Examine individual changes

'{{Short description|2025 executive order in the United States}} {{Use American English|date=May 2025}} {{Use mdy dates|date=May 2025}} {{Infobox U.S. presidential document | executiveorder = 14290 | type = Executive order | documentimage = | longtitle = | signedpresident = [[Donald Trump]] | signeddate = May 1, 2025 | summary = This executive order calls for the Corporation of Public Broadcasting (CPB) to cease all funding for National Public Radio (NPR) and Public Broadcasting Service (PBS). }} '''Executive Order 14290''', titled "'''Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Biased Media'''", is an [[executive order]] signed by U.S. president [[Donald Trump]] on May 1, 2025 to end federal funding for [[NPR]] (a radio network) and [[PBS]] (a television network) by the [[Corporation for Public Broadcasting]] (CPB) and by federal agencies, alleging biased news coverage in violation of the [[Public Broadcasting Act of 1967]] (PBA) and that public funding for news programming was "not only outdated and unnecessary but corrosive to the appearance of journalistic independence" in the current [[Mass media in the United States|U.S. media market]].<ref>{{cite news|title=Trump signs executive order directing federal funding cuts to PBS and NPR|date=May 2, 2025|___location=Washington|work=[[Associated Press News]]|url=https://apnews.com/article/trump-npr-pbs-republicans-public-broadcasting-f0e3e1acb96986732a0211833165bf84|first=Lisa|last=Mascaro|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250502155647/https://apnews.com/article/trump-npr-pbs-republicans-public-broadcasting-f0e3e1acb96986732a0211833165bf84|url-status=live|archive-date=2 May 2025|access-date=May 2, 2025}}</ref><ref name="NBC 5-2-2025">{{cite news|last1=Smith|first1=Patrick|last2=Grumbach|first2=Gary|date=May 2, 2025|title=Trump signs executive order to stop federal funding for NPR and PBS|work=[[NBC News]]|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-administration/trump-signs-executive-order-stop-federal-funding-npr-pbs-rcna204375|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250502153455/https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-administration/trump-signs-executive-order-stop-federal-funding-npr-pbs-rcna204375|url-status=live|archive-date=2 May 2025|access-date=May 2, 2025}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last1=Kerr |first1=Dara |last2=Campbell |first2=Lucy |last3=Chao-Fong |first3=Léonie |last4=Ambrose |first4=Tom |name-list-style=and |date=2025-05-03 |title=Trump order targeting law firm struck down; supreme court asked to allow Musk's Doge access to social security data – as it happened |url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2025/may/02/donald-trump-tariffs-immigration-courts-pbs-npr-media-pete-hegseth-us-politics-live-updates |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250503022532/https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2025/may/02/donald-trump-tariffs-immigration-courts-pbs-npr-media-pete-hegseth-us-politics-live-updates |url-status=live |archive-date=3 May 2025 |access-date=2 May 2025|work=[[Guardian US|The Guardian]] |issn=0261-3077}}</ref> CPB, PBS, and NPR executives issued press releases arguing that the executive order was unlawful under the PBA and that the organizations would explore how to continue providing programming while challenging the order.<ref>{{cite news|last=Benn Jr.|first=Juan|date=May 2, 2025|title=Public media executives push back against Trump targeting NPR and PBS: 'Blatantly unlawful'|website=[[Politico]]|publisher=[[Axel Springer SE]]|url=https://www.politico.com/news/2025/05/02/npr-pbs-trump-executive-order-response-00323798|archive-url=https://archive.today/20250502162932/https://www.politico.com/news/2025/05/02/npr-pbs-trump-executive-order-response-00323798|url-status=live|archive-date=2 May 2025|access-date=May 2, 2025}}</ref><ref name="NBC 5-2-2025" /><ref>{{cite news|last1=Stelter|first1=Brian|last2=Voytek|first2=Clay|date=May 2, 2025|title=President Trump signs order seeking to end federal funding for NPR and PBS|work=[[CNN]]|url=https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/02/media/trump-cpb-pbs-npr-funding-cut-hnk-intl|url-status=live|archive-date=2 May 2025|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250502202644/https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/02/media/trump-cpb-pbs-npr-funding-cut-hnk-intl|access-date=May 2, 2025}}</ref> On May 27, NPR and three public radio stations sued the Trump administration for ending their federal funding, citing it as a violation of the [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution|First Amendment]].