
Coming PBS, NPR cuts already hurting many stations
July 18 (UPI) -- A bill rescinding $1.1 billion in funds to public broadcasting is awaiting President Donald Trump's signature, and many critics, including some Republicans, say it will devastate some rural areas and even put the country in danger.
The claw-back bill will cut $9 billion in total, including major reductions to foreign aid. It passed the House early Friday morning.
The public stations already have received funding from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to get them through September. Once that money runs out, more than 100 PBS and NPR stations are at risk of closing. The cuts will hit especially hard in rural areas.
For example, a magnitude 7.3 earthquake hit off the coast of Alaska on Wednesday. Public media helped broadcast a tsunami alert, said Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska.
"Their response to today's earthquake is a perfect example of the incredible public service these stations provide," Murkowski said Wednesday on X. "They deliver local news, weather updates, and, yes, emergency alerts that save human lives."
Murkowski was one of two Republican senators who voted against the bill.
The effects of the cutting off of funding could be even wider-reaching than expected, obsersers said.
"Failing stations will create a cascade effect in this highly connected and interdependent system, impacting content producers and leading to the potential collapse of additional distressed stations in other areas of the country," Tim Isgitt, CEO of advisory firm Public Media Company, told The New York Times.
An analysis by non-profit Public Media Company identified 78 public radio organizations and 37 TV organizations that will likely close. They rely on funding from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting for about 30% of their budgets.
"I think unfortunately this is cutting off their constituents' noses to spite NPR's face," NPR CEO Katherine Maher said Wednesday on CNN. "It doesn't help anyone to take this funding away."
PBS President and CEO Paula Kerger said in a statement that the cuts "will be especially devastating to smaller stations and those serving large rural areas."
"Many of our stations, which provide access to free unique local programming and emergency alerts, will now be forced to make hard decisions in the weeks and months ahead," she said.
Reporting on local issues will see cuts, too.
Michigan's WKAR Public Media general manager Shawn Turner said he has already had to lay off nine staffers because of the impending cuts, noting that about 16% of WKAR's budget comes from federal funding.
The cuts will prevent the newsroom from doing investigations into issues like the impact of tariffs on Michigan's manufacturing industry, he said.
"We've been able to ask [reporters] to begin to do a deep dive in really understanding how that's going to impact the community so that we have that reporting ready to go," Turner said. "Our ability to do that going forward is going to be limited."
Native American areas will also suffer from the cuts.
They pose "an immediate threat to the survival of small, rural, and Tribal stations across the country," said Loris Taylor, head of Native Public Media.
"These hyperlocal stations, many of which are the only source of local news, emergency alerts, educational programming, and cultural preservation, operate with limited resources and rely on [the Corporation for Public Broadcasting] funding to stay on the air."
Taylor heads a network of 57 Native radio stations. She had privately implored Sen. Mike Rounds, R-S.D., to reject the package, The New York Times reported Wednesday.
