eager to eliminate them,” Johnson stated, expressing eagerness to act swiftly on the president’s proposal.
However, opposition is expected in the Senate, where even some Republicans have expressed reservations. Senator Susan Collins of Maine, who chairs the Senate Appropriations Committee, objected to a proposed cut in the widely respected PEPFAR initiative — a U.S. program for combating HIV/AIDS that was launched under President George W. Bush. “I will not support a cut in PEPFAR, which is a program that has saved literally millions of lives and has been extremely effective and well run,” she said, though she avoided commenting directly on the proposal to defund public broadcasting or whether there would be enough Republican senators to halt the measure.
This request comes after conservative lawmakers voiced dissatisfaction with a recently passed House budget deal — approved only after Trump’s personal visit to Capitol Hill — which they said would significantly increase the federal debt. Still, while the $1.1 billion cut to public broadcasting is symbolically significant, its financial impact on the national debt is minimal. The U.S. national debt stands at a staggering $36 trillion, and the amount Trump seeks to rescind covers the full CPB budget through the end of September 2027. That funding was originally approved in March as part of a temporary spending bill signed by the president.
Public broadcasting has traditionally drawn bipartisan support, but it has become a lightning rod for criticism in recent years, especially from conservatives who claim it leans left politically. Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, a prominent ally of Trump, exemplified this view during the spring subcommittee hearing, saying, “NPR and PBS have increasingly become radical, left-wing echo chambers for a narrow audience of mostly wealthy, white, urban liberals and progressives.”
Despite such criticism, not all Republicans agree with Trump’s proposal. Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski voiced her support for continued federal funding for public broadcasting, emphasizing its importance in states like hers. In rural areas, public radio and TV often provide critical services, including access to news, education, and emergency alerts.
Several prominent Democrats have also strongly opposed Trump’s push to defund public broadcasting. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Senator Patty Murray, the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, criticized the move as politically motivated. “President Trump is looking to go after PBS and NPR to settle political scores and muzzle the free press, while undermining foreign assistance programs that push back on China’s malign influence, save lives, and address other bipartisan priorities,” the two senators said in a joint statement.
Representative Dan Goldman of New York, who serves as the Democratic co-chair of the House Public Broadcasting Caucus, echoed those concerns. In May, he led a letter addressed to House appropriators that was signed by 106 Democratic lawmakers, urging the continued financial support of public broadcasters. “Without federal support for public broadcasting, many localities would struggle to receive timely, reliable local news and educational content, especially remote and rural communities that commercial newsrooms are increasingly less likely to invest in,” the letter stated. It emphasized that in places like Alaska, Minnesota, North Dakota, and Texas, public radio often remains “the only weekly or daily news source in their communities.”
While Trump’s rescission request may satisfy elements of his base and allies within Congress who seek to slash government spending and challenge perceived media bias, it has also ignited a broader debate about the role of public broadcasting in American society. The fate of the proposal now lies with lawmakers in both chambers, many of whom must balance partisan priorities against the needs of their constituents — particularly in rural America where public media often fills a void left by commercial broadcasters.
In essence, the latest effort by Trump to cut public media funding serves not only as a fiscal maneuver but also as part of a broader ideological campaign, reflecting deepening divisions over the future of American media and its role in public life.