WASHINGTON—The Corporation for Public Broadcasting’s board of directors has voted to dissolve the organization that oversaw the federal government’s investment in public broadcasting and media for 58 years.

The move came after a decades-long political fight by conservatives to end federal funding for public media that culminated in 2025 with President Donald Trump asking Congress to rescind previously appropriated money for public media and votes by the Republican-controlled Congress to end federal funding. Most of the staff was laid off last fall.

CPB’s board took the vote after determining that maintaining the corporation as a nonfunctional entity without funding would not serve the public interest or advance the goals of public media. “A dormant and defunded CPB could have become vulnerable to future political manipulation or misuse, threatening the independence of public media and the trust audiences place in it, and potentially subjecting staff and board members to legal exposure from bad-faith actors,” the CPB said in a press release.

As it moved to dissolve the CPB, board members also highlighted the organization's longstanding work to develop and strengthen public media in the U.S.

“For more than half a century, CPB existed to ensure that all Americans—regardless of geography, income, or background—had access to trusted news, educational programming, and local storytelling,” CPB President and CEO Patricia Harrison said. “When the Administration and Congress rescinded federal funding, our Board faced a profound responsibility: CPB’s final act would be to protect the integrity of the public media system and the democratic values by dissolving, rather than allowing the organization to remain defunded and vulnerable to additional attacks.”

“What has happened to public media is devastating,” CPB Chair Ruby Calvert said. “After nearly six decades of innovative, educational public television and radio service, Congress eliminated all funding for CPB, leaving the Board with no way to continue the organization or support the public media system that depends on it. Yet, even in this moment, I am convinced that public media will survive, and that a new Congress will address public media’s role in our country because it is critical to our children's education, our history, culture and democracy to do so.”

First authorized by Congress under the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967, CPB helped build and sustain a nationwide public media system of more than 1,500 locally owned and operated public radio and television stations.

The board said CPB’s stewardship helped public media become a trusted civic resource, delivering educational programming, providing life-saving emergency alerts during natural disasters and crises and supporting rigorous, fact-based journalism that uncovers issues affecting people’s daily lives.

As part of the process of dissolving the organization, CPB will complete the responsible distribution of all remaining funds in accordance with Congress’s intent.

CPB will also provide support to the American Archive of Public Broadcasting to continue digitizing and preserving historic content, and CPB’s own archives—dating back to the organization’s founding in 1967—will be preserved in partnership with the University of Maryland and made accessible to the public.

“Public media remains essential to a healthy democracy,” Harrison said. “Our hope is that future leaders and generations will recognize its value, defend its independence, and continue the work of ensuring that trustworthy, educational, and community-centered media remains accessible to all Americans.”

In response to the vote, Kate Riley, president and CEO of America’s Public Television Stations, said: “The winddown and now dissolution of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is the direct result of the rescission of public media funding last year. The consequences of that rescission continue to ripple throughout the public media system and the communities that depend on their local stations for lifesaving public safety services, exceptional education resources, and local storytelling that binds communities together and reflects their unique history, culture and aspirations for the future...The loss of CPB will be felt in every community large and small throughout this country."

“Local stations and the essential services they provide their communities continue to be at risk," Riley concluded. "We call on Congress to act now to restore some level of support for local stations in the final FY 2026 funding bills.”

Early Thursday morning, the U.S. Senate voted to cut federal funding for PBS and NPR in a bill that also included cuts for foreign aid. In a 51-48 vote, the action to cut $9 billion in federal funding represents perhaps the biggest threat to public broadcasting in recent years and a moment of capitulation to President Trump from Congress, which normally has the final say in spending federal funds.

The bill will now go to the House, which is expected to approve it. Most of the funds—approximately $8 billion—targets foreign aid, while $1.1 billion was supposed to go to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which funds NPR and PBS.

The Trump administration has been a long-time critic of public broadcasting, which he claims is "biased" against conservatives and ordered the elimination of funding earlier this year.

“Republicans must defund and totally disassociate themselves from NPR & PBS, the radical left ‘monsters’ that so badly hurt our country!” Trump posted on Truth Social on April 1.

The CPB funds about 2% of NPR’s budget and about 15% of PBS’s, so it’s unlikely that public broadcasting would cease; however, there is more concern over how the cuts will impact rural communities, who, in an age of declining local news outlets depend on public media more than ever. That was a major point of contention for Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Susan Collins (R-Maine), who voted against the measure. Murkowski criticized the bill on X, referring to an earthquake that struck her state on Wednesday.

“Some colleagues claim they are targeting ‘radical leftist organizations’ with these cuts, but in Alaska, these are simply organizations dedicated to their communities,” Murkowski wrote. “Their response to today’s earthquake is a perfect example of the incredible public service these stations provide. They deliver local news, weather updates, and, yes, emergency alerts that save human lives.”

Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) was also initially opposed to the cuts, expressing concern that they would negatively impact the future of tribal radio stations. Although he was later assured that an agreement had been struck with the Trump administration that such cuts would not happen, the leader of Native Public Media warned that no such guarantee could be made.

“There is currently no clear path for redirecting these funds to tribal broadcasters without significant legislative and administrative changes,” said Loris Taylor, the president of Native Public Media.

Rounds’ colleague, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) defended the cuts.

“I think $9 billion is a very small amount of money—as I mentioned, one-tenth of 1% of all federal spending,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., told Fox News on Wednesday night before the vote. “But we’ve got to look at all aspects of the federal budget and figure out where we can root out waste, fraud and abuse, to put this country on a more sustainable fiscal path. We just can’t sustain where we are.”

Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), a longtime advocate for public broadcasting, took issue with Thune’s description of calling funding for public media “waste, fraud and abuse.”

