The Trump administration has engaged in actions impacting media outlets, including initiating investigations, restricting press access in government buildings, and establishing websites critical of presidential news coverage. Concurrently, legal challenges against the administration's media-related policies have emerged, with The New York Times filing a lawsuit against the Pentagon's press policy and NPR participating in a court hearing concerning public media funding.
Executive Order on Public Media Funding
NPR's legal representatives argued in a Washington, D.C., court hearing that President Trump's May 1 executive order, titled "Ending Taxpayer Subsidy of Biased Media," was unlawful. The order demanded the cessation of all federal subsidies for NPR and PBS, citing accusations of ideological bias in their news coverage, which both networks denied. President Trump stated in the order that "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."
NPR's lead trial attorney, Theodore J. Boutrous, contended that the executive order violated NPR and its member stations' First Amendment rights, asserting that the U.S. government cannot discriminate based on the views expressed by individuals or news organizations.
Federal Government's Defense
During court filings and the hearing, the Justice Department team, representing the Trump administration, acknowledged that the president's actions were motivated by a belief that NPR and PBS were biased. However, federal lead trial attorney Alexander Resar also cited the president's broader objective to discontinue funding media outlets entirely. Resar argued that NPR had not experienced direct financial damage as a result of the executive order.
Over the summer, Congress, following President Trump's advocacy, approved the withdrawal of $1.1 billion in future federal funding for public media through a party-line vote. While this amount constitutes a small portion of NPR's budget, it represents a significant revenue source for many public broadcasting stations. Subsequent to this legislative action, several stations announced layoffs and programming reductions. Resar clarified that these financial impacts were not attributed to the executive order itself.
Judicial Observations and CPB Settlement
U.S. District Court Judge Randolph D. Moss expressed skepticism regarding certain arguments. He noted that the National Endowment for the Arts had canceled a grant for NPR, attributing the action to alignment with the president's directive. Judge Moss also questioned why the president had not explicitly stated an intention to cease involvement in the "news business" altogether.
Historically, federal funding for public media has been channeled through the non-profit Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB). Evidence emerged showing that CPB had interacted with a White House budget official in April. The official reportedly expressed "disdain" for NPR and issued a warning to the CPB chairperson. Shortly thereafter, a senior CPB executive informed NPR that it would not receive a pre-authorized multi-year contract worth $35.9 million for satellite content distribution. Judge Moss had previously questioned the credibility of CPB's explanations for this reversal. CPB subsequently settled NPR's lawsuit for the full amount and agreed not to enforce the executive order's ban on funding to the network.
Concluding Arguments and Outlook
Judge Moss challenged arguments from both sides, including those from NPR and the three Colorado public radio stations that joined the lawsuit, seeking clarification on the specific remedies being pursued.
The judge suggested that the U.S. government could formally agree that the CPB settlement with NPR was binding on the federal government, which would prevent future attempts to block CPB funds to NPR if federal subsidies were reinstated. Resar declined this proposed resolution and did not dispute the government's stance that President Trump possesses the authority to overturn CPB's agreement or to order the cancellation of federal funding for an institution based on disagreement with its content.
Judge Moss is expected to issue a ruling on the case in due course.