"Without this federal support, Native and rural communities stand to lose critical lifelines that connect them to the rest of the nation," she said.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Donald Trump Files Suit Against Rupert Murdoch, Dow Jones Over Wall Street Journal's Jeffrey Epstein Story
Donald Trump has followed through on his threat to sue Rupert Murdoch and his media companies over the Wall Street Journal's report on a bawdy letter in his name that was included in an album given to Jeffrey Epstein for his 50th birthday in 2003. A defamation lawsuit (read it here) was filed in a Florida federal court Friday seeing damages 'not less than $10 billion' and a jury trial. It names Murdoch, Journal publisher Dow Jones, parent company News Corp and its CEO Robert Thomson and the reporters on the story, Khadeeja Safdar and Joseph Palazzolo. More from Deadline Donald Trump Says He Plans To Sue Rupert Murdoch, And The Wall Street Journal Over Jeffrey Epstein Story — Update Donald Trump Celebrates CBS' Cancellation Of Stephen Colbert's 'The Late Show' Adam Schiff Talks Of Donald Trump's "Climate Of Fear" In 'Late Show' Guest Appearance; Senate Democrats Raise Questions Of CBS Cancellation - Update Trump confirmed the filing in a Truth Social post tonight, writing in part, 'This lawsuit is filed not only on behalf of your favorite President, ME, but also in order to continue standing up for ALL Americans who will no longer tolerate the abusive wrongdoings of the Fake News Media.' He added, 'I hope Rupert and his 'friends' are looking forward to the many hours of depositions and testimonies they will have to provide in this case.' The WSJ story published yesterday included Trump's denials that he ever wrote the letter, as well as his legal threat. Wall Street Journal owner Dow Jones did not immediately return a request for comment on the suit, but a spokesperson said Thursday, 'The story speaks for itself.' The WSJ report centered on a birthday album that was given to Epstein in 2003, featured collected letters from some of his friends. Among the letters was one bearing Trump's name that 'contains several lines of typewritten text framed by the outline of a naked woman, which appears to be hand-drawn with a heavy marker,' the Journal reported, adding that a 'pair of small arcs denotes the woman's breasts, and the future president's signature is a squiggly 'Donald' below her waist, mimicking pubic hair.' Trump wrote on Truth Social earlier on Friday, 'I look forward to getting Rupert Murdoch to testify in my lawsuit against him and his 'pile of garbage' newspaper, the WSJ. That will be an interesting experience!!!' Best of Deadline Streamer Subscription Prices And Tiers – Everything To Know As Costs Rise And Ads Abound (Hello, Peacock) - Update 'Stick' Release Guide: When Do New Episodes Come Out? 'Stick' Soundtrack: All The Songs You'll Hear In The Apple TV+ Golf Series
Yahoo
2 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's WSJ Lawsuit Has Social Media Users Cheering For 1 Unexpected Reason
It looks like a lot of people on social media are excited that Donald Trumpfiled a lawsuit against reporters at the Wall Street Journal and the paper's owner, Rupert Murdoch. But the reasons for their excitement will not make the president happy one bit. Trump, who filed the federal suit in Miami, is accusing the paper and its owner of libel related to an article published Thursday that alleges the president wrote a 'bawdy' message to Jeffrey Epstein in 2003 for the disgraced financier's birthday. The president said in a subsequent Truth Social post that he looked forward 'to getting Rupert Murdoch to testify in my lawsuit against him and his 'pile of garbage' newspaper, the WSJ.' However, many of the social media users looking forward to the suit moving forward pointed out that the truth is a defense in libel and defamation cases, so all the Journal has to do is prove its reporting true. And it seems a good bet that the Journal's lawyers went through the story about Trump and Epstein with a fine-toothed comb before it was published. Also, Trump has previously threatened lawsuits and not followed through, presumably because the discovery process would force him to answer potentially embarrassing questions under oath. Back in 2023, during a deposition in the E. Jean Carroll case, the president mistakenly identified his accuser as his ex-wife Marla Maples, according to court transcripts. It didn't help his case, since he tried to suggest he had not raped Carroll because she was 'not my type.' People on social media were salivating at the thought that Trump's lawsuit might not work out as he intended. Nobody tell Donald Trump that his new lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal will trigger the Streisand effect and hand them the power of the court to expose Trump's role in covering up the Jeffrey Epstein WAIT! — Grant Stern (@grantstern) July 18, 2025 If Trump sues WSJ, he will have to give a deposition, which he would never want to do again. He might sue and then claim immunity or drop the suit right before he has to testify. Last time Trump had to give a deposition, he confused his sexual assault victim for his wife — Alex Cole (@acnewsitics) July 18, 2025 I have a hard time believing the WSJ would publish trumps birthday card to epstein, knowing how huge this scandal is and the implications if it wasn't authentic. I hope trump does sue. I want to see this opened wide open. He's really put himself in a corner. If he doesn't sue, he… — Boston Smalls (@smalls2672) July 18, 2025 This would be like bringing a hotel bellhop to argue against the entire Wall Street Journal legal team. If this is the plan, it's not a lawsuit—it's a press release in legal for Trump couldn't represent himself to a train conductor. Let alone be his own attorney. — 𝕋𝕖𝕟𝕝𝕖𝕪𝗥𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗵𝗲𝗿🐎 (@wardthreedc) July 18, 2025 BLUFFThe lawsuit will never be filed. Trump would have to testify under oath during discovery. — Rebel Party 🇺🇸 (@Sjacobs2020) July 18, 2025 'POWERHOUSE LAWSUIT' sounds like something you'd buy from a late-night infomercial. 