According to an April 14 report by the New York Post, the White House is working on a plan to eliminate federal funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), which currently funnels about $535 million a year to support PBS, NPR, and local public stations.
The move is part of a larger cost-cutting campaign by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), aimed at trimming what some conservatives call “partisan propaganda” funded with public money.
While the White House hasn’t officially announced the plan yet, President Trump made his views clear just a few weeks ago, saying he’d “love to” defund NPR and PBS, calling them “biased” and “a waste of money.”
That statement, combined with leaked details of the proposed plan, has reignited a fierce debate:
Do American taxpayers really need to keep funding public media in the era of podcasts, YouTube, and streaming news?
Bias or Balance?
Critics of NPR and PBS say the answer is a firm no.
Conservative lawmakers like Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene and Sen. John Kennedy argue that these networks no longer serve all Americans.
Greene has called them “communist” and accused PBS of “grooming and sexualizing children” with some of its modern programming.
Kennedy, taking a more measured tone, pointed to NPR’s shrinking audience—down from 60 million listeners in 2020 to 42 million in 2024—as evidence that the public just isn’t tuning in anymore.
Think tanks like the Heritage Foundation are also pushing hard to cut funding.
They argue that in today’s media-rich environment, with thousands of private news, entertainment, and educational options, taxpayers shouldn’t be forced to bankroll what they see as ideologically slanted content.
And from a fiscal perspective, critics say the $1.50 per citizen that CPB costs may not seem like much—but it adds up, especially at a time when the national debt is topping $35 trillion and counting.
But What About Big Bird?
Defenders of public broadcasting, including NPR and PBS leadership, are pushing back hard.
PBS CEO Paula Kerger and NPR’s new CEO Katherine Maher argue that federal funds—though just a small slice of their overall budgets—play a big role in keeping local stations alive, especially in rural and underserved areas.
That includes emergency alerts, educational programming, and yes, shows like Sesame Street that still provide learning tools for millions of kids.
A recent Pew Research poll found that 43% of Americans favor continued funding, while 60% say they trust public broadcasting for accurate, fact-based news.
Supporters argue that’s something worth protecting.
They also point out that defunding public broadcasting wouldn’t just hit NPR and PBS headquarters in Washington—it could devastate local affiliates that rely more heavily on CPB grants to stay on the air.
The Bigger Picture
This isn’t the first time defunding public broadcasting has been proposed—and it probably won’t be the last.
Past efforts have usually stalled in Congress, where local public radio and TV stations often have bipartisan defenders, especially in smaller states and rural districts where alternatives are limited.
But this time could be different.
With public trust in media continuing to fracture along party lines, and a new generation turning to podcasts, social media, and streaming for news and entertainment, some are wondering whether taxpayer-funded media still has a place.
Supporters argue it’s about access, education, and trust.
Opponents say it’s outdated, redundant, and too often politically slanted.
The truth? Maybe a little of both.
What Happens Next?
The CPB’s funding is already locked in through 2027, so any immediate cuts would require Congressional approval—and a battle that’s already shaping up along ideological lines.
Whether this proposal gains traction or fizzles out, it raises a fair question: In a media landscape overflowing with choice, should the government still be picking favorites—and sending them our money?
This article was written with the assistance of AI. Please verify information and consult additional sources as needed.