“Republicans are making a Clifford-sized mistake by choosing Donald Trump and multibillionaires over ‘Daniel Tiger’ and ‘Masterpiece Theater,’ ” the Senator said in a statement after the vote. “By eliminating public media funding, Republicans are silencing rural broadcasters. They are stripping communities of essential emergency alert infrastructure. They are taking away trusted educational programming from millions of children. And by gutting global public health programs, they’re abandoning vulnerable populations around the world.

“The consequences of this reckless package will be felt for years to come,” Markey added. “But I am committed to ensuring that characters like ‘Arthur’ and ‘Molly of Denali’ can continue to educate our children, and that public radio and television stations can continue to connect and protect people in every community across America.”

Kate Riley, President and CEO of America’s Public Television Stations, the primary advocate for public broadcasting, said the association was “devastated” by the vote and noted that federal funding of public broadcasting amounts to about $1.60 per person per year and less than one 1/100th of a percent of the federal budget.

“This elimination of federal funding will decimate public media and put local stations at risk of going dark, cutting off service to communities that rely on them—many of which have no other access to locally controlled media,” Riley said. “After over 50 years of federal support for public broadcasting, the Senate has now voted to eliminate this exceptional public-private partnership that has educated generations of children, protected countless lives, and connected and celebrated communities large and small throughout this nation.

“As the rescissions package moves back to the House for its final consideration, we urge the House to oppose the package and the elimination of public media. If this package passes the House, all funding to local stations will be cut off starting October 1, 2025 and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting will shut down."

NEW YORK—Paramount Global has agreed to pay $16 million to settle a lawsuit by President Donald Trump, ending a long-running legal saga that could clear the way for Federal Communications Commission approval of the Paramount-Skydance Media merger.

Trump filed the suit last year, asking for $10 billion in damages, an amount he later raised to $20 million. The lawsuit claimed that CBS’s “60 Minutes” deceptively edited an interview with his 2024 election foe, former Vice President Kamala Harris, in a “deceitful” manner designed to influence the election.

CBS News’ actions represented “partisan and unlawful acts of election and voter interference through malicious, deceptive, and substantial news distortion calculated to (a) confuse, deceive, and mislead the public, and (b) attempt to tip the scales in favor of the Democratic Party as the heated 2024 Presidential Election” said the lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Amarillo Division.

A number of media outlets, including The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board, and legal scholars had argued the suit was frivolous and that CBS would prevail in court.

In settling the suit, Paramount said it would pay Trump’s legal fees and that the remaining money would go to Trump’s presidential library. Paramount also said that settlement did not involve an apology.

Critics have said that Trump was using the FCC’s investigation of the merger and a “news distortion” complaint as a way to put additional pressure on Paramount to settle the lawsuit. The FCC has denied there is any connection between the suit and themerger approval process. But it has said that the news distortion complaint about how the Harris interview was edited would play a role in the merger review.

While much of the coverage of President Donald Trump’s proposed 100% tariffs on imported films has focused on the theatrical industry, the levies on imported movies would also have a negative, though indirect, impact on TV production.

“While Trump has not commented on the television production business, tariffs on overseas production would have an equally chilling impact on TV production,” Lightshed Partners partner and media and technology analyst Richard Greenfield wrote in a research note.

Concerns over how the proposed tariffs might affect the Hollywood studios, streamers like Netflix and other media companies sent the share prices of Netflix, Paramount Global and Warner Bros. Discovery down in early trading on Monday. Following the negative reaction from financial markets and some Hollywood studio executives, the White House seemed to walk back from the proposal.

“Although no final decisions on foreign film tariffs have been made,” a White House spokesman told The Hollywood Reporter, the “administration is exploring all options to deliver on President Trump’s directive to safeguard our country’s national and economic security while Making Hollywood Great Again.”

While Trump did not mention TV or streaming services in his Sunday social media post proposing the tariffs, the potential impact of such a move is worth considering. That’s because television is so important to the Hollywood studios.

Even if the proposal is not expanded to TV programming, it would likely cause foreign governments to implement tariffs on U.S. content exports, threatening the multibillion-dollar market for U.S. movies and TV.

In 2023, the U.S. movies racked up $22.6 billion in export revenue, creating a trade surplus of $15.3 billion. U.S. television exports are harder to track, but U.S. shows like “Grey’s Anatomy,“ “NCIS,” “Law & Order,” “The Simpsons“ and many others produce significant international revenue.

A 2013 study by the U.K. group Digital TV Research estimated that U.S. studios generated some $5.4 billion a year in selling drama series to European television, according to THR.

Because the Hollywood studios typically package their TV shows with their blockbuster films, any tariffs imposed on U.S. film exports by foreign governments might hurt revenue for TV shows, which in turn could decrease production.

If the administration expanded the movie tariffs to TV, which employs many more people in production, the levies would have a direct, major impact on the production of bigger-budget, high-profile dramas.

Like movies, a growing number of these big-budget series are at least partly produced outside the U.S. in the U.K., Canada and other locales. Amazon Prime’s “Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power” was, for example, produced in New Zealand in its first season and then moved production to the U.K.

Beyond that, high-profile TV productions have for decades relied on international sales. For example, by the early 2000s, first-season U.S. broadcast shows were covering around half of their budgets from international markets in pre-sales and output deals, a practice that has made international programming confabs like MIPCOM extremely important for U.S. studios and producers.

More recently, Netflix, Amazon’s Prime Video and other major streamers have been able to leverage their international footprint of subscribers to fund dramas like "Rings of Power", which reportedly had a record breaking $1 billion budget. That international presence has given these streaming companies a major competitive advantage over domestic U.S. broadcasters.

Even if the tariffs were not applied to TV production, any retaliatory tariffs by foreign countries could include TV programs.

