House Freedom Caucus Chair Bob Good, R-Va., is calling for an end to taxpayer-funded media, the latest top Republican to push back on National Public Radio (NPR) after a now-former employee accused it of operating with an overwhelming left-wing bias.

Good’s new Defund NPR Act, introduced Friday, would block federal funding from going directly toward NPR and also block public radio stations that get federal grants from using those taxpayer funds to buy content from or pay dues to NPR as a member station.

“The government shouldn’t be in the business of funding media, and it certainly shouldn’t be funding media that has a clear bias,” Good told Fox News Digital in his first interview on the legislation. “NPR has had a clear left-wing bias for decades, and it’s just growing by the day. And there’s no reason for taxpayers to have to fund this.”

NPR WHISTLEBLOWER URI BERLINER RESIGNS: ‘I CANNOT WORK IN A NEWSROOM WHERE I AM DISPARAGED’

The Virginia Republican said that if the case were reversed – a partially federally funded outlet being accused of a rightward slant – the public outrage would be compounded.

“We have a free and open press, or at least theoretically we’re supposed to in this country, as protected in our First Amendment, and that’s a critical, foundational right in this country,” he said. “But the government shouldn’t be putting their thumb on the scale and forcing taxpayers to fund that. Could you imagine if we were trying to get what was recognized as a strong conservative-leaning media organization to be funded by taxpayers? Can you imagine the outrage in doing so?”

Conservatives have long accused NPR of reporting with a left-wing bias while some of its funding is provided through federal grants and other government-backed dollars.

Those concerns were recently magnified when now-former NPR editor Uri Berliner asserted in an op-ed that the outlet mishandled critical stories that stemmed from Hunter Biden’s laptop hard drive and COVID-19 lab leak theories, among others, and that registered Democrats were vastly overrepresented in the newsroom by 87 to 0.

NPR CEO DODGES QUESTION ON IF SHE SHOULD PRIORITIZE ‘VIEWPOINT DIVERSITY’ IN THE NEWSROOM FOLLOWING EDITOR’S EXIT

Rep. Bob Good’s proposed bill comes after former NPR editor Uri Berliner, above, accused the newsroom of extreme bias. (JP Yim/WireImage/File)

NPR chief news executive Edith Chapin responded in a statement published by the outlet, “We’re proud to stand behind the exceptional work that our desks and shows do to cover a wide range of challenging stories. … We believe that inclusion – among our staff, with our sourcing, and in our overall coverage – is critical to telling the nuanced stories of this country and our world.”

Berliner was suspended without pay for five days soon after, but he resigned a day later.

“I respect the integrity of my colleagues and wish for NPR to thrive and do important journalism,” Berliner said in a portion of his resignation letter to NPR CEO Katherine Maher, in which he also opposed calls to defund NPR. “But I cannot work in a newsroom where I am disparaged by a new CEO whose divisive views confirm the very problems at NPR I cited in my Free Press essay.”

Good told Fox News Digital that Maher “doesn’t seem concerned about truth.”

NPR BOSS ONCE CALLED FIRST AMENDMENT A ‘CHALLENGE’ AND ‘REVERENCE TO THE TRUTH’ A DISTRACTION

NPR CEO Katherine Maher has also caught criticism in the fallout. (Screenshot/Carnegie Endowment/File)

“She’s clearly a left-wing individual as well, and she fits for that organization. And that’s fine, but it shouldn’t be on the taxpayer dollar,” Good said.

While most of NPR’s funding comes from corporate sponsorships, according to its site, the nonprofit also benefits both directly and indirectly from federal funds. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which got a fiscal 2026 advance of $535 million in the latest government funding deal, oversees both NPR and the Public Broadcasting Service.

Fox News Digital reached out to NPR for comment on Good’s bill and comments.

The scheme at the heart of the charges against Donald Trump in New York is well-known: To keep allegations of an affair with the adult-film actress Stormy Daniels from becoming public, Trump is accused of agreeing to pay her $130,000, camouflaged as payments to Michael Cohen for legal services. It’s in the camouflaging that Trump is charged with committing the 34 felonies at issue before a jury starting Monday.

But the jury, and the country, are going to hear a lot of evidence of Trump’s other allegedly wrongful acts — and a virtual avalanche of such evidence should the defendant decide to testify. That will paint a broader and more damning portrait of Trump, who is reportedly already on tenterhooks about Daniels’ expected testimony, giving him even more opportunities to complain that he is the victim of a no-holds-barred railroading at the hands of Manhattan Dist. Atty. Alvin Bragg.

Bragg’s team can introduce information about Trump’s other alleged misconduct under New York’s rules of evidence, which mirror the federal courts’. Known in New York as “Molineux evidence,” after the case that defined it, it’s generally considered a bonanza for prosecutors and a bane of defendants.

