Corporation for Public Broadcasting to shutter following Trump-era cuts
On Friday, the group issued a statement saying it had launched an 'orderly wind-down of its operations' in response to recent legislation that would cut nearly $1.1bn of its funding.
'Despite the extraordinary efforts of millions of Americans who called, wrote, and petitioned Congress to preserve federal funding for CPB, we now face the difficult reality of closing our operations,' its president, Patricia Harrison, wrote.
According to the statement, the CPB would remain in operation for the next six months, albeit with a reduced staff.
The majority of its employees will be let go on September 30. Then, a 'small transition team' will remain through January 2026 to 'ensure a responsible and orderly closeout'.
The death knell for the nonprofit came last month in the form of two legislative actions.
The first was the passage of the Rescission Act of 2025, which was designed to revoke funding that Congress approved in the past. The Rescission Act targeted federal programmes that Trump sought to put on the chopping block, including foreign aid and federal funding for public broadcasters.
The Senate voted to pass the act by a margin of 51 to 48, and the House then approved it by a vote of 216 to 213.
The second legislative wallop came on July 31, as the Senate Appropriations Committee unveiled its 2026 funding bill for labour, health and human services, education and related agencies.
That bill earmarked $197bn in discretionary funding, but none of it went to the CPB.
Never in five decades had the corporation been excluded from the appropriations bill, according to the nonprofit.
Both houses of Congress are controlled by Republicans, and party members have largely fallen in line with Trump's legislative priorities.
Defunding public media has long been a priority of Republicans, stretching back to President Richard Nixon's feud in the 1970s with public broadcasting personalities like Sander Vanocur.
Nixon, like Trump, had an adversarial relationship with the media, and in 1972, he vetoed a public broadcasting funding bill, forcing Congress to return with a slimmed-down version of its funding. That move helped establish a trend of Republicans seeking to whittle down federal support for public, non-commercial TV and radio.
Trump, during his second term, has made it a priority to slash at what he considers government 'bloat', and that includes reducing federal spending.
He and his allies have accused news outlets like National Public Radio (NPR) and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) of being left-wing soapboxes.
The CPB distributes its funds to NPR and PBS member stations. NPR boasts a weekly audience of 43 million. PBS, meanwhile, reaches 130 million people each year through its television offerings alone, not counting its online presence.
Still, in the lead-up to the passage of the Rescissions Act, Trump threatened to yank his support from any Republican who opposed his efforts to defund the corporation.
Trump also said public broadcasting was worse than its commercial counterparts, including MSNBC, which he frequently misspells as 'MSDNC' to imply alleged bias towards the Democratic National Committee (DNC).
'It is very important that all Republicans adhere to my Recissions Bill and, in particular, DEFUND THE CORPORATION FOR PUBLIC BROADCASTING (PBS and NPR), which is worse than CNN & MSDNC put together,' Trump wrote on social media on July 10.
'Any Republican that votes to allow this monstrosity to continue broadcasting will not have my support or Endorsement. Thank you for your attention to this matter!'
But Harrison, the president of the CPB, framed the organisation's closure as a loss for education and civic engagement.
'Public media has been one of the most trusted institutions in American life, providing educational opportunity, emergency alerts, civil discourse, and cultural connection to every corner of the country,' Harrison said.
'We are deeply grateful to our partners across the system for their resilience, leadership, and unwavering dedication to serving the American people.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Jazeera
an hour ago
- Al Jazeera
Why is Trump moving nuclear submarines after spat with Medvedev?