<ref name="nbc-27may2025">{{cite news |last1=Breuninger |first1=Kevin |title=NPR sues Trump over executive order cutting federal funding |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-administration/npr-sues-trump-executive-order-cutting-federal-funding-rcna209170 |access-date=May 27, 2025 |work=[[NBC News]] |date=May 27, 2025}}</ref><ref name="guard-27may2025">{{cite news |last1=Gedeon |first1=Joseph |title=NPR sues Trump administration over funding cuts it says violate first amendment |url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/may/27/npr-trump-lawsuit-funding |access-date=May 27, 2025 |work=[[The Guardian]] |date=May 27, 2025}}</ref><ref name="cl-27may2025">{{cite web |title=NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO, INC. v. TRUMP (1:25-cv-01674) |url=https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70376503/national-public-radio-inc-v-trump/ |website=[[Court Listener]] |access-date=May 27, 2025 |date=May 27, 2025}}</ref> On May 30, PBS sued the Trump administration for ending their federal funding.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Mullin |first=Benjamin |date=2025-05-30 |title=PBS Sues Trump Over Order to Cut Funding |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/30/business/media/pbs-trump-lawsuit-funding.html |access-date=2025-05-30 |work=The New York Times |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last1=Breuninger|first1=Kevin|last2=Rizzo|first2=Lillian|date=May 30, 2025|title=PBS sues Trump over executive order to cut funding|publisher=CNBC|url=https://www.cnbc.com/2025/05/30/pbs-trump-funding-sesame-street.html|access-date=May 31, 2025}}</ref><ref name="cl-30may2025">{{cite news |title=PUBLIC BROADCASTING SERVICE v. DONALD J. TRUMP (1:25-cv-01722) |url=https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70414813/public-broadcasting-service-v-donald-j-trump/ |access-date=May 30, 2025 |work=[[CourtListener]] |date=May 30, 2025}}</ref> Before the executive order was issued, the CPB filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration on April 28 after Trump attempted to fire three of the five members of the CPB's [[board of directors]].<ref>{{cite news|last=Shepardson|first=David|date=April 29, 2025|title=Corporation for Public Broadcasting sues to block Trump from firing 3 board members|website=[[Reuters]]|publisher=[[Thomson Reuters]]|url=https://www.reuters.com/world/us/corporation-public-broadcasting-sues-block-trump-firing-three-board-members-2025-04-29/|access-date=May 2, 2025}}</ref><ref>Case docket for [https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69966304/corporation-for-public-broadcasting-v-trump-in-his-official-capacity-as/ ''Corporation for Public Broadcasting v. Trump'', 1:25-cv-01305, (D.D.C.)] at [[CourtListener]]</ref> On June 8, [[United States District Court for the District of Columbia|District of Columbia U.S. District Court]] Judge [[Randolph Moss]] ruled against a [[Injunction#Preliminary injunctions|preliminary injunction]] requested by the CPB in its lawsuit against the attempted director removals since the CPB changed its [[By-law#Organizational by-laws|by-laws]] afterward under the District of Columbia Nonprofit Corporation Act to prevent any authority, including the President of the United States, from removing a director without a two-thirds vote of the other directors, which allowed for the directors to keep their seats.