Public media is in the crosshairs. How will Alaska's congressional delegation vote?
Should public media be spared the budget cutting axe of President Donald Trump and the congressional allies of the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE?
I'm not going to directly answer that question myself, because I'm not an unbiased observer: I've worked for years as a reporter and contractor for Alaska Public Media, Anchorage's public radio and television station. I also have close friendships and working relationships with many of the reporters across the state whose jobs could be at stake.
I do, however, feel confident in saying that there's another, related question that's objectively interesting and less problematic for me to try to answer, which is: Will Alaska's elected officials vote to buck Trump and preserve public media's federal funding?
That question has become increasingly urgent with the Trump administration plan to end the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, or CPB.'
That nonprofit organization, in turn, grants money to both NPR and PBS, as well as to stations across the country — including more than 20 in Alaska, from Utqiagvik on the North Slope to Ketchikan near the Canadian boarder.
Alaska's stations received more than $12 million from CPB last year, which can amount to 40% or more of their annual budgets.
NPR, which Trump and his allies have attacked as biased towards liberals, derives roughly 1% of its budget from CPB, though it also collects money from individual stations that run its programs.
Alaska's public media leaders told me they believe Trump's proposal is more likely to pass the Republican-controlled U.S. House.
They're counting on the U.S. Senate — where only a few GOP votes would be needed to sink the plan — to be their firewall.
They describe Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski as a rock solid ally in preserving the funding. And they expect Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan, a longtime supporter of public media, to come to their defense, too.
But they also say they won't know for certain until the votes are cast.
'I don't want to say that I'm fully confident of their votes,' said Tom Abbott, general manager of KFSK in the Southeast Alaska fishing town of Petersburg, which gets some 30% of its budget from CPB.
But, Abbott added: 'We've had very strong support from both of our U.S. senators, for several years now.'
I was curious to know where Sullivan, Murkowski and Alaska's sole member of the U.S. House, Republican Nick Begich III, stood on what's reported to be an impending proposal from Trump to rescind $1.1 billion, or two years of funding, for CPB.
I asked each of their offices Wednesday.
Begich's spokesperson didn't respond by my deadline. Murkowski's spokesman, Joe Plesha, was unequivocal, saying that she is a 'fierce advocate for Alaska's public broadcasting and vehemently opposes this reported rescission.'
'While the administration might be targeting NPR and PBS by rescinding this funding, the real casualty will be local public broadcasting, which is vital for Alaska,' Plesha said.
Sullivan's spokesperson, Amanda Coyne, also sent a statement: 'While Sen. Sullivan believes that NPR has become overly partisan and has veered far from its mission to include a diversity of voices in its coverage, he understands that Alaska's public radio stations are essential to our state, especially in rural areas.'
Sullivan has also, in recent days, responded to constituents who have emailed in support of public media funding, saying in a form letter that he 'will continue to work with the current administration to stress the importance of public broadcasting in Alaska and nationwide.'
Sullivan's position is particularly interesting because of his politics: Unlike Murkowski, he's rarely publicly criticized Trump's policies.
But while Trump's White House has ripped into public media — saying this monththat 'the NPR, PBS grift has ripped us off for too long' — Sullivan has long recognized its value, at least as far as the services it provides in rural communities.
In 2020, he accepted a 'champion of public broadcasting' award from a coalition of public television stations. He also joined with Murkowski in recommending an Alaskan, Diane Kaplan, for a seat on CPB's board of directors, and former President Joe Biden appointed her in 2022.
Kaplan is now in the news this week for a lawsuit she and CPB filed against Trump, alleging that the president is illegally attempting to fire her and other board members.
Begich's vote will be interesting to watch, as well.
The representative, who's just a few months into his first term, has aligned himself closely with Trump.
But he's also sent constituents correspondence about public media funding that references the challenge of communication and information sharing in Alaska's rural communities, saying that public media plays a 'crucial role' in residents' access to news and emergency alerts.
'I support fiscal responsibility and efforts to reduce wasteful government spending,' he said in one recent message. 'I also recognize that certain investments provide valuable returns to our communities. I will continue to advocate for policies that enhance infrastructure, improve broadband access, and support communication networks that serve all Alaskans, including those in our rural communities.'
Republicans have targeted federal funding of public media for years. But those efforts have never gained as much traction as they're getting now.
Abbott, in Petersburg, describes the current threat to federal funding as 'by far, the most serious' in his 28 years as general manager. With the proposal from Trump expected, though still not yet introduced, 'it puts us all in an uneasy position.''We're kind of waiting for the ax to drop,' he said.