Europe, for example, already has content quotes for European content that limit the amount of U.S. programming that can air on broadcasters in European countries. The retaliatory tariffs could harm sales, hurt co-production agreements with international broadcasters and disrupt the globalized production used on many high-profile dramas that now heavily rely on cloud-based editing and postproduction.

Such problems prompted Lightshed’s Greenfield to write: “Last night’s Truth Social post from President Trump has everyone in Hollywood scratching their heads. Movie production has been migrating overseas for decades, attracted by lower cost labor markets, sound stage availability and most importantly substantial foreign tax credits. If movie production was forced back into the US, the net result would be a dramatic reduction in the number of films made to absorb higher production costs. While Trump has not commented on the television production business, tariffs on overseas production would have an equally chilling impact on TV production.”

The note to investors also stressed that “it’s unclear how a movie tariff system would even work. Movies are often shot in multiple locations, with post-production in a different location. Given the substantial amount of digital enhancement to a film in 2025, if post-production occurs in the U.S., is it a U.S. film or does it only matter if some or all of the film was shot overseas? Would the tariff on movies be applied based on minutes of overseas footage that make it into the final film? Or would a tariff be based on raw minutes filmed, regardless of whether they made it into the ending film? Would studios have to submit their final production cost to the government for tariffs? … [W]ould streaming films be subject to the tariff as well? Would the tariff impact future windows of movie exploitation or only the first window?”

Greenfield concluded, “Nobody knows what the President’s Truth Social post means and we fear, neither does he.”

President Donald Trump on Sunday ordered the imposition of a 100% tariff on films and TV shows produced outside the U.S., lamenting what he claims is the death of the industry and a “threat” to national security.

In a post on Truth Social, Trump wrote:

"The Movie Industry in America is DYING a very fast death. Other Countries are offering all sorts of incentives to draw our filmmakers and studios away from the United States. Hollywood, and many other areas within the U.S.A., are being devastated. This is a concerted effort by other Nations and, therefore, a National Security threat. It is, in addition to everything else, messaging and propaganda! Therefore, I am authorizing the Department of Commerce, and the United States Trade Representative, to immediately begin the process of instituting a 100% Tariff on any and all Movies coming into our Country that are produced in Foreign Lands. WE WANT MOVIES MADE IN AMERICA, AGAIN!"

Even though the order was posted on a social media platform and not signed at a White House ceremony, Hollywood and its investors are taking it seriously, with shares of major entertainment companies falling in premarket trading, with Netflix stocks down nearly 5%.

The American movie industry in 2023 generated $22.6 billion in exports, contributing to a $15.3 billion trade surplus. The industry supported 2.32 million jobs and paid out $229 billion in total wages that same year, according to the Motion Picture Association.

But Hollywood has increasingly taken its business overseas in recent decades. More shooting and post production is being done in Europe and particularly Canada, which has seen total film and TV production revenues increase 31% over the past decade to $10.4 billion in 2022-2023.

Like their manufacturing counterparts, the studios have been able to cut costs via production overseas, lured by lower wages and tax incentives; in a recent survey of studio executives, their top five choices for production locations in the next two years are all outside U.S. borders.

The impact could be devastating to the industry, resulting in fewer entertainment choices, particularly among top streamers such as Netflix and Prime.

“The problem is that pretty much all the studios are moving tons of production overseas to reduce production costs and leverage foreign credits,“ Rosenblatt Securities analyst Barton Crockett told Reuters. “Raising the cost to produce movies could lead studios to make less content. There’s also a risk of retaliatory tariffs against American content overseas.”

Australia and New Zealand, also popular destinations for film production, have already responded to the threat, with Australia’s home affairs minister, Tony Burke, stating “nobody should be under any doubt that we will be standing up unequivocally for the rights of the Australian screen industry.”

New Zealand Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said they were waiting for more details, “but we'll be obviously a great advocate, great champion of that sector and that industry,” he said.

China, the world’s second-largest box office for U.S.-made films, has also stated that it will begin limiting the number of American films permitted for release within the country as a result of Trump’s imposition of a 145% tariff on imports from the country. That country is reportedly responsible for 25% of major studios’ annual worldwide revenue.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, also advocates more filmmaking in the state, but via tax credits instead of direct order. His goal, though, is to make the state more competitive within the U.S.

Last fall, he proposed to expand California’s Film & Television Tax Credit Program to $750 million annually, more than double the current $330 million annual allocation.

“California is the entertainment capital of the world, rooted in decades of creativity, innovation, and unparalleled talent. Expanding this program will help keep production here at home, generate thousands of good-paying jobs, and strengthen the vital link between our communities and the state’s iconic film and TV industry.”

Politico is reporting that Trump may have gotten the idea from actor Jon Voight, who—along with fellow conservatives Mel Gibson and Sylvester Stallone—are the president’s so-called “Ambassadors to Hollywood.”

President Donald Trump on Thursday ordered the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to defund PBS and NPR, claiming that today’s media landscape has changed enough to warrant ending public funding for broadcasting. In addition, he used the executive order to criticize the broadcasters (established in 1967 when Congress created the CPB) over what he claims is “biased” reporting.

Congress has the final say on funding CPB but, as has been the case since his inauguration, Trump is attempting to sidestep Congress via executive order. The CPB is a private, nonprofit corporation established by federal law and governed by an independent board.

For decades, Republicans have attempted to defund CPB over what they perceive as political bias but, in recent years, they have added the “evolving media landscape” as further justification for their arguments, claiming that programming via public broadcasting is replicated elsewhere.

But critics of the administration say Trump has sought to quash media voices selectively and use the power of his office to strike at his critics as well as a free press. One month earlier Trump posted on the Truth Social site, in all caps, “Republicans must defund and totally disassociate themselves from NPR & PBS, the radical left ‘monsters’ that so badly hurt our country!”