<ref>{{cite news|last=Fortinsky|first=Sarah|date=June 8, 2025|title=Judge declines to block Trump's Corporation for Public Broadcasting firings but allows board members to stay|work=The Hill|publisher=Nexstar Media Group|url=https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5339507-federal-judge-deny-trump-cpb-firing/|access-date=June 9, 2025}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last=Stempel|first=Jonathan|date=June 9, 2025|title=Corporation for Public Broadcasting can keep board members despite judge's ruling|website=Reuters|publisher=Thomson Reuters|url=https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/corporation-public-broadcasting-can-keep-board-members-despite-judges-ruling-2025-06-09/|access-date=June 9, 2025}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last=Johnson|first=Ted|date=June 8, 2025|title=Judge Denies Corporation For Public Broadcasting's Motion In Trump Case, But Ruling Still Allows For Three Board Members To Remain — Update|website=Deadline Hollywood|publisher=Penske Media Corporation|url=https://deadline.com/2025/06/trump-pbs-npr-board-members-1236427047/|access-date=June 10, 2025}}</ref> ==Legality== Although the CPB is required under the PBA to facilitate the development of public broadcasting in "strict adherence to objectivity and balance in all programs or series of programs of a controversial nature",{{sfn|CRS|2025|p=4}} the [[United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit|U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit]] held in 1975 that the "objectivity and balance" requirement under the law was an aspirational obligation rather than a legally enforceable standard, and the D.C. Circuit suggested that if it were a legally enforceable standard, it would be more restrictive than the [[fairness doctrine]] of the [[Federal Communications Commission]] (FCC) and raise "[[Constitutional avoidance|substantial constitutional questions]]" if it was analogously enforced.{{sfn|YLPR|1994|pp=197–200}}<ref>{{cite court|litigants=Accuracy in Media, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission|reporter=[[Federal Reporter|F.2d]]|vol=521|opinion=288|court=D.C. Cir|year=1975|url=https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/521/288/70438/|access-date=June 10, 2025}}</ref> In 1978, the D.C. Circuit reiterated these concerns in a case that struck down an FCC regulation for noncommercial broadcasters, stating that an enforceable "objectivity and balance" standard "would raise serious constitutional questions, particularly in light of the Supreme Court's cautious approval of the more limited fairness doctrine in ''[[Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC]]''."{{sfn|YLPR|1994|p=217}}<ref>{{cite court|litigants=Community-Service Broadcasting of Mid-America, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission|reporter=[[Federal Reporter|F.2d]]|vol=593|opinion=1102|court=D.C. Cir|year=1978|url=https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/593/1102/111311/|access-date=June 10, 2025}}</ref> While the FCC fairness doctrine established a requirement for broadcasters to present programming that covered controversial issues of public importance with the opportunity for the presentation of contrasting viewpoints, the FCC gave broadcasters wide discretion to determine how to comply with the regulation.<ref>{{cite report|title=Selected FCC Regulatory Policies: Their Purpose and Consequences for Commercial Radio and TV|year=1979|publisher=[[Government Accountability Office|General Accounting Office]]|pages=155–167|url=https://www.gao.gov/assets/ced-79-62.pdf|access-date=January 3, 2025}}</ref> Despite the Supreme Court's decision in ''Red Lion Broadcasting'', the FCC repealed the doctrine in 1987 after studying the evolution of mass communications case law, the advancement of broadcast technology, and the doctrine's application in practice since its promulgation in 1949 and concluded in a 1985 report that the doctrine was [[Chilling effect|chilling speech]] and probably violated the First Amendment under [[intermediate scrutiny]].<ref>{{cite report|last=Ruane|first=Kathleen Ann|date=July 13, 2011|title=Fairness Doctrine: History and Constitutional Issues|publisher=Congressional Research Service|website=[[Federation of American Scientists]]|url=https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R40009.pdf|access-date=January 22, 2025}}</ref>{{sfn|CRS|2024|pp=6–8}} Referencing the D.C. Circuit Court decisions and the FCC's decision to repeal the fairness doctrine, a 1994 ''[[Yale Law & Policy Review]]'' (YLPR) article argued that if the fairness doctrine violated the First Amendment, then a legally enforceable "objectivity and balance" requirement under the PBA does as well ''[[Argumentum a fortiori#In law|a fortiori]]'' since they both impose [[Freedom of speech in the United States#Content-based restrictions|content-based restrictions on speech]] that would not satisfy [[strict scrutiny]] due to [[Overbreadth doctrine|overbreadth]] and [[Vagueness doctrine|vagueness]],{{sfn|CRS|2024|pp=5–6, 14–17}}<ref>{{cite report|last=Killion|first=Victoria L.