Politics
Contributor: NPR faces a real threat in defunding fight that's coming
In February, Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency put the nation’s public radio network on notice. “Defund NPR,” he wrote on X. “It should survive on its own.” Musk’s tweet was the latest indication that the Trump administration intends to alter the way the broadcaster operates. In January, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr announced an investigation into the legality of underwriting — the public media equivalent of advertising. Meanwhile, the Department of Defense ordered NPR and other news organizations to give up their offices at the Pentagon. Breitbart News will occupy NPR’s space.
During its 55-year history, NPR’s funding scares have come almost on schedule, heralded by the arrival of a new Republican administration (Ronald Reagan, 1981), a rightward shift in the Congress (Newt Gingrich, 1995) or a decision by network executives that angers conservatives (the firing of commentator Juan Williams, 2010).
The previous threats have been serious, but none as serious as what’s unfolding now.
The network is vulnerable. In 2024, former NPR business editor Uri Berliner posted an essay on the Free Press substack site accusing the organization of adopting a left-wing stance in which “race and identity” were “paramount.” NPR pushed back, but the “bias” allegations received extensive coverage. Simultaneously, the network has been losing its audience. It started during the pandemic, as commuters who had tuned into “Morning Edition” and “All Things Considered” abandoned drive-time for radio-free walks down the hall to home offices. Listenership dropped — from an estimated 60 million in 2020 to 42 million in 2024.
In mounting its defense, NPR should look back at its earlier wins and losses.
By far the worst incident sprang from the recommendation of a Reagan-appointed panel to cancel the entire budget of the Corp. for Public Broadcasting, the agency that oversees both NPR and PBS. Although David Stockman, Reagan’s budget czar, ultimately opted for a less drastic 25% cut, Frank Mankiewicz, then president of NPR, viewed even the lower amount as potentially ruinous.
In 1982, Mankiewicz tried to free NPR from government funding altogether by monetizing a number of embryonic online delivery systems that would beam stock reports, sports scores and news headlines to handheld devices while transmitting NPR shows to home computers and inventory and pricing information to business customers. The technology, however, had yet to be fully developed. Within a year, Mankiewicz was gone and NPR was $9.1 million in debt.
The CPB bailed out NPR, but not before extracting concessions. Since the network’s founding in 1970, it had received grants from the agency to pay for programming. Now, the grants would go to NPR stations, enabling them either to continue buying “Morning Edition” and “All Things Considered” from the network or shows such as “Marketplace” from independent suppliers.
NPR executives bemoaned the change but the advantage of giving federal money to the stations became apparent in 1995 after Gingrich, the newly elected speaker of the House, announced plans to “zero out” the CPB. Where in the past this proposal would have been seen as a threat to NPR and PBS, it was instead seen as endangering beloved local stations. “If you were attacking NPR,” a network executive later said, “you were attacking your own community.” When an amendment to eliminate CPB funding came up in the House, it lost by a two-to-one margin.
By 2010, when NPR dismissed Williams, the media world was beginning to fracture in ways that anticipated the current environment, and the firing of a conservative commentator became a litmus test. NPR’s rationale for letting Williams go, which was that he’d made what it considered Islamophobic remarks while appearing on Fox News, fell flat. Fox lambasted NPR and handed Williams a $2-million contract. NPR investigated the executive who fired Williams and she resigned. Jon Stewart mocked the network on “The Daily Show” with a reference to a gentler public radio commentator: “NPR, you just brought a tote bag full of David Sedaris books to a knife fight.”
In 2011, the Republican-controlled House — responding to the firing of Williams and to a later controversy involving a right-wing video sting that captured an NPR executive seemingly agreeing to publicize shariah law — voted 228 to 192 to defund the network. The Democratic-controlled Senate, however, did not go along. President Obama, who signed the bill that kept the funding alive, nevertheless aimed a barb at NPR during that year’s White House Correspondents Dinner: “I was looking forward to new programming like ‘No Things Considered.’ ”
The defunding effort shaping up in 2025 promises dangers harder to joke about. During his first term, Trump stated that the CPB should be defunded. In his second term, he is unleashing an assault on the very idea of public agencies.
NPR’s defense will likely be that since it now gets just 1% of its budget from the government, it presents no threat to the national purse. But it’s not that simple. According to its own reporting on “All Things Considered,” while the stations indeed get more government money than does NPR itself, they end up spending a lot of it for NPR programs. With a president who openly despises the mainstream media, and with all branches of government in Republican control, the CPB will not be coming to the rescue.
Yet there are reasons to hope that NPR will survive. First, regardless of Berliner’s critique, NPR has always been a source of ground-breaking journalistic practices and superb reporting. It has established a solid foothold in American culture.