According to news coverage by the BBC, more than 40 million Americans listen to NPR public radio each week, and 36 million watch a local television station from the PBS network each month, according to their estimates.

The order reads in part:

“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.

“At the very least, Americans have the right to expect that if their tax dollars fund public broadcasting at all, they fund only fair, accurate, unbiased, and nonpartisan news coverage. No media outlet has a constitutional right to taxpayer subsidies, and the Government is entitled to determine which categories of activities to subsidize. The CPB’s governing statute reflects principles of impartiality: the CPB may not “contribute to or otherwise support any political party.” 47 U.S.C. 396(f)(3); see also id. 396(e)(2).

“The CPB fails to abide by these principles to the extent it subsidizes NPR and PBS. 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 taxpaying citizens.

“I therefore instruct the CPB Board of Directors (CPB Board) and all executive departments and agencies (agencies) to cease Federal funding for NPR and PBS."

The CPB administers $535 million in taxpayer funds annually to PBS and NPR stations, who provide a range of free, accessible news, educational and entertainment programming, as well as emergency alerting. The service is particularly well-received in rural areas that lack access to broadband or multichannel video services.

At a Congressional hearing in March, Ed Ullman, president and CEO of Alaska Public Media, defended public broadcasting’s importance, especially in rural areas.

“In many parts of Alaska and communities throughout the country, public media is often the only locally operated, locally controlled broadcasting service. We are more than ‘nice to have.’ We are essential, especially in remote and rural places where commercial broadcasting cannot succeed.”

Patricia Harrison, President and CEO of CPB, issued the following statement:

“CPB is not a federal executive agency subject to the President’s authority. Congress directly authorized and funded CPB to be a private nonprofit corporation wholly independent of the federal government.

“In creating CPB, Congress expressly forbade ‘any department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over educational television or radio broadcasting, or over [CPB] or any of its grantees or contractors…’ 47 U.S.C. § 398(c).”

Katherine Maher, NPR President and CEO, also responded, saying "NPR stands by the excellence and commitment of our journalists, staff, and Member organizations to seek out stories that matter to the American public, that reflect every part of the diversity of our nation, and that bring affairs of the world to our audiences."

"We stand by our high standards and our colleagues in their pursuit of factual reporting, their work to present issues fairly and without bias, and our effort to seek the humanity and human consequence of every story," she added. "We will strongly defend our work and our editorial independence and will continue to tell the stories of our country and the world with accuracy, objectivity, and fairness.

Several weeks ago, the administration asked Congress for $1.1 billion in funding cuts to CPB. That request was made on April 15 and would have to be approved by Congress within 45 days (May 30) after it is formally proposed. This order appears to be an attempt to nullify that proposal and shut down federal funding to the broadcasters altogether without Congressional approval.

Earlier this week, the CPB filed a lawsuit to stop the Trump administration from firing three of its board members, claiming the president has no power to do so.

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr supports the moves to defund public broadcasting and has ordered an investigation into how sponsorships are handled.

“For my own part, I do not see a reason why Congress should continue sending taxpayer dollars to NPR and PBS given the changes in the media marketplace since the passage of the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967,” the chairman said when issuing the order at the end of January.

MoveOn launched a petition calling on Congress to protect public broadcasting has surpassed 36,000 signatures by 3 p.m. ET on Friday, May 2. The petition is available here.

This is a developing story.

Radio World Editor in Chief Paul McLane contributed to this story.

WASHINGTON—The Corporation for Public Broadcasting has filed a lawsuit to stop the Trump administration from firing three of its board members, claiming the president has no power to do so.

The president does nominate CPB board members, who must be confirmed by the Senate.

On April 28, the Trump administration moved to fire three of five CPB board members, Tom Rothman, Diane Kaplan and Laura Ross. In response, on Tuesday, April 29, the CPB, its board of directors and the three board members filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to stop the terminations. The judge has issued a temporary restraining order stopping the firings until both sides have presented their legal arguments.

The firings escalate an ongoing dispute between the Trump administration and Republican members of Congress who have been attacking public media for political bias and attempting to cut all funding to the CPB and public media.

FCC Chair Brendan Carr has joined in the effort by calling for the end of funding to CPB. The regulatory agency has opened an investigation into PBS and NPR sponsorship revenues.

In the court brief, the plaintiffs cite extensive legal arguments that the CPB was created as an independent private company to protect it from partisan political interference.

“As set forth in the Act, government guidance, and well-established legal precedent, the CPB was created by Congress to expressly be ‘a private corporation [to] be created to facilitate the development of public telecommunications and to afford maximum protection from extraneous interference and control,’ ” the brief contended. “To ensure that CPB was insulated from partisan governmental interference and control and ensure its autonomy, Congress expressly provided various protections, including that: CPB is not a federal agency subject to the president’s authority, but rather a private corporation.”

The brief also argues that the legislation creating the CBP stipulates it “will not be an agency or establishment of the United States Government. The Corporation shall be subject to the provisions of this section, and, to the extent consistent with this section, to the District of Columbia Nonprofit Corporation Act.”

In addition, the plaintiffs argue, “CPB’s Board members are not officers of the United States, and thus are not within the removal provisions of Article II of the Constitution” and that the CPB board members and staff are not employees of the U.S. government. It also stressed that CPB is not listed as an agency of the U.S. government.

“Even the United States Government Manual, which has been published for over 80 years by the National Archives and Records Administration, itself being an executive agency, and which provides information on the agencies of the legislative, judicial, and executive branches, does not even mention the CPB anywhere among its listing of governmental and quasi-governmental agencies covering over 2,000 pages for the obvious reason that CPB is a private, non-profit corporation that is not subject to control by the Executive Branch,” the brief argued.