It’s an axiom of criminal law that jurors should assess guilt or innocence based on the defendant’s conduct in the case before them. That means they shouldn’t make their decision based on judgments about the defendant’s character — for example, that the defendant is a “bad person” who, having done bad things in the past, probably did them again. So it would be improper to introduce the fact that an alleged bank robber previously robbed a bank to show that he is a “bank-robbing kind of person” and therefore likely committed the bank robbery he’s now charged with.

New York’s rule generally prohibits the prosecution from relying on “character” or “propensity” evidence to urge conviction. But it’s riddled with exceptions that permit prosecutors to offer evidence of prior bad acts for many purposes other than character, including to show “motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident” — more or less anything other than the forbidden character inference.

One example in Trump’s case, greenlighted by the court over his vigorous objections, concerns a “catch and kill” scheme in which the National Enquirer agreed to buy and then bury embarrassing stories about the then-candidate. That’s not what happened in Daniels’ case, but Judge Juan M. Merchan agreed to let the prosecution present it to the jury. His rationale was that it is part of the same “narrative of events that precipitated” the alleged falsification of records and could help prove Trump’s purported intent to conceal allegations of affairs from voters.

Merchan likewise ruled that the prosecution may introduce a transcript of the notorious “Access Hollywood” tape in which Trump boasted of sexually assaulting women. The judge found that the comments could help show Trump’s motive for concealing the alleged Daniels affair because the revelation of the tape was a crisis for his campaign.

For similar reasons, Merchan is permitting testimony from model Karen McDougal about the affair she says she had with Trump and the Enquirer’s suppression of her story. Likewise, the court approved a limited presentation of evidence about the alleged purchase of information from a Trump Tower doorman, Dino Sajudin, to the effect that Trump fathered a child with a housekeeper.

The court will instruct the jury to regard the evidence only for its permissible purposes — for example, to demonstrate intent — and not to infer that because Trump may have done something bad before, he probably did so again. But trial lawyers understand that inferring acts based on character is human nature; it’s very hard in practice to prevent jurors from indulging the impermissible inference.

Moreover, if Trump takes the stand — as he has flatly asserted he will — that would permit the district attorney’s team to unleash a torrent of additional evidence of prior bad acts. That’s because the former president would be putting his own credibility at issue, enabling prosecutors to introduce more evidence related to that question.

On Monday, Merchan ruled that prosecutors may use several noxious episodes from Trump’s past to impeach his testimony if he takes the stand. They include New York Atty. Gen. Letitia James’ successful fraud case against Trump’s business and the writer E. Jean Carroll’s victorious lawsuit for sexual assault and defamation.

Such testimony would likely appall jurors who already have some notion of Trump’s essential sleaziness. It’s one of several reasons that notwithstanding his bombast, we should not expect him to testify. Trump’s more likely role in court over the coming weeks will be to sit still and seethe silently.

Harry Litman is the host of the “Talking Feds” podcast and the Talking San Diego speaker series. @harrylitman

Rep. John Carter, R-Texas said “unhinged anti-Israel activists” vandalized his Georgetown office, posting pictures of the display on social media just days after he voted in favor of providing $26 billion in aid to Israel.

On Monday morning, Carter posted an image of the door to his Georgetown, Texas office, splattered with red liquid that spelled out, “Free Gaza.”

“Unhinged anti-Israel activists vandalized my Georgetown office,” he posted. “Let me make 2 things clear, my support of Israel is unwavering & your intimidation won’t work. Secondly, the parties responsible will be found & will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.”

FOX 7 in Austin reported that officers with the Georgetown Police Department responded to Carter’s office at about 8:45 a.m. after reports of a possible burglary.

AOC CALLS COLUMBIA PROTESTS ‘PEACEFUL’, DESPITE RABBI WARNING JEWISH STUDENTS TO STAY HOME

Police told the station it is investigating the vandalism as criminal mischief, which in Texas is a misdemeanor if the loss is between $750 and $2,500.

Police told the station a representative from Carter’s office estimated the cost to clean up the damage to be around $2,000.

Carter’s office did not respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment.

COLUMBIA RABBI TELLS JEWISH STUDENTS TO LEAVE CAMPUS, WARNS THAT SCHOOL, NYPD ‘CANNOT GUARANTEE YOUR SAFETY’

Carter joined 365 other members of the House of Representatives in voting in favor of the Israel Security Supplemental Appropriations Act, sending the bill to the Senate for further approval.

Under the bill, the U.S. would provide $26.38 billion in aid to Israel along with several other provisions.

The bill comes at a time when anti-Israel agitators continue to protest at major cities and universities across the country, including Columbia University in New York City.