In 1972, NPR named Susan Stamberg host of “All Things Considered,” making her the first woman to front a national news show. In 1973, NPR assigned reporter Josh Darsa to the Russell Senate Office Building to cover the Watergate hearings. No other broadcaster had a reporter in the room each day. In 2003, NPR was the only American broadcast network to keep a correspondent (Anne Garrels) in Baghdad during the aerial assault that launched the Iraq War. NPR’s current efforts are similarly strong, whether they be dispatches by Jerusalem reporter Daniel Estrin about the conflict in Gaza or those by Berlin reporter Rob Schmitz about threats to NATO. Ari Shapiro, now the cohost of “All Things Considered,” recently contributed a thorough piece from Panama about reaction to Trump’s stated hopes to reclaim control of the Panama Canal.
Another reason for hope is that as opposed to 1995 — or even to 2011 — the American media landscape is in such poor shape that NPR is more necessary than ever. Across the country, print journalism has imploded. Commercial TV and radio news operations are also in decline. Especially in red states, NPR is sometimes the only source of local news. True, people everywhere now get information from cable channels, random websites or social media, but many still want what NPR offers.
As Bill Siemering, the creator of “All Things Considered,” put it in the organization’s 1970 mission statement:
“In its journalistic mode, National Public Radio will actively explore, investigate, and interpret issues of national and international import. The programs will enable the individual to better understand himself, his government, his institutions, and his natural and social environment.”
This is as good an idea now as it was more than half a century ago. Today’s political climate, however, is even harsher than that during Richard Nixon’s embattled presidency. In the coming fight, NPR will not only need more than a tote bag of David Sedaris books. It will need to rally support at the national and local level. It will need to bring a knife.
Steve Oney is a Los Angeles-based journalist and the author of “On Air: The Triumph and Tumult of NPR,” published this week.
Politics
Trump takes unusual step, lets bipartisan housing bill become law unsigned amid SAVE pressure campaign
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
A bipartisan housing bill became law Saturday at midnight after President Donald Trump declined to sign it, capping a weeks-long saga over whether the president would veto the measure amid frustrations with Congress over his stalled agenda.
Trump refused to sign the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act — legislation aimed at expanding the nation’s housing stock and lowering costs — in an attempt to pressure Congress to pass the SAVE America Act, despite the housing bill clearing both chambers with overwhelming majorities.
“I will not sign the Housing Bill, which has been fully approved by Congress and sent to the White House, in PROTEST over the fact that the United States Senate is not capable of passing THE SAVE AMERICA ACT, which is polling at 97% with the Republican Party, and very high with the non-politician Dumocrats,” he declared on Truth Social Friday morning.
The Trump-backed election measure, which would require proof of citizenship to vote in federal elections and impose voter ID requirements, has struggled to overcome the Senate’s 60-vote threshold.
Meanwhile, the House has not passed a version of the bill that includes the president’s proposed crackdown on mail-in voting and banning men from women’s sports.
President Donald Trump speaks in the Oval Office of the White House, Wednesday, June 3, 2026, in Washington. (Alex Brandon/AP)
HOUSE CONSERVATIVES DERAIL GOP AGENDA IN SAVE AMERICA ACT SHOWDOWN
Under the U.S. Constitution, Trump had 10 days, not including Sundays, to sign or veto the housing measure after the House formally transmitted the legislation to the White House in late June. The president ultimately chose neither option, allowing the measure to become law without his signature.
Though Trump declined to veto the legislation, he sharply criticized elements of the bill and argued it should not have been a legislative priority in recent weeks.
“It’s so unimportant … compared to the SAVE America Act,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office in late June. “I think the SAVE America Act is exactly what it says. It’s saving America from crooked elections.”
Trump went on to call the housing bill “a yawn,” adding, “compared to the SAVE America Act, just about everything is a big yawn.”
It would have taken a two-thirds majority in both chambers to override a veto — a margin the House and Senate exceeded when they passed the legislation. However, it remains unclear whether so many Republicans would have defied the president had he vetoed the bill.
Trump also appeared to criticize the bill over a provision restricting Wall Street investors from purchasing single-family homes — a policy he first proposed during his January State of the Union address and later urged Congress to pass. Trump previously argued the investor ban would give individual homebuyers a leg up against private equity firms in the housing market.
“I don’t want to hurt people that own houses, too,” Trump later told reporters, appearing to reference the provision. “These people, for the first time in their lives, they have valuable houses. They’ve become rich. I don’t want to hurt them either. What you want to do is what’s good for everyone, get the interest rates down.”
The law also aims to boost housing supply by streamlining federal environmental reviews, loosening rules around the construction of factory-built homes, and incentivizing local governments to modify their zoning laws to allow more housing, among roughly 60 provisions.
Trump’s souring on the legislation created headaches for Republicans, who touted the bill as an affordability win as voters grapple with high housing costs.