The full brief can be found here.

WASHINGTON—FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez has announced that she is partnering with consumer and civil society organizations to launch a “First Amendment Tour” of events to challenge government censorship and control.

“Since the founding of our country, the First Amendment has protected our fundamental right to speak freely and hold power to account,“ Gomez said. “Today, the greatest threat to that freedom is coming from our own government. Silencing dissenting voices is not a show of strength—it’s a sign of fear. We must continue to speak out against this growing campaign of censorship and control before this dangerous new normal becomes the status quo.”

To announce the effort, Gomez issued a press release arguing that over the last few months, actions across the federal government have demonstrated an alarming pattern of silencing dissenting voices, including in the media and telecommunications sector.

The release specifically singled out the Federal Communications Commission for criticism: “From investigating broadcasters for editorial decisions in their newsrooms, to harassing private companies for their fair hiring practices, to threatening tech companies that respond to consumer demand for fact-checking tools, the FCC’s actions have focused on weaponizing the agency’s authority to silence critics,” she said.

TV Tech’s extensive coverage of those issues can be found here.

Gomez has previously attacked the current FCC leadership on numerous occasions for launching “news distortion” investigations into broadcast TV news coverage that was critical of President Donald Trump. At NAB Show earlier this month, she complained that the FCC had strayed from its core mission and criticized FCC investigations into public media, DEI and broadcast TV stations.

The press release issued by Gomez’s office reported that these events will provide a forum where the commissioner can engage with "stakeholders and the public on the various ways the FCC is being weaponized to attack freedom of speech in the media and telecommunications sector instead of focusing on its core mission – connecting the public, protecting consumers, and supporting competition.”

The events will be open to the public and/or livestreamed where possible.

The first event will be hosted by the Center for Democracy and Technology in Washington, D.C., on Thursday, April 24. “Who Will Fight for the First Amendment? Protecting Free Expression at a Critical Time” is set for 2 to 3 p.m. ET.

Interested parties can register to join via Zoom here.

Panelists will include:

• Anna M. Gomez, Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission
• ·Alexandra Givens, President and CEO, Center for Democracy & Technology
• Kate Tummarello, Executive Director, Engine
• Alex Abdo, Litigation Director, Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University
• Sara Oates, Associate Dean for Research and Professor, Philip Merrill College of Journalism, University of Maryland

Protect Democracy has submitted comments to the FCC on behalf of a bipartisan group of former FCC chairs and commissioners that strongly criticizes the FCC’s ongoing investigation of “news distortion” by CBS News in its handling of a "60 Minutes" interview with then vice president Kamala Harris.

The filing which was signed by former FCC Chairs Alfred Sikes (R) and Tom Wheeler (D) and former Commissioners Rachelle Chong (R), Gloria Tristani (D), and Ervin Duggan (D) accuses the FCC of abandoning its traditional role as an independent agency and defender of free speech so that it can act as “the White House’s personal censor” to threaten broadcasters to who offer coverage that displeases President Donald Trump.

“By reopening this complaint, the Commission is signaling to broadcasters that it will indeed act at the behest of the White House by closely scrutinizing the content of news coverage and threatening the regulatory licenses of broadcasters whose news outlets produce coverage that does not pass muster in the President’s view.” the filing said. “We recommend the Commission reverse course, closing this proceeding without further action and reaffirming its long-held commitment to acting as an independent agency rather than the White House’s personal censor.”

The investigation stems from a complaint filed by the conservative group Center for American Rights (CAR) that accused CBS of news distortion in the way it edited an interview with then vice president Kamala Harris during the 2024 presidential election.

President Donald Trump has also filed a $20 billion suit against Paramount Global and the FCC has said it is considering the news bias complaint as part of its approval process of the Paramount-Skydance merger.

Taken together these FCC investigations could put pressure on Paramount to settle the lawsuit, producing a lucrative payoff for the lawsuit’s plaintiffs.

Trump and Paramount have agreed to appoint a mediator to handle the suit.

Late last year, Disney agreed to settle a libel suit filed by Trump against ABC by paying $1 million to cover legal fees and $15 million toward Trump’s future presidential library.

Separately CAR filed a complaint against ABC’s WPVI in Philadelphia for “news distortion” in its live fact checking of the Presidential Debate.

Former FCC chair Jessica Rosenworcel dismissed the three complaints filed by CAR along with separate complaints filed against the Fox-owned station WTXF in Philadelphia on first amendment grounds. Shortly after being named FCC chair, Brendan Carr reinstated all the CAR complaints against Paramount Global’s WCBS-TV New York, Disney’s WPVI Philadelphia and NBCUniversal’s WNBC New York.

“These actions strongly suggest that the FCC is wielding its authority in an effort to chill CBS news coverage of the Administration and extract concessions from CBS in only tangentially related contexts,” the FCC chairs and commissioners noted in the filing by Project Democracy. “President Trump has filed a lawsuit against CBS seeking $20 billion in damages allegedly caused by the editing of the “60 Minutes” interview. A motion to dismiss rooted in the First Amendment is pending, but the Commission’s actions here have resulted in the disclosure of the relevant transcript long before the plaintiffs would otherwise be entitled to it. A finding by the Commission that CBS had engaged in news distortion would strengthen the President’s litigation case, and the very pendency of the proceeding pressures CBS to hand the White House a victory by settling that case.”

"Moreover, CBS’s parent company Paramount is currently seeking FCC approval of its merger with Skydance,” the filing noted. “The Commission seems poised to use the instant proceeding as additional leverage in the merger review process, either to impose conditions on the transaction desired by the White House or simply to place additional pressure on CBS to modify its coverage of President Trump and his allies. Indeed, the public notice establishing the docket in this proceeding goes so far as to note that the allegations in this matter were incorporated by CAR in a separate complaint seeking to condition the merger, making this relationship explicit.”