|date=January 10, 2023|title=Free Speech: When and Why Content-Based Laws Are Presumptively Unconstitutional|publisher=Congressional Research Service|url=https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IF/PDF/IF12308/IF12308.1.pdf|access-date=June 11, 2025}}</ref> and that a legally enforceable "objectivity and balance" requirement for CPB funding would qualify as an "unconstitutional condition" under ''[[Rust v. Sullivan]]'' (1991) since it would infringe on the free speech rights of grant recipients outside of a government-funded program.{{sfn|YLPR|1994|pp=207–226}} A 1994 ''[[The Federal Communications Law Journal|Federal Communications Law Journal]]'' (FCLJ) article made similar arguments about the constitutionality of a legally enforceable "objectivity and balance" requirement.{{sfn|FCLJ|1994|pp=504–514}} However, the [[Congressional Research Service]] (CRS) noted in a 2024 report that the Supreme Court stated in ''Rust v. Sullivan'' that even if government programs require speech to operate, the government may "selectively fund a program to encourage certain activities it believes to be in the public interest, without at the same time funding an alternative program" and held that the government can implement content-based restrictions within [[Government speech|its own programs]].{{sfn|CRS|2024|pp=20–21}} At the same time, the CRS noted that the Supreme Court also held in ''[[Legal Services Corp. v. Velazquez]]'' (2001) and ''[[USAID v. Alliance for Open Society International (2013)|USAID v. AOSI I]]'' (2013) that the government is not permitted to create conditions for funding that leverage control of private speech outside of government-sponsored programs,{{sfn|CRS|2024|p=21}} and that the general principle of the unconstitutional conditions doctrine was established in ''[[Perry v. Sindermann]]'' (1972), where the Supreme Court stated that the government "may not deny a benefit to a person on a basis that infringes his constitutionally protected interests—especially, his interest in freedom of speech."{{sfn|CRS|2024|p=20}} In reports issued in 2017 and 2025, the CRS noted that the CPB was [[Congressional charter|congressionally incorporated]] as a [[Privately held company|private]] [[nonprofit corporation]] under the PBA, while PBS and NPR were [[Articles of association|privately incorporated]] as nonprofit corporations in turn by the CPB in 1969 and 1970 respectively.{{sfn|CRS|2017a|p=1}}{{sfn|CRS|2025|p=i; 1; 3; 9}} However, the CRS also noted in a separate 2017 report that the [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]] held in ''[[Lebron v. National Railroad Passenger Corp.]]'' (1995) and ''[[Department of Transportation v. Association of American Railroads]]'' (2015) that a declaration by Congress that a [[corporation]] is a [[Quasi-corporation|governmental]] or [[Private sector|private entity]] is not dispositive when determining that status in [[Judicial review in the United States|judicial review]].{{sfn|CRS|2017b|pp=i; 3}} Noting that the ''Lebron'' decision, referencing the CPB as a point of comparison, held that a corporation is a governmental entity if it was created by law to further governmental objectives and if the government retains the authority to appoint a majority of its board of directors, a 2007 ''[[University of Pennsylvania Law Review]]'' (UPLR) article argued that federal courts could hold that the CPB is a governmental entity since the CPB was created under the PBA and the government appoints all of its directors despite the congressional declaration in the PBA that the CPB is a private corporation.