“It’s irresponsible to postpone signing the Housing bill due to the SAVE Act,” Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., a retiring lawmaker who lost re-election to a Trump-backed challenger, wrote on social media. “We need to start delivering relief to people for the high cost of housing ASAP!!”
Construction workers stand on the roof of homes under construction at a new housing development on June 24, 2026, in Valencia, Calif. (Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)
WARREN TELLS TRUMP TO ‘SIGN THE DAMN BILL’ AS BIPARTISAN HOUSING PACKAGE REMAINS STALLED IN WASHINGTON
Trump abruptly canceled a signing ceremony for the legislation at the U.S. Capitol in June with GOP leaders. The stage had already been set, with at least one senior Republican arriving unaware the president had called off the event shortly before it was scheduled to begin.
The president then declared he would not sign the legislation until Congress passed the SAVE America Act, despite Senate GOP leaders insisting the votes do not exist to advance the measure.
Trump has also expressed frustration with the Republican-controlled Senate for declining to weaken the legislative filibuster, which requires 60 votes to advance most legislation in the upper chamber.
“GET SMART REPUBLICANS, IF YOU DON’T, YOU WON’T BE IN OFFICE FOR LONG!” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post on Sunday.
Before Trump came out against the bill, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt called it “one of the most significant pieces of housing affordability legislation in American history” and said it included an array of policies “long championed” by Trump.
House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Republican from Louisiana, speaks during a news conference at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., on Oct. 15, 2025. (Eric Lee/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
Meanwhile, Trump political operative James Blair touted the legislation for including the president’s Wall Street investor ban, which he referred to as a “signature commitment.”
House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., has argued that Republicans will still promote the landmark housing bill ahead of November.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
“We’ll still celebrate it, but he’s trying to make a point, and I think he’s making it very effectively,” the speaker recently told reporters, referring to Trump. “And the fact that you all ask me every three steps down the hallway illustrates that he has achieved the desired objective, and that is to make SAVE America the number one thing, because if we don’t get that right, everybody’s concerned about what happens next.”
Politics
Trump administration clears path for controversial Mojave Desert water pipeline
The Trump administration has signed off on a company’s plan to convert an oil and gas pipeline to pump groundwater from the Mojave Desert to thirsty California cities for the first time, a lucrative venture that critics say threatens natural springs and wildlife.
The federal Bureau of Land Management released documents Thursday saying that Cadiz Inc.’s plan to repurpose 162 miles of the pipeline to transport water “will not significantly affect” the environment.
“We’re excited to achieve this pivotal milestone. After many years of planning and environmental review, the project has now reached the construction stage,” said Susan Kennedy, chair and chief executive of Cadiz.
Environmental advocates and leaders of Native tribes, who have been fighting the project, criticized the decision.
“This groundwater mining proposal would drain the desert and rob the Mojave of its rare springs and wildlife habitat,” said Chance Wilcox, California desert associate director of the National Parks Conservation Assn. “It’s indefensible that the Trump administration would once again try to revive the pointless Cadiz project, by defying decades of scientific warnings and refusing to conduct an environmental review of the groundwater mining.”
The application for the federal authorization was filed by the Fenner Gap Mutual Water Co. The documents say the company plans to build seven pump stations, three of them located on federal land managed by the agency.
The 30-inch steel pipeline runs underground from Cadiz’s desert property, near the town of Amboy, northward to the town of Mojave.
The BLM said in its authorization that repurposing the pipeline for water “would comply with all applicable statutes and regulations.” The agency said it has “reasonably determined that the impacts of groundwater withdrawal associated with Cadiz’s groundwater extraction project are outside the scope of analysis.”
Cadiz’s attempts to export water from its property 200 miles east of Los Angeles have drawn controversy for decades.
In 2019, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed legislation that requires the project to undergo scientific study and gain approval from the State Lands Commission before it can take water from the Mojave and sell it to California cities.
Activists opposing the company’s plans include civil rights leader Dolores Huerta.
“Cadiz spells destruction for water, sacred lands, and the desert economy,” Huerta said in a statement. “It is exactly this type of greed and injustice that I have dedicated my life to oppose.”
Leaders of nearby tribes have also objected to Cadiz’s plans to pump from the desert aquifer near the Mojave Trails National Monument and Mojave National Preserve.
“It is the living heart of the desert,” said Daniel Leivas, chairman of the Chemehuevi Indian Tribe. “To drain it would be to drain the life out of the entire desert. No profit is worth such desecration.”
Chairman Timothy Williams of the Fort Mojave Indian Tribe said the company’s plan “to pump and sell 25 times more groundwater each year than the aquifer can replenish would desecrate our traditional territories.”
“Pumping more groundwater than is sustainably replenished is not only negligent, but dangerous to the American Desert Southwest,” he said in the joint statement with other opponents of the project.