In the newest filing, the FCC chairs and commissioners also cited extensive legal precedents showing that the FCC does not have the authority to censor news content and argued that its authority to investigate “news distortion” is extremely limited.

“From our many combined years of experience as Commissioners, we cannot stay silent,” they wrote. “The Commission on which we served, regardless of the party of its Chair or the policy agenda of the President, was an independent agency. It contains a bipartisan group of five commissioners due to the sensitive nature of regulating broadcasters, and the critical role they play in free press and free speech, the bedrock foundations of our democracy. It was dedicated to ensuring that the broadcast spectrum helped to create the marketplace of ideas that undergirds political debate and ensures the richness of American culture. We have taken great pride in the Commission’s historic bipartisan commitment to that position.”

“To remain true to its mission, the Commission must close this proceeding without further action,” they concluded. “To do otherwise would suggest that the Commission has been transformed into a tool of White House-driven speech suppression.”

The complete filing is available here.

NEW YORK—Nielsen is reporting that an estimated 36.6 million people watched President Donald Trump’s address to a joint session of Congress on Tuesday, March 4. Viewership peaked from 9:45 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. ET with 37,895,000 viewers.

This year’s audience was up over 13% compared with the 32.2 million viewers that watched President Biden’s State of the Union address in 2024.

But it was lower than most of the State of the Union Speeches delivered by Trump during his first term in office. The 2016 speech attracted 31.3 million viewers, but there were 47.7 million viewers in 2017, 45.6 million in 2018 and 46.8 million in 2019.

Of the 36.6 million viewers that watched President Trump’s joint address in 2025: 5.7% of viewers were aged 18-34; 20.5% of viewers were aged 35-54; 70.7% of viewers were aged 55 and older.

While coverage varied by network, 15 networks televised the joint address from approximately 9:15 p.m. ET until 11:00 p.m. ET on Tuesday.

Separately, Fox News Channel reported that the speech was the highest rated joint address to Congress in cable news history with an audience of 10.7 million viewers and 1.9 million in A25-54 from 9:17-10:58 PM/ET, according to Nielsen.

The network also drew the largest audience for the democratic response, averaging 5.9 million viewers and nearly 1 million in A25-54. During coverage of the speech, FNC held 74% of the cable news audience share in viewers and 70% in the A25-54 demo ahead of MSNBC (1,924,000 P2+; 237,000 25-54) and CNN (1,929,000 P2+; 585,000 A25-54).

Fox News Media delivered an audience of 13.6 million viewers and 2.9 million in A25-54 across FNC, Fox Business Network (FBN) and Fox Network.

Historical viewing figures for the State of the Union speech can be found here.

The head of a public TV advocacy group this week warned that threats to cut funding to public broadcasters could impact public safety.

In an address to the annual meeting of America’s Public Television Stations (APTS), the organization's president/CEO Kate Riley recalled the critical role public broadcasters have provided over the past year, citing numerous natural disasters.

“We have seen time and time again how local stations are a lifeline of local information and resources during emergencies,” Riley said. “That was evident during the hurricanes in Florida and the Southeast in the fall and the wildfires in Southern California earlier this year and the floods in Kentucky just last week, among many other examples your role as a local broadcaster some of the last in this country, and the critical role that all public television stations play in enabling PBS WARN [Warning Alert & Response Network] to deliver emergency alerts to our cell phones, makes you an essential public safety service provider.”

“Simply put, cuts to public broadcasting funding significantly jeopardize public safety,” Riley added.

This year’s APTS meeting is Riley’s first as president, succeeding long-time president Patrick Butler last year. And since public TV is no stranger to periodic funding threats, Riley was soberingly realistic when assessing the new political environment on Capitol Hill under the Trump administration.

“We face a new political landscape with significant uncertainty and growing threats, some predictable and many unpredictable,” she said. “Throughout our over 50 year history, the public television system has faced numerous challenges, and we have always overcome them.”

The most immediate concerns revolve around funding. In December, then President-elect Trump called for Congress to eliminate all funding to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and FCC Chairman Brendan Carr has initiated an investigation into NPR and PBS to determine whether their underwriting announcements violate federal prohibitions against commercial advertising on public broadcasting stations.

Riley emphasized the value of public broadcasting, telling broadcasters that communicating with their Congressional representatives about how educational programs and initiatives impact local communities and help “build the echo chamber of positive information about the valuable services your stations provide and why federal funding is essential to that work.”

“We must say that federal funding is essential to the local services that each one of your station provides,” she added.

Threats to public broadcast funding are not new and nearly every Republican administration and/or Congress has called for curtailing or outright ending public broadcasting with opponents accusing the network of liberal bias. But the fervor threatens to reach a fever pitch this time given the intensity of the current administration towards removing such “biases” from media, in particular one that receives a portion of funding from Congress, which, through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, provided $525 million in FY 2023.

Riley said public broadcasters have an obligation to help bridge the political divide, which has become more polarizing in recent years.

“We have a responsibility and a long history of reflecting and serving the broad range of thought and experience in each of our communities,” she said. “People share many of the same goals, to be safe and healthy, to have opportunities for their family, but each person's own experiences, perspectives and priorities influence how they determine the best ways to achieve these goals for themselves and their families.

“Even though they share many of those goals, there is a real need for greater understanding of and appreciation for how and why people with similar goals draw different conclusions and take different actions,” Riley added. "Public television is uniquely positioned to reflect and share the broad range of views and experiences in each of our communities in a way that helps foster greater understanding of our neighbors and fellow Americans.”

After she explained the complexities of the looming Congressional budgeting timeline and process, Riley added that “we are tracking this process closely and working to ensure that it does not negatively impact public media.”