Nathaniel Herz welcomes tips at natherz@gmail.com or (907) 793-0312. This article was originally published in Northern Journal, a newsletter from Herz. Subscribe at this link.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Higher U.S. tariffs will extend uncertainty for businesses, experts say
President Trump's executive order hiking tariffs on U.S. imports could drive up consumer prices and prolong uncertainty for millions of businesses, trade experts said. Materials issued by the White House on Thursday outline new tariff rates for dozens of countries, but details remain scant on how to implement the trade agreements, said Barry Appleton, co-director of the New York Law School Center for International Law. "The last thing businesses want to have are unanswered questions. They were looking for certainty, and what we have instead is a gigantic Rubik's Cube," he told CBS MoneyWatch. "Everyone has been waiting for 'Liberation Day' to be finished," he added, referring to the country-based tariff announcements Mr. Trump first made in early April. "Instead, with this announcement, we have another perpetuation of what's going on." Under the Trump administration's new import duties, most countries will face a baseline tariff of at least 15%, although other nations will faces levies of more than 40%. The U.S. effective tariff rate is now 17%, according to Fitch Ratings — the highest in decades. That could mean pricier garments from Vietnam, shoes and toys from China, chocolate from Switzerland, and coffee from Brazil, according to economists. As a result, the revised U.S. tariffs could cost Americans an average of $2,048 per year, according to a new analysis from the National Taxpayers Union, a nonpartisan advocacy organization. Mr. Trump has argued his tariff strategy is necessary to correct what he views as unfair trading practices and revive American manufacturing, and points to still-fairly-low inflation rates. But many economists warn tariffs can lead to higher inflation and more sluggish economic growth, and some of the president's early trade moves rattled financial markets. The White House has said that Mr. Trump's trade policies benefit Americans. "President Trump's trade deals have unlocked unprecedented market access for American exports to economies that in total are worth over $32 trillion with 1.2 billion people," White House spokesperson Kush Desai said in a statement to CBS MoneyWatch. "As these historic trade deals and the Administration's pro-growth domestic agenda of deregulation and The One Big Beautiful Bill's tax cuts take effect, American businesses and families alike have the certainty that the best is yet to come." On social media, U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said the tariffs are "a knockout win over the distorted global trading order that has disadvantaged American workers, farmers, and manufacturers for decades." He added that Trump's foreign trade policy has achieved "expansive new market access for U.S. exporters, increased tariffs to defend critical industries, and trillions of new manufacturing investments that will create great American jobs." Which products could get pricier? In the U.S., the products most commonly imported from abroad — and therefore most likely to see their prices rise because of sharply higher tariffs — include household appliances, furniture, cars, clothing, sports equipment, toys and cleaning products, according to an analysis from Oxford Economics. The price of such goods rose about 1% in June, or more than double the increase in May, according to the investment research firm's analysis of consumption data, a sign that tariffs are starting to seep into the cost of everyday items. "The question is really what's not going to go up in price. The costs were being eaten in the profits of companies, but that's not sustainable," Appleton said. Mr. Trump slapped some of the highest tariffs on key trade partners like Canada, a major provider of lumber to U.S. companies. That could lead to higher housing costs, according to Oxford. Some fruits and vegetables also could get pricier this winter as grocery stores leans on imports to stock store shelves, he said. U.S. automakers including Ford, GM and Stellantis have recently warned that higher U.S. tariffs will reduce their profits by billion of dollars. That is likely to increase new car prices, said Terence Lau, dean of the Syracuse University College of Law and formerly a government affairs executive at Ford. "My advice to consumers back in April was that they should wait to buy cars," said Lau, who expects dealer prices for 2026 models to rise between 4% and 6%. "In August, my advice is to buy now." Although many businesses are still selling inventory they imported earlier this year in a bid to avoid higher tariffs, subsequent imports will likely be subject to the newly announced levies when they arrive at U.S. ports, according to trade experts. "A lot of businesses front-loaded goods to get them in the door before tariffs were announced. They'll now have to increase their costs as inventories dwindle and businesses start replenishing them," Oxford Economics' senior U.S. economist Matthew Martin told CBS MoneyWatch. "We expect cost hikes to peak in the second half of the year," Along with facing potentially higher prices, U.S. consumers could face reduced product choices stemming from supply-chain delays, according to economists. That's largely because companies unable to reshore manufacturing to the U.S. are likely to stop importing low-margin goods as they move to control costs. "In many cases, tariffs will be so high that we'll create embargoes," Martin said. "That will make it more difficult for retailers and distributors to get things out to market." Rodney Manzo, a supply-chain expert and senior director at Sage, a business management software company, said higher tariffs often end up affecting businesses and consumers in ways beyond the cash register. "For the average shopper, the effects don't always show up as a big price hike on the shelf. Instead, it's subtler — fewer options, smaller quantities and less generous promotions," he said. "Companies are quietly reducing [their stockpiles], reworking product specs or stripping out expensive components to hit margin targets." Arkansas officials reveal new details about Devil's Den murders of husband and wife The A.I. Divide | America Unfiltered Defense attorneys refuse new cases in Massachusetts, citing unfair pay Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data


The Hill
14 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump administration revokes Biden era abortion rule for veterans