For years, while pursuing its plan to sell water far away, the company has been using wells on its property to irrigate nearly 2,000 acres of farmland growing lemons, grapes and other crops. It has drilled more wells in anticipation of being able to export water once the government approved its pipeline.
The company intends to pipe water to communities in San Bernardino County and says it’s “expected to provide one of the lowest-cost sources of new water in the drought-plagued Southwest.” It says the federal permit “marks a key milestone as we finalize project financing with prospective investors.”
Cadiz bought the 220-mile pipeline from El Paso Natural Gas in 2020. Once construction is completed, the company says the pipeline will be able to transport up to 25,000 acre-feet of water per year — about 5% of what Los Angeles uses each year.
The Los Angeles-based corporation is also seeking to build a new pipeline along a railroad right-of-way to transport water to the south.
Environmental groups have repeatedly filed lawsuits challenging the project.
Ileene Anderson, a senior scientist at the Center for Biological Diversity, called the Trump administration’s decision “a green light for environmental destruction.”
She said six of the proposed pumping stations slated to be built are in the habitat of desert tortoises, a species in decline.
“We’ve successfully fended off this project before and we’ll continue to fight to stop this zombie from coming back,” Anderson said.
In 2021, the Biden administration reversed a Trump administration decision that had cleared the way for Cadiz to pipe water across public land. In 2022, a federal judge scrapped the pipeline permit that the Trump administration had issued.
But during President Trump’s second term, the company has again made headway on its plans. In February, Cadiz announced that the federal Environmental Protection Agency had invited it to submit an application for a $194-million low-interest loan for the northern pipeline project.
The company said in May that it reached an agreement with the federal Bureau of Reclamation to provide funding for a review of its potential role in “augmenting water supplies” along the shrinking Colorado River.
The company has also been lobbying the Trump administration. The group Public Citizen said in a recent report that Cadiz, through its nonprofit Fenner Gap Mutual Water Co., enlisted former Interior Secretary David Bernhardt’s new lobbying firm, the Bernhardt Group, and has spent at least $330,000 on lobbying in 2025 and 2026.
Records show lobbyist Luke Johnson has repeatedly accompanied Kennedy at meetings with Interior Department officials.
“The extensive influence of David Bernhardt’s boutique lobbying firm on the agency he formerly led highlights how insider firms staffed with former Trump officials have grown in recent years,” said Alan Zibel, a research director with Public Citizen. He said Bernhardt and his lobbyists “have learned how to master influence-peddling in the anything-goes era of Trump 2.0.”
Earlier this month, an Arizona water agency announced it signed an initial “memorandum of understanding” agreement to buy up to 10,000 acre-feet of water per year from Cadiz’s Mojave Groundwater Bank. The Central Arizona Irrigation and Drainage District provides water to farmlands in Pinal County, where growers are dealing with water cutbacks.
The company said that for this to happen, it would need to build pipelines and reach deals to exchange water across state lines.
Members of California’s congressional delegation have raised concerns. In a recent letter to Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, California Sens. Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla called for a thorough environmental review, saying that federal agencies and peer-reviewed scientific analyses have “warned of the significant and irreversible impacts that Cadiz’s project could have on federal lands and surrounding communities.”
Rep. Raul Ruiz (D-Indio) said in a letter to Burgum that he is concerned about the company’s long-standing effort to extract and export groundwater.
“The area I represent cannot afford to absorb the long-term costs of a commercially driven groundwater export scheme,” Ruiz said.
Politics
Trump Promotes ‘Freedom Fuel’ Gas Stations as Gas Prices Rise Again
President Trump has promoted a chain of newly rebranded gas stations across the Philadelphia area with lower gas prices. The New York Times has not been able to get detailed information about who is behind the stations. The Trump administration says it did not fund or subsidize the company.
-
Wyoming7 minutes agoResidents celebrate Wyoming Statehood Day by revealing their favorite thing about the Cowboy State
-
Crypto10 minutes ago
Trump’s crypto grift spins into its own industry
-
Finance22 minutes agoNew changes to financial aid will be minor for UND students, bigger for loan borrowers in repayment
-
Fitness25 minutes agoThe NHS has reignited the hybrid working debate – but WFH isn’t the health risk, this is
-
Movie Reviews37 minutes ago‘Only Beautiful Things to Look At’ Review: A Handsome but Muffled Portrait of State-Sanctioned Cruelty
-
World45 minutes agoColombia Adds Massive Soundstage as Bogotá Audiovisual Market Attendance Soars and ‘Narcos’ Star-Led ‘Rookies’ Cleans Up in Project Prizes
-
News52 minutes ago
How a Beer Hall Keeps Up With a World Cup Crowd
-
Lifestyle1 hour agoShy on the dance floor? Virtual reality ‘partners’ aim to help you find your groove