'Now with 30% more defamation claims!' — (@_Investinq) July 18, 2025 However, some people saw the lawsuit as Trump's attempt to get a settlement like the $16 million he received from Paramount after he sued the company for alleged election interference by the CBS News program '60 Minutes.' Although many experts thought Trump's suit had no merit, Paramount agreed to the payout as its proposed merger with Skydance Media awaits approval by the Trump administration. One X user, @LorraineEvanoff, suspected that Trump might really be suing the Journal and Murdoch as 'a staged distraction with an extra added bonus of funneling a huge pay-off to Trump by way of settlement!!!!!' Now Trump is suing Murdoch and the @WSJ for libel for reporting on the birthday card to Epstein. If it's a legitimate lawsuit and Murdoch legitimately fights it in court, it would expose Trump to tons of salacious communications and evidence in discovery. HOWEVER! It just… — Lorraine Evanoff (@LorraineEvanoff) July 18, 2025 Related... Trump Sues WSJ Reporters, Murdoch For Libel After Epstein Birthday Card Story Donald Trump Jr.'s Denial Of Daddy's Doodles Fails Miserably Trump Lashes Out At Rupert Murdoch Over WSJ Epstein Bombshell Trump Once Gave Epstein A Racy Birthday Card With A Strange Note: Report
Yahoo
2 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump sues Wall Street Journal and Murdoch over reporting on Epstein ties
President Donald Trump filed a lawsuit on Friday against The Wall Street Journal and media mogul Rupert Murdoch, a day after the newspaper published a story reporting on ties to wealthy financier Jeffrey Epstein. The lawsuit was filed in federal court in Miami. It seeks at least 10 billion dollars (£7.4 billion) in damages. Mr Trump promised a lawsuit after the newspaper described a sexually suggestive letter that the newspaper says bore Mr Trump's name and was included in a 2003 album for Epstein's 50th birthday. The president denied writing the letter, calling the story 'false, malicious, and defamatory'. The letter was reportedly collected by disgraced British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell as part of a birthday album for Epstein years before he was first arrested in 2006 and subsequently had a falling-out with Mr Trump. The letter bearing Mr Trump's name includes text framed by the outline of what appears to be a hand-drawn naked woman and ends with, 'Happy Birthday — and may every day be another wonderful secret,' according to the newspaper. The outlet described the contents of the letter but did not publish a photo showing it entirely or provide details on how it came to learn about it. It comes after the US Justice Department asked a federal court to unseal grand jury transcripts in Epstein's case at the direction of Mr Trump amid a firestorm over the administration's handling of records related to the case. Deputy attorney general Todd Blanche filed motions urging the court to unseal the Epstein transcripts as well as those in the case against Maxwell, who was convicted of luring teenage girls to be sexually abused by Epstein. Epstein killed himself in 2019 shortly after his arrest while awaiting trial. The Justice Department's announcement that it would not be making public any more Epstein files enraged parts of Mr Trump's base, in part because members of his own administration had hyped the expected release and stoked conspiracies around the well-connected financier. The Justice Department said in the court filings that it will work with prosecutors in New York to make appropriate redactions of victim-related information and other personally identifying information before transcripts are released. 'Transparency in this process will not be at the expense of our obligation under the law to protect victims,' Mr Blanche wrote. But despite the new push to release the grand jury transcripts, the administration has not announced plans to reverse course and release other evidence in its possession. Attorney general Pam Bondi had hyped the release of additional materials after the initial Epstein files disclosure in February sparked outrage because it contained no new revelations. A judge would have to approve the release of the grand jury transcripts, and it is likely to be a lengthy process to decide what can become public and to make redactions to protect sensitive witness and victim information. The records would show testimony from witnesses and other evidence presented by the prosecution during the secret grand jury proceedings, when a panel decides whether there is enough evidence to bring an indictment, or a formal criminal charge.