The Trump administration revoked a Biden era abortion rule on Friday that allows veterans to receive abortions under their medical package. The Department of Veteran Affairs is reversing a 2022 rule that provided access to abortion counseling and abortions to certain pregnant veterans in addition to VA beneficiaries. 'We take this action to ensure that VA provides only needed medical services to our nation's heroes and their families,' the Department wrote in a scheduled release for the Federal Register. Officials said they were seeking to ensure taxpayer dollars weren't used to provide pregnancy terminations. 'As a matter of law, it is without question that VA has the authority to bar provision of abortion services through the VA medical benefits package to veterans,' the release read. 'From 1999 until 2022 that is in fact what VA did. It was not until 2022 when the VA Secretary reversed this course,' they added. The department said they would not prohibit providing abortion care to pregnant women in life-threatening circumstances, including treatment for ectopic pregnancies or miscarriages. GOP lawmakers lauded the move slamming the Biden administration for previous changes. 'It was wrong that the Biden administration violated settled law in 2022 and began offering abortion services through VA. We pushed back hard on this disastrous policy over the last two years to hold the Biden-Harris administration accountable and protect the lives of the unborn,' House Committee on Veterans' Affairs Chairman Mike Bost (Ill.) and Reps. Mariannette Miller-Meeks (Iowa), Morgan Luttrell (Texas), Derrick Van Orden (Wis.), Keith Self (Texas), and Tom Barrett (Mich.) said in a Friday statement. 'It's simple – taxpayers do not want their hard-earned money spent on paying for abortions – and VA's sole focus should always be providing service-connected health care and benefits to the veterans they serve,' they added. However, others said the shift in policy will harm servicemembers and their families following the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade in 2022, eliminating the constitutional right to abortions. Katie O'Connor, senior director of federal abortion policy at the National Women's Law Center, said the effort was a 'direct attack' on those who have served our country. 'At a time when extremist lawmakers are passing cruel abortion bans and restrictions, this move only deepens the crisis those laws have created — stripping veterans of their reproductive freedom and creating even more confusion about where they can turn for care. 'Let me be clear: abortion is health care,' O'Connor said in a Friday statement. 'Veterans already face unique challenges to their health and well-being, including experiencing PTSD, recovering from military sexual trauma, and facing an increased risk of suicide. Banning access to the full range of reproductive services, including abortion, further jeopardizes their health and safety. No one should have to travel hundreds of miles, endure financial hardship, or risk their health just to get the medical care they need. Our veterans deserve better,' she added.


New York Post
14 minutes ago
- New York Post
Biden allies prepared to unload ‘Palinesque' stories about Kamala Harris if she discusses his cognitive decline: report
Joe Biden's allies are prepared to 'escalate' and reveal unflattering stories about Kamala Harris should the former vice president decide to talk about the former president's cognitive decline, according to a veteran political journalist. The stories about Harris' tenure as Biden's No. 2 are 'Palinesque,' 2WAY's Mark Halperin said Friday, a reference to former Alaska governor and Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin. 'I will tell you, and this has never been reported, barely at all: if the Biden people decide that Kamala is coming after Joe Biden, wait till you hear the 'Palinesque' stories about how much they tried to help her be prepared to be vice president and be in a position to run. And how much they decided, 'Not happening. She's not up to this,'' Halperin said on 'The Morning Meeting' show. 3 Earlier this week, Harris announced that she would not be running for governor in California. X/Kamala Harris In the aftermath of late Sen. John McCain's (R-Ariz.) loss to former President Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential election, leaks from campaign staffers suggested that Palin, McCain's running mate, was woefully unprepared for the job. In one infamous report, campaign staffers claimed that Palin did not know Africa was a continent and that she could not name the three countries that formed the North American Free Trade Agreement – the United States, Canada and Mexico. 'If the Biden people feel threatened, you will hear stories about Kamala Harris as vice president that will not make her look good,' Halperin said. 'So there's a closeness to the couples,' he added. 'It's not like they're at war currently, but I'm telling you, if Joe Biden feels threatened, if his people feel threatened by her, this is gonna escalate in a big way.' Halperin argued that Harris would have a 'hard time defending against the stories if that dam bursts.' Journalists Alex Thompson and Jake Tapper detail some of the frustrations Biden loyalists had with the VP in their recent book, 'Original Sin.' In the book, Harris was described as a 'regular headache' for the White House, according to Biden people. 'She often shied away from politically tough assignments when Biden had accepted such assignments as vice president,' the authors write. 'She even turned down seemingly simple asks, such as headlining DC's Gridiron Club dinner.' 'Many on the Biden team felt that Harris didn't put in the work and was also just not a very nice person,' according to the book. 'Several quietly expressed buyer's remorse: They should have picked [Michigan Gov. Gretchen] Whitmer' as Biden's running mate in 2020. 3 Biden's cognitive decline and use of autopen in the White House is being scrutinized by Republicans. REUTERS 3 Halperin said the stories Biden's team has about Harris are 'Palinesque.' 2WAY/YouTube Halperin argued that Biden's people 'were extraordinary in trying to help her do the job of vice president.' 'They gave her every opportunity. And they did — they found in some instances that she had some issues.' The House Oversight Committee has brought in several former top Biden White House aides to testify on the former president's mental decline and his staff's use of autopen to sign official documents. It's unclear if the GOP-led committee plans to ask or subpoena Harris for testimony.