Donald Trump has ordered the repositioning of two United States nuclear submarines to 'appropriate regions' relative to Russia, as the US president grows frustrated over stalling peace talks aimed at bringing an end to Russia's war in Ukraine. On Friday, Trump exchanged heated words with Dmitry Medvedev, Moscow's military leader and former president. The day before, Trump had issued an ultimatum to Russia: If it does not agree to a ceasefire by next Friday, August 8, he will impose a package of economic sanctions. The next day, Medvedev posted on social media, describing Trump's threat as 'a step towards war'. He wrote that Trump was 'playing the ultimatum game with Russia'. In a post on Truth Social, Trump responded: 'Words are very important, and can often lead to unintended consequences, I hope this will not be one of those instances.' What has Trump done? On Friday, Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform that he had ordered two US 'Nuclear Submarines' to be repositioned to 'appropriate regions'. Trump cited what he regarded as threatening comments made by former Russian President Medvedev, now deputy chair of Russia's Security Council. He called Medvedev's statements 'highly provocative', adding that his actions were a precaution. 'I have ordered two Nuclear Submarines to be positioned in the appropriate regions, just in case these foolish and inflammatory statements are more than just that,' Trump wrote. In the run-up to his presidential campaign, Trump promised to end Russia's war in Ukraine within 24 hours; however, several discussions with Russian President Vladimir Putin have since not yielded any results. What do we know about the submarines Trump says he will reposition? Not much – and we do not know which submarines Trump is referring to. Trump did not say if he had ordered the repositioning of submarines with nuclear engines or submarines carrying nuclear missiles. Trump did not reveal the location of the submarines, either, as mandated by US military protocol. However, Trump's statement is so far being viewed as a rhetorical threat, rather than a military one, as security analysts noted that the US already has nuclear-powered submarines that are deployed and capable of striking Russia as a deterrent. What prompted Trump's submarine move? Mostly, his frustration over the lack of progress of peace talks between Russia and Ukraine. But, in this case, the social media spat with Medvedev seems to have tipped him over into action. Trump and the Russian military leader have been engaged in mud-slinging on social media platforms for some time. Earlier, responding to Trump's new deadline for a ceasefire in Ukraine, Medvedev wrote in a post on X that Trump was playing an 'ultimatum game' with Russia. 'Each new ultimatum is a threat and a step towards war. Not between Russia and Ukraine, but with his own country. Don't go down the Sleepy Joe road!' Medvedev had said. Earlier in the week, while announcing trade tariffs for India – along with an extra penalty for buying Russian oil – Trump stated that he did not care if India and Russia 'take their dead economies down together'. In a Telegram post on Thursday, Medvedev wrote that Trump should 'revisit his favourite movies about the living dead and recall just how dangerous the mythical 'Dead Hand' can be'. Russia's 'Dead Hand system' is a Cold War-era automatic nuclear retaliation mechanism designed to launch a counterstrike even if the Russian leadership is wiped out in a first strike. Trump replied: 'Tell Medvedev, the failed former President of Russia, who thinks he's still President, to watch his words. He's entering very dangerous territory!' Speaking to reporters after his post about the nuclear submarines, Trump said on Friday: 'We just have to be careful. And a threat was made and we didn't think it was appropriate, so I have to be very careful. 'A threat was made by a former president of Russia, and we're going to protect our people.' Who has more nuclear power: Russia or the US? Combined, the US and Russia account for nearly 87 percent of the world's total nuclear arsenal. The geopolitical rivals control about 83 percent of the nuclear warheads actually deployed or ready for operational use. Despite significant post-Cold War reductions, global nuclear arsenals remain at a 'very high level', according to a report by the Federation of American Scientists. As of January 2025, just nine countries are estimated to possess a total of approximately 12,241 nuclear warheads. Today, according to the nonprofit Arms Control Association, the US deploys 1,419 and Russia deploys 1,549 strategic warheads on several hundred bombers and missiles. The US conducted its first nuclear test explosion in July 1945; the following month, it dropped two atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Four years later, the Soviet Union conducted its first nuclear test explosion. As of 2025, the US Navy operates 71 submarines, all nuclear‑powered, making it the largest undersea force. This fleet includes 14 Ohio‑class ballistic missile subs (SSBNs), four Ohio‑class converted guided‑missile submarines (SSGNs) loaded with Tomahawk missiles for strikes or special operations, and about 53 fast‑attack submarines designed for intelligence gathering, anti‑submarine warfare and cruise‑missile support. By comparison, the Russian Navy fields fewer than 30 nuclear‑powered submarines, including approximately 10 strategic SSBNs, a mix of modern Borei and older Delta IV classes, that carry Bulava missiles. It also operates several strategic‑missile cruise boats and about six Akula‑class attack submarines equipped for anti‑ship and multi‑role missions. Russia is investing in modern fleet expansion through the Yasen‑M class. Has Russia responded to Trump's submarine manoeuvre? No. Neither the Kremlin nor Medvedev has publicly responded to Trump's order to move two nuclear submarines following their war of words. Viktor Vodolatsky, a senior Russian lawmaker and deputy chairman of the State Duma's committee on Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) affairs, however, stated that Russia possesses 'significantly more nuclear submarines in the world's oceans' than the US, claiming US subs have 'long been under their control' and, therefore, no specific response is required. Last month, the US President said he was 'disappointed' with Putin. 'We'll have a great conversation. I'll say: 'That's good, I'll think we're close to getting it done,' and then he'll knock down a building in Kyiv,' he told the BBC in an interview. On Friday, in an apparent reference to Trump's comment, Putin said: 'As for any disappointments on the part of anyone, all disappointments arise from inflated expectations. This is a well-known general rule.' On a ceasefire with Kyiv, Putin said he wants a 'lasting and stable peace' in Ukraine; however, he has not given any indication that Russia is willing to achieve it any quicker. In 2017, during his first term as US president, Trump announced that he had sent two nuclear submarines to the Korean peninsula. Soon afterwards, he held a meeting with the North Korean leader, Kim Jong Un. Whether this latest move will lead to a new meeting with Putin is yet to be seen, however.