Riley concluded her address by citing recent surveys illustrating the support behind public broadcasting. “Seventy-six percent of Americans think that public television is a good investment; 88% of parents think PBS Kids is a safe and trusted place for their kids; 65% of people who voted for President Trump think PBS is either adequately funded or underfunded. And for the 22nd year in a row, public television is America's most trusted institution,” she said.

Attorneys for President Trump and Paramount are seeking a mediator to resolve Trump’s $20 billion lawsuit against CBS, according to the New York Times.

The Times, citing several sources, said Paramount had no comment but quotes Trump’s lawyer Ed Paltzik, “President Trump will pursue this vital matter to its just and rightful conclusion.”

Trump filed the lawsuit against CBS just prior to the 2024 election, accusing the network of editing an interview with then Vice President Kamala Harris to show bias against him. The lawsuit was amended to add the network’s parent company as a separate defendant.

Brendan Carr, Trump’s new FCC chairman has also accused CBS of “distortion,” and said as early as last November that the lawsuit would be a part of the commission’s review of the merger. The FCC released the full transcript of the interview earlier this month and has asked for public comment.

Attorneys for Trump and Paramount are currently negotiating but CBS staffers are opposed to issuing an apology to Trump, according to the Times.

What does President Trump’s executive order giving the White House oversight of the FCC and other independent agencies mean for the world of broadcast? We asked several legal observers.

Their consensus is that the executive order was principally issued to set up a court case challenging the Supreme Court’s Humphrey’s Executor doctrine, which restricts a president’s ability to remove commissioners from independent agencies.

According to the Associated Press, the 1935 Supreme Court ruling established that presidents cannot fire appointed leaders of various federal agencies without cause. But conservative legal experts have argued that all such agencies in the executive branch answer to the president and that he should be able to fire their leaders at will, according to the AP.

“It’s pretty clear that the executive order violates [the Humphrey’s] doctrine,” said Scott Flick, partner with Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP. “But the administration is trying to get the Supreme Court to overrule that 90-year-old decision, and this executive order creates a test case to accomplish that.

“If the Supreme Court ultimately overrules [the doctrine] and commissioners at independent agencies are effectively made at-will employees, then the White House would be able to wield tremendous power over these agencies by simply threatening to remove any commissioner who doesn’t vote in line with the administration’s policies and priorities.”

“Overreach”?
As we noted in a recent piece published before Trump was inaugurated, FCC watchers have expected a “pro-deregulation” agenda and an end to the commission’s own Diversity, Equity and Inclusion programs (the latter of which came to pass immediately). And some predicted “fast and furious” changes in broader policy.

But the scope of many moves by the new administration has been breathtaking.

The much-discussed “Project 2025” initiative of the conservative Heritage Foundation appears to have turned into the playbook for the new White House, legal experts say. It features a section written by now-Chairman Brendan Carr on the future of the FCC.

“We should not be surprised,” said one person who watches the commission closely.

“This particular FCC chair is much more closely aligned with the current Trump administration policies and objectives than, say, Ajit Pai during the first Trump administration. I would not call (Carr) independent.”

According to a post by the law firm Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, the executive order, among other things, requires the heads of those agencies to consult more closely with the White House on policy objectives and binds agency employees to the president’s interpretation of the law.

The Akin lawyers wrote that independent agencies historically are insulated from presidential control — delegated authority and considered “creatures of Congress” when it comes to oversight. (The FCC’s own website describes it as “an independent U.S. government agency overseen by Congress.”)

“This EO marks a significant departure from the status quo,” Akin attorneys wrote in their post.

They noted that independent agencies typically are led by a commission or board of members — often with staggered terms and subject to statutory bipartisan membership requirements — who are nominated by the president and subject to Senate confirmation.

In the past, that structure, when paired with the president’s limited authority to remove members of the board or FCC for specific reasons, has insulated independent agencies from executive branch control.

Frank Montero, co-managing partner at Fletcher, Heald & Hildreth, said he is only mildly surprised by the scope of the administration’s undertakings with the executive order.

“But I’m getting used to being surprised, and frankly I think that is the objective,” he told Radio World in an email.

“I think that the M.O. of this administration is to flood the zone, overreach and grab for as much as possible unless told they can’t.”

Montero said he doesn’t expect the White House to be challenged by this Congress over the matter. “Any challenge will have to come from judicial appeals,” he said.

However, he continued, the executive order is not unprecedented. He said President Obama intervened in then-Chairman Tom Wheeler’s net neutrality deliberations.

“The White House has exercised influence over and intervened in FCC proceedings. So this is not entirely unprecedented, although perhaps the scope is. There are a few examples since the agency was first created.”

Montero considers the move a “power grab” since it involves other independent agencies, like the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Trade Commission.

“However, when it comes specifically to the FCC, I think the (White House) focus may be specifically to reel in critical news outlets and perhaps liberal and foreign influence on media. The fact that … early FCC actions have been focused on Audacy-owned stations, public broadcasters and some of the major network news outlets that covered the election is not a coincidence,” Montero said. “I don’t think this president spends a lot of time contemplating net neutrality.”

One broadcast attorney told Radio World he believes the intent of the executive order is clear: “To exercise some control or intimidation over what media reports to the public.”

NAB President/CEO Curtis LeGeyt has been complimentary of Carr’s past comments about the role of local broadcasters and broadcast ownership restrictions and his criticisms of “Big Tech.” But LeGeyt also said last week that broadcasters must be allowed to report the news without the risk of government retribution. He also talked about the value of broadcast journalism in an age of social media misinformation.

What Next?
In the post noted earlier, the Akin attorneys wrote: “While some aspects of the EO may be comparatively uncontroversial — such as the requirement to consult with the White House on agency policies and priorities — others, such as the ability to restrict agency spending on matters the president deems inconsistent with his policies and priorities, will likely be subject to litigation and constitutional challenge.”

