Why Congress Defunding NPR And PBS Isn't As Misguided As You Think

Forbes

5 days ago

The CEO and President of National Public Radio (NPR), Katherine Maher, testifies during a House ... More committee hearing in Washington, DC, on March 26, 2025. (Photo by DREW ANGERER/AFP via Getty Images)
The House's vote to claw back more than $1 billion from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting has sparked the kind of uproar you'd expect: Outrage from public media defenders, laments about the death of educational programming, and dire predictions for civic discourse generally. But here's the thing no one wants to say out loud — there's actually a rational case one can make as to why defunding NPR and PBS isn't nearly as unreasonable as critics suggest.
This post will attempt to separate the fundamentals of what just happened to NPR and PBS from the noise and the chaotic politics of the moment that led to the defunding — bearing in mind that there have been plenty of specious arguments and claims on both sides of the issue. The contrarian position here, in support of defunding, is certainly not a broadly popular one; that said, there is, in fact, a world where it can lead to a better outcome for all involved.
Incidentally, a recent Pew Research Center survey found that more than half of the U.S. adults who responded said they were either in favor of the defunding (24%) or that they weren't sure (33%), compared to 43% who said the funding should continue.
The arguments against taxpayers funding NPR and PBS
To start, we can probably agree on some basic facts about public broadcasting. Like the fact that NPR and PBS were created in an era of media scarcity — that is, when Americans had a handful of TV channels, and news options were limited. That's no longer the case today. You and I live in a golden age of content abundance, where thousands of media outlets compete for attention across every imaginable platform. And that fact, in and of itself, automatically weakens the justification for taxpayer-funded programming, especially when there's no shortage of high-quality reporting, children's content, and arts programming already available.
Which brings us to a second point that weakens the case further still:
For those of you against these cuts — are each and every single one of you currently directly contributing any money to public media in the form of a donation? If not, why should taxpayers be forced to step up and do the thing that you think is necessary but won't do yourself?
One could argue that there's also a First Amendment-adjacent argument to be had here. Setting aside the fact that citizens expect the press to hold power to account (rather than to regularly take its money), forcing taxpayers to financially support certain 'speech' sure seems like a clear violation of individual rights. People also shouldn't be compelled to subsidize viewpoints they may oppose, even indirectly. Else, why doesn't Newsmax or Breitbart get to likewise come before the federal government with outstretched hands?
Of course, critics of the defunding will argue that NPR and PBS still serve a vital public interest. But that argument starts to fall apart when we confront the elephant in the room: Bias.
NPR CEO Katherine Maher (who in the past has called the idea of truth a 'distraction') has defended her newsroom against accusations of bias, saying she welcomes feedback and insists the organization is nonpartisan. But to say that NPR is free of bias is to misunderstand how journalism works — and how the people who produce it are wired.
Bias doesn't have to embrace a particular ideology, nor does it even have to be overt (for that matter, it's also not something that will ever be identified uniformly). Bias can show up in what stories are covered, what angles are emphasized, and what's left out. No newsroom is immune — not NPR, not Fox News, not anyone. Bias, like beauty, is in the eye of those who behold it.
One can also credibly argue that not all bias is de facto 'bad.' Most of us, I'm sure, are biased in favor of things like democracy and free and fair elections (as opposed to their alternatives). Before you insist that public broadcasters occupy the dead center of the ideological spectrum, though, it would probably be worth taking a second look at things like NPR's early dismissal of the COVID lab-leak theory (no longer regarded as fringe) and its past resistance to covering stories perceived as helpful to President Trump.
This leads me to my final point.
I alluded above to the idea of an outcome where all sides are better off after decoupling NPR and PBS from the federal government. That's because NPR and PBS have already built strong foundations through audience-supported models. Their most loyal listeners and viewers have proven they're willing to give — not because they're forced to, but because they believe in the mission. And that is a far more stable and principled source of support than relying on federal funding, which can evaporate with a change in administration or the whims of lawmakers whose priorities often shift with the political winds.
If anything, public media outlets like NPR and PBS might actually be in a stronger position long-term by fully embracing the model they already depend on: Earning the public's trust, delivering value, and letting the audience decide if it's worth sustaining.