Al Jazeera
4 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Trump's $200m ballroom: A history of home improvements at the White House
After paving over the Rose Garden and adding gold-filigree decorations to the Oval Office, US President Donald Trump will embark on his most dramatic addition to the White House yet – a new $200m ballroom to be built adjacent to the mansion's East Wing. Trump, a former real estate developer, has repeatedly promised to build a 'beautiful' ballroom at the White House. In 2016, he offered $100m during Barack Obama's tenure for the project, which the then-president rejected. But in a briefing to reporters at the White House on Thursday, Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said that the 'much needed and exquisite addition' to the White House will be approximately 90,000 square feet (8,360 square metres), with a seating capacity of 650. Most formal White House functions are currently held in the White House's East Room, which can seat approximately 200 people. According to Leavitt, construction is expected to be completed 'long before' the end of Trump's term in office in January 2029. She also said that the president and other donors would pay for the renovations, but declined to give details. Renderings provided by the White House show that the ballroom will be similar architecturally to the rest of the mansion. Leavitt said the ballroom would be built where the 'East Wing currently sits'. When asked whether the project would require knocking down that section of the White House, she said the East Wing would need to be 'modernised'. 'The White House has a history of expansion to accommodate the changing needs of the nation's chief executive,' Leslie Greene Bowman, who has served under four presidents on the Committee for the Preservation of the White House, told BBC News. So, what have those been? When and how was the White House constructed? Construction of the White House began in 1792, based on a design by the Irish-born architect James Hoban. Built by enslaved labourers and European craftsmen, it was first occupied by President John Adams in 1800, though it still wasn't finished when he moved in. Enslaved labourers were forced to do physically demanding work on the White House, like quarrying and transporting stone and making bricks. They were typically hired out by their enslavers, who were paid for their labour. During the War of 1812 (also known as the Second War of Independence), British forces invaded Washington and set fire to the White House in August 1814. Reconstruction began almost immediately afterwards under President James Madison, again led by Hoban. President James Monroe moved into the restored building in 1817, and later added the South Portico in 1824. The North Portico followed in 1829 during Andrew Jackson's presidency, establishing the iconic facade of the White House as it is known today. Over the course of the 19th century, amendments were made slowly. Running water, gas lighting, and furnishings were gradually added. In 1891, under President Benjamin Harrison, electricity was installed in the White House. What changes were made to the White House in the 20th century? President Theodore Roosevelt made one of the most transformative changes to the building in 1902. He removed the old Victorian-style interiors and relocated the presidential offices from the second floor of the residence to a new West Wing. Roosevelt also expanded the State Dining Room – which could only hold 40 guests – by removing a staircase and increasing the size to a seating capacity of 100. Roosevelt's renovations modernised the White House to suit the needs of a growing executive branch. Then, in 1909, William Howard Taft expanded Roosevelt's West Wing and created the first Oval Office, a symbolic centrepiece of presidential power. The biggest changes to the White House came under Harry Truman (president from 1945 to 1953). Truman gutted the inside of the building, leaving only the outer walls, while workers rebuilt the internal structure with steel beams and concrete floors. Truman also added a controversial second-floor balcony on the South Portico, sometimes called the 'Truman Balcony'. Later presidents made more subtle, but still meaningful, changes to the White House. John F Kennedy and First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy led a restoration project focused on historical authenticity, refurbishing rooms with antiques. In 1969, Richard Nixon added a bowling alley and upgraded the Situation Room. Under Bill Clinton, the White House saw major technological upgrades, including improved security systems and internet connectivity. George W Bush renovated the press briefing room and restored several historical rooms, including the Abraham Lincoln Bedroom. In recent years, Barack Obama installed wi-fi throughout the White House and the West Wing. Obama, a lifelong basketball enthusiast, also had part of the White House's existing tennis courts adapted for basketball use. Though no official estimate exists, the cumulative costs of construction and renovations amount to roughly $250m (in current dollar terms). As such, maintaining the home – and office – of the US president comes with a significant price tag. What other building works are under way in Washington, DC? The timing of the ballroom project is significant. Just a week ago, Trump seized on a sprawling renovation project undertaken by the US Federal Reserve (Fed) to criticise the central bank's chair, Jay Powell. Trump zeroed in on the expensive price tag of the project – roughly $2.5bn to renovate two 1930s buildings. During a rare presidential visit to the central bank's headquarters on July 24, Trump accused Powell of financial mismanagement. Last month, meanwhile, Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought (a Trump appointee) accused Powell of mishandling the 'ostentatious' refurbishment of the Fed's headquarters in Washington, DC. Trump has repeatedly demanded that the Fed lower interest rates by 3 percentage points, and has frequently raised the possibility of firing Powell, though the president has said he does not intend to do so. On July 22, Trump called the Fed chief a 'numbskull'. Despite pressure from the White House, the Federal Reserve held interest rates steady at 4.25-4.50 percent on July 30, on par with economists' expectations, as tariff-driven uncertainty weighs on the US economy.