{{sfn|UPLR|2007|pp=1000–1002}}{{sfn|CRS|2025|p=3}} However, although the CRS noted that the Supreme Court articulated a five-part test in the ''Association of American Railroads'' decision in determining that [[Amtrak]] was a governmental entity, the Court did not articulate the relative importance of the factors considered in the case, provided little guidance on how the test may apply to corporations other than Amtrak, and did not use the "symbiotic relationship" test for [[state action]] established in ''[[Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co.]]'' (1974) in either the ''Association of American Railroads'' decision or the ''Lebron'' decision.{{sfn|CRS|2017b|pp=4–5}} The CRS also noted that determining a corporation's status as a governmental or private entity was a threshold question before courts make determinations about [[Nondelegation doctrine|congressional delegations of authority]] to such entities and [[Due Process Clause]] challenges to actions of the entity.{{sfn|CRS|2017b|pp=i; 2–3}} The CRS suggested that whether an entity exercises [[Sovereignty|sovereign authority]] may be a factor in determining whether an entity is governmental or private since the Supreme Court held in ''[[Buckley v. Valeo]]'' (1976) that [[Officer of the United States|officers of the United States]] under the [[Appointments Clause]] "exercis[e] significant authority pursuant to the laws of the United States."{{sfn|CRS|2017b|pp=1–2; 13–16}} Nonetheless, the CRS also noted that case law on whether a corporation is a governmental or private entity is undeveloped and fact-dependent, and that courts have generally examined entities in a holistic manner rather than on specific challenged actions of the entities.{{sfn|CRS|2017b|p=5}} Additionally, the CRS noted in a subsequent report that what alone constitutes "significant authority" in ''Buckley v. Valeo'' was not clarified in ''[[Lucia v. Securities and Exchange Commission]]'' (2018).<ref>{{cite report|last=Killion|first=Victoria L.|date=June 22, 2018|title=Supreme Court Holds That SEC Administrative Law Judges Are "Officers" Subject to the Appointments Clause|publisher=Congressional Research Service|url=https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/LSB/PDF/LSB10153/LSB10153.2.pdf|access-date=June 24, 2025}}</ref>{{sfn|CRS|2017b|pp=16–17}} The YLPR and FCLJ articles argued that a 1992 amendment to the PBA converted the "objectivity and balance" aspirational obligation into a legally enforceable standard and the CPB in turn into a regulator of public broadcasting programming—despite giving the CPB wide discretion of how to meet the statutory mandate and members of Congress stating explicitly in congressional debate that it delegated no new regulatory authorities to the CPB.{{sfn|YLPR|1994|pp=197–203}}{{sfn|FCLJ|1994|pp=501–504}} Relatedly, the CRS noted while the Supreme Court struck down a congressional delegation of regulatory authority to private entities in ''[[Carter v. Carter Coal Co.]]'' (1936), the Court upheld limited regulatory delegations in ''[[List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 306|Currin v. Wallace]]'' (1939) and ''[[List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 310|Sunshine Anthracite Coal Co. v. Adkins]]'' (1940) where the private entities did not impose or enforce binding legal requirements and primarily acted in an administrative or advisory role that was still subject to government oversight.{{sfn|CRS|2017b|pp=7–9}} Conversely, the CRS noted that the D.C. Circuit Court's decision after [[Remand (court procedure)|remand]] in ''Association of American Railroads'' that the Due Process Clause is violated where an entity is "a self-interested entity with regulatory authority over its competitors" was based on its conclusion that the Supreme Court's decision in ''Carter Coal'' owed to the delegation of [[Enforcement|coercive regulatory authority]] to a [[for-profit corporation]] over its competitors.{{sfn|CRS|2017b|pp=9–13}} While the YLPR article noted that the CPB is required to file [[annual report]]s to Congress and that its financial records are subject to auditing by the [[Government Accountability Office]] (GAO),{{sfn|YLPR|1994|p=190}} it also noted that the PBA prohibits "any department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States to exercise any direction, supervision, or control... over the [CPB] or any of its grantees or contractors".