However, Seth Williams, a communications attorney with Fletcher, Heald & Hildreth, wonders if there has been an overreaction to the executive order. He said its impact, from a practical level, may not be that great.

“It has always been the case that presidents want someone in line with their policy preferences at the FCC. I think Chairman Carr was going to look to the White House for guidance on how to move forward on policy anyway. That’s how it works,” Williams said.

This article originally appeared on TV Tech sister brand Radio World.

WASHINGTON—Michael O’Rielly’s renomination as an FCC commissioner was rescinded by President Trump Monday, according to published reports.

O’Rielly was originally nominated to the FCC by President Barack Obama and was sworn in November 2013. He was sworn into a second term in 2015. His term expired in June.

O'Rielly is a conservative who generally favors deregulation, including of ISPs and lifting media ownership rules given the rise of competition from cable and broadband and satellite, and was instrumental in loosening KidVid regs on TV stations.   

The renomination of O’Rielly for another term was reportedly put on hold in July by Senator Jim Inhofe because of the FCC’s decision to allow Ligado Networks to deploy a lower-power national mobile broadband network. 

NAB President and CEO Gordon Smith released the following statement in response to the news O'Rielly's nomination had been rescinded:

“Mike O’Rielly has been a sterling public servant for as long as I have had the privilege of knowing him, a span of time covering my years in the Senate and throughout my time leading NAB. He is the consummate professional—smart, diligent, honest, and fair. For these and many other reasons, NAB has been proud to support his continued service at the Commission. But for these reasons also, I have every confidence that he will succeed wherever he casts his lot.”

There has been no comment from the FCC or O'Rielly at the time of publication.

WASHINGTON—The open impeachment hearings of President Donald Trump scheduled to begin next Wednesday are sure to grab headlines, but Americans will be able to watch the proceedings live as a result of the announced plans by many broadcasters to provide sweeping coverage of the proceedings.

In a blog post written on Common Dreams, Michael Winship and Bill Moyers explained how the Watergate impeachment hearings that were covered “gavel-to-gavel” by PBS in 1973 was public television’s “shining hour” and that PBS should repeat that practice once again with these new impeachment hearings.

However, it seems PBS needed little convincing. Friday, the same day Winship and Moyers’ story was posted, PBS announced its plans to cover the impeachment hearings, saying that it would provide live coverage of the hearings on TV and digital. The hearings will also be reaired during primetime on WORLD, the digital channel carried by 157 public TV stations; they will also be available on-demand on all PBS digital platforms.

Other broadcasters have set their coverage plans as well. CBS News will offer live “wall-to-wall” coverage on its CBSN streaming news service, while it will also preempt regular daytime programming for coverage of the hearings. C-SPAN has also announced its impeachment coverage plan.

The hearings will begin Wednesday, Nov. 13.

WASHINGTON—As open impeachment inquiry hearings for President Donald Trump are scheduled to get underway next week, C-SPAN has announced that it will be providing full, uninterrupted video coverage of all the proceedings.

The public access network says that it will provide “gavel-to-gavel” coverage of every Congressional session on both its television and streaming platforms. It will also make on-demand videos available through its website, C-SPAN.org.

A number of special features have also been announced, including special editions of the daily “Word for Word” newsletter that will have video clips of key moments and a special impeachment inquiry web resource at www.c-span.org/impeachment. On the impeachment website, viewers can access all of C-SPAN’s impeachment coverage on-demand.

Viewers can also sign-up to receive a daily C-SPAN program guide.

Congress will begin to hold its open hearings on the impeachment proceedings on Wednesday, Nov. 13.

WASHINGTON—As he has done in each of his budget proposals, President Donald Trump is once again proposing to cut, and eventually eliminate, federal funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. In his administration’s official proposal for Fiscal Year 2020, CPB’s federal fundings would be cut to $30 million for 2020 and 2021, a drop from the $465 million provided to the organization in 2019.

“CPB grants represent a small share of the total funding for the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) and National Public Radio (NPR), which primarily rely on private donations to fund their operations,” the proposal argues. “This private fundraising has proven durable, negating the need for continued Federal subsidies.”

“In addition,” the proposal continues, “alternatives to PBS and NPR programming have grown substantially since CPB was first established in 1967, greatly reducing the need for publicly funded programming options.”

President Trump had previously proposed to cut funding for CPB in his previous budgets, but Congress eventually passed appropriation bills that provided full funding to the organization.

“Federal funding is the foundation of the uniquely American, public-private partnership of the public media system,” reads a statement from Patricia de Stacy Harrison, president and CEO of CPB. “The support of Congress, combined with private funding, enables locally owned and operated public media stations to promote early learning, prepare young people for job opportunities, provide critical emergency alert services in partnership with public safety officials and tell authentic stories in ways that enhance our civil society.

“There is no viable alternative to the federal investment to accomplish the mission that Congress assigned to public media and that the American people overwhelmingly support. Without the federal investment, the entire public media system and the unique services and value provided to rural, small town and urban communities would be devastated.”

“American Public Television Stations are disappointed that President Trump’s FY 2020 budget proposal once again recommends elimination of federal funding for public media,” Patrick Butler, APTS president and CEO, wrote in a statement.

“We are grateful that Congress approved full funding for public broadcasting in FY 2019, and we are hopeful that Congress will increase funding for public media in the FY 2020 appropriations cycle and beyond,” Butler added.

“We live in hope that the administration will ultimately appreciate that federal funding is essential to local public television stations’ ability to pursue their critical public service missions of education, public safety and civic leadership, and to provide these services to everyone, everywhere every day, for free.”