Al Jazeera
15 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Corporation for Public Broadcasting to shutter following Trump-era cuts
The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), a nonprofit that distributes federal funds to public radio and television stations in the United States, has announced it would be shutting down as the result of funding cuts under President Donald Trump. On Friday, the group issued a statement saying it had launched an 'orderly wind-down of its operations' in response to recent legislation that would cut nearly $1.1bn of its funding. 'Despite the extraordinary efforts of millions of Americans who called, wrote, and petitioned Congress to preserve federal funding for CPB, we now face the difficult reality of closing our operations,' its president, Patricia Harrison, wrote. According to the statement, the CPB would remain in operation for the next six months, albeit with a reduced staff. The majority of its employees will be let go on September 30. Then, a 'small transition team' will remain through January 2026 to 'ensure a responsible and orderly closeout'. The death knell for the nonprofit came last month in the form of two legislative actions. The first was the passage of the Rescission Act of 2025, which was designed to revoke funding that Congress approved in the past. The Rescission Act targeted federal programmes that Trump sought to put on the chopping block, including foreign aid and federal funding for public broadcasters. The Senate voted to pass the act by a margin of 51 to 48, and the House then approved it by a vote of 216 to 213. The second legislative wallop came on July 31, as the Senate Appropriations Committee unveiled its 2026 funding bill for labour, health and human services, education and related agencies. That bill earmarked $197bn in discretionary funding, but none of it went to the CPB. Never in five decades had the corporation been excluded from the appropriations bill, according to the nonprofit. Both houses of Congress are controlled by Republicans, and party members have largely fallen in line with Trump's legislative priorities. Defunding public media has long been a priority of Republicans, stretching back to President Richard Nixon's feud in the 1970s with public broadcasting personalities like Sander Vanocur. Nixon, like Trump, had an adversarial relationship with the media, and in 1972, he vetoed a public broadcasting funding bill, forcing Congress to return with a slimmed-down version of its funding. That move helped establish a trend of Republicans seeking to whittle down federal support for public, non-commercial TV and radio. Trump, during his second term, has made it a priority to slash at what he considers government 'bloat', and that includes reducing federal spending. He and his allies have accused news outlets like National Public Radio (NPR) and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) of being left-wing soapboxes. The CPB distributes its funds to NPR and PBS member stations. NPR boasts a weekly audience of 43 million. PBS, meanwhile, reaches 130 million people each year through its television offerings alone, not counting its online presence. Still, in the lead-up to the passage of the Rescissions Act, Trump threatened to yank his support from any Republican who opposed his efforts to defund the corporation. Trump also said public broadcasting was worse than its commercial counterparts, including MSNBC, which he frequently misspells as 'MSDNC' to imply alleged bias towards the Democratic National Committee (DNC). 'It is very important that all Republicans adhere to my Recissions Bill and, in particular, DEFUND THE CORPORATION FOR PUBLIC BROADCASTING (PBS and NPR), which is worse than CNN & MSDNC put together,' Trump wrote on social media on July 10. 'Any Republican that votes to allow this monstrosity to continue broadcasting will not have my support or Endorsement. Thank you for your attention to this matter!' But Harrison, the president of the CPB, framed the organisation's closure as a loss for education and civic engagement. 'Public media has been one of the most trusted institutions in American life, providing educational opportunity, emergency alerts, civil discourse, and cultural connection to every corner of the country,' Harrison said. 'We are deeply grateful to our partners across the system for their resilience, leadership, and unwavering dedication to serving the American people.'