{{sfn|YLPR|1994|pp=194–196}} In striking down Section 399 of the PBA that prohibited editorializing by noncommercial broadcasters, the Supreme Court concluded in ''[[List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 468|FCC v. League of Women Voters]]'' (1984) that the CPB was organized under the PBA to minimize political interference with the entity such that it "would be as insulated from federal interference as… wholly private stations."{{sfn|UPLR|2007|pp=1008–1009}} With respect to First Amendment scrutiny, the Court stated in ''League of Women Voters'' that "although the Government's interest in ensuring balanced coverage of public issues is plainly both important and substantial, we have… made clear that broadcasters are engaged in a vital and independent form of communicative activity."{{sfn|UPLR|2007|pp=1007–1009}} Likewise, in rejecting a First Amendment challenge by a [[Third party (U.S. politics)|third-party candidate]] to be included in an [[Leaders' debate|electoral debate]] on public television, the Supreme Court held in ''[[Arkansas Educational Television Commission v. Forbes]]'' (1998) that the debate was a [[Forum (legal)|nonpublic forum]] after noting how the [[Arkansas PBS|AETC]] had been organized under a state law to also be insulated from political interference, and that while the debate was a form of programming, the structure of the organization holding the debate made it a nonpublic forum.{{sfn|UPLR|2007|pp=1009–1012}} Citing the ''League of Women Voters'' and ''Forbes'' decisions, the 2007 UPLR article argued that the Court effectively declined to consider public broadcasters to be governmental entities in the cases, and as such, that the CPB should not be considered a governmental entity for First Amendment purposes.{{sfn|UPLR|2007|pp=1012; 1016–1017}} The CRS and the YLPR article also noted that the PBA prohibits the CPB from owning or operating stations,{{sfn|CRS|2025|pp=1; 3}}{{sfn|YLPR|1994|pp=194–195}} while PBS and NPR were incorporated as station-owned [[membership organization]]s,{{sfn|YLPR|1994|pp=190–191}} and PBS and NPR member stations are owned and operated by [[Higher education in the United States|colleges and universities]], [[School district#United States|public school districts]], other private non-profit corporations, or [[State governments in the United States|state government]] agencies.{{sfn|CRS|2017a|p=1}} Members of the CPB board of directors serve staggered six-year terms, may only serve up to two consecutively, and the PBA provides no specific guidance for director removals other than for [[absenteeism]].{{sfn|CRS|2025|pp=4–5}}{{sfn|UPLR|2007|pp=1016–1017}} While no more than five of the nine CPB director positions may be filled with persons affiliated with a single political party or be an employee of the United States, no other political test or qualification may be applied for director nominations or appointments.{{sfn|CRS|2025|p=4}}{{sfn|YLPR|1994|p=190}}{{sfn|UPLR|2007|pp=999; 1016–1017}} In 1975, Congress established the three-year funding authorization and two-year advance appropriation for the CPB by statute,{{sfn|CRS|2025|p=5}}{{sfn|YLPR|1994|pp=191; 196–197}} and the [[United States Department of the Treasury|U.S. Treasury Department]] created a [[Trust (law)|trust]] for the CPB during the [[Presidency of Jimmy Carter|Carter administration]] to allow funds to flow directly to the CPB.{{sfn|UPLR|2007|pp=999; 1016}} After administrative costs and system support programs, the entire federal appropriation to the CPB is used to provide grants to qualifying public broadcasting stations and program producers.{{sfn|CRS|2025|pp=7–9}} Conversely, PBS and NPR receive only a small fraction of their total revenue from the CPB directly, with 16% and 1% respectively of their total revenue coming directly from all federal sources in total and the majority coming from member stations, distribution revenue and services, [[Underwriting spot|corporate underwriting]] and institutional support, and individual contributions.{{sfn|CRS|2025|pp=9–10}} The YLPR and FCLJ articles noted that the PBA prohibits the CPB from producing, scheduling, or distributing programming.{{sfn|YLPR|1994|p=190}}{{sfn|FCLJ|1994|p=499}} Along with a 2007 GAO report about public television specifically,{{sfn|GAO|2007|pp=15–16}} the CRS noted that while NPR is authorized to produce programming for its member stations, programming included in the PBS National Programming Service (NPS) is not produced by PBS itself but by its member stations, external production companies, and independent producers, and PBS and NPR member stations retain ultimate editorial control over which programming from the NPS and NPR they wish to broadcast.{{sfn|CRS|2025|pp=i; 9}} == See also == {{Portal|Politics|United States}} * [[List of executive orders in the second presidency of Donald Trump]] ==References== {{reflist}} ===Works cited=== * {{cite journal|last=White|first=Howard A.|year=1994|title=Fine Tuning the Federal Government's Role in Public Broadcasting|journal=The Federal Communications Law Journal|publisher=[[Federal Communications Bar Association]]|volume=46|issue=3|pages=491–519|ref={{sfnRef|FCLJ|1994}}|url=https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/fclj/vol46/iss3/4/}} * {{cite journal|last=Zansberg|first=Steven D.|year=1994|title='Objectivity and Balance' in Public Broadcasting: Unwise, Unworkable, and Unconstitutional|journal=Yale Law & Policy Review|publisher=[[Yale Law School]]|volume=12|issue=1|pages=184–230|jstor=40239420|ref={{sfnRef|YLPR|1994}}|hdl=20.500.13051/16773}} * {{cite report|last1=Goldstein|first1=Mark L.|year=2007|title=TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Issues Related to the Structure and Funding of Public Television|publisher=Government Accountability Office|ref={{sfnRef|GAO|2007}}|url=https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-07-150.pdf|access-date=December 15, 2024}} * {{cite journal|last=Phillips|first=Jonathan M.|year=2007|title=Freedom by Design: Objective Analysis and the Constitutional Status of Public Broadcasting|journal=University of Pennsylvania Law Review|publisher=[[University of Pennsylvania Law School]]|volume=155|issue=4|pages=991–1020|ref={{sfnRef|UPLR|2007}}|jstor=40041331|url=https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/penn_law_review/vol155/iss4/5/|access-date=June 20, 2025}} * {{cite report|last1=McLoughlin|first1=Glenn J.|last2=Gomez|first2=Lena A.|date=July 3, 2017|title=The Corporation for Public Broadcasting: Federal Funding and Issues|publisher=Congressional Research Service|ref={{sfnRef|CRS|2017a}}|url=https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/RS/PDF/RS22168/RS22168.62.pdf|access-date=December 15, 2024}} * {{cite report|last1=Tsang|first1=Linda|last2=Cole|first2=Jared P.|date=September 25, 2017|title=Privatization and the Constitution: Selected Legal Issues|publisher=Congressional Research Service|ref={{sfnRef|CRS|2017b}}|url=https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/PDF/R44965/R44965.5.pdf|access-date=June 16, 2025}} * {{cite report|last1=Killion|first1=Victoria L.|date=September 13, 2024|title=Freedom of Speech: An Overview|publisher=Congressional Research Service|ref={{sfnRef|CRS|2024}}|url=https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/PDF/R47986/R47986.2.pdf|access-date=June 10, 2025}} * {{cite report|last1=Humphreys|first1=Brian E.|date=May 23, 2025|title=Public Broadcasting: Background Information and Current Issues for Congress|publisher=Congressional Research Service|ref={{sfnRef|CRS|2025}}|url=https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/PDF/R48545/R48545.4.pdf|access-date=June 4, 2025}} ==External links== * [https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/05/ending-taxpayer-subsidization-of-biased-media/ Full text of the executive order] via ''[[whitehouse.gov]]'' * [https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/05/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-ends-the-taxpayer-subsidization-of-biased-media/ White House Press Office fact sheet] via ''whitehouse.gov'' * [https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/05/07/2025-08133/ending-taxpayer-subsidization-of-biased-media Full text of the executive order] in the ''[[Federal Register]]'' {{Trump executive actions}} {{NPR}} {{PBS}} {{Public broadcasting in the United States}} [[Category:2025 in American law]] [[Category:2025 in American politics]] [[Category:2025 in American television]] [[Category:May 2025 in the United States]] [[Category:Censorship of broadcasting in the United States]] [[Category:Executive orders of Donald Trump]] [[Category:NPR]] [[Category:Public Broadcasting Service]] [[Category:Second presidency of Donald Trump]]'