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.

We learned something on Capitol Hill this week.

House Republicans can pass a government funding bill without Democratic assistance.

Barely. 217-213.

Republicans could only lose one vote. And that’s all they lost: Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky.

THE HITCHHIKER’S GUIDE TO WHERE WE STAND WITH A POTENTIAL GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN

The GOP bill even picked up one Democratic yea: Rep. Jared Golden, D-Maine.

Passing government funding bills on their own wasn’t always the case for the House GOP. Republicans have held the House majority for more than two years now. The GOP majority consistently leaned on Democrats – serving in the minority – for many of the votes to keep the government open and lift the debt ceiling. But that changed late Tuesday afternoon as House Republicans approved their own bill to keep the lights on.

But before the vote, House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., berated Democrats for opposing the temporary spending package, known as a “Continuing Resolution” or “CR.”

“If Congressional Democrats refuse to support this clean CR, they will be responsible for every troop who misses a paycheck. For every flight delay from reduced staffing at TSA. For every negative consequence that comes from shutting down the government,” said Johnson.

It was unclear if Johnson could pass the bill with just Republicans. Especially as the Speaker upbraided Democrats for vowing to vote nay.

“You continually criticize the Democrats,” yours truly said to the Speaker. “Doesn’t that imply that you don’t have the votes on your side? Because you wouldn’t need Democratic assistance to keep the government?”

“No. We will have the votes,” responded Johnson. “We’re going to pass the CR and we can do it on our own.”

A few hours later, the Speaker made good on his promise.

But he had an assist.

Vice President JD Vance came to the Capitol to assuage fears of skeptical House Republicans Tuesday morning. But Vance didn’t quite close the deal.

“I saw some looks in there that didn’t leave me feeling good as to securing the votes of those who may be having questions,” said Rep. Mark Alford, R-Mo., after the House Republican conclave with Vance.

Rep. Kat Cammack, R-Fla., and others said they needed more assurances about future spending cuts. Rep. Tim Burchett, R-Tenn., said he would “pray” about how to vote on the bill. But heading into the meeting, Burchett conceded he hadn’t yet experienced any political intercession.

“I’m uncomfortable with giving the Pentagon more money, even though overall, we’re cutting,” said Burchett.

By afternoon, Burchett told me he was “closer,” but still not there.

And when the House voted, it passed the bill.

REPORTER’S NOTEBOOK: HERE WE GO AGAIN (AGAIN)

But what made the difference when it came to convincing skittish Republicans to vote yes?

Rep. Eric Burlison, R-Mo., told Fox he was “barely” for the CR.

“What’s the ‘barely’ part?” I asked.

“The ‘barely” is Donald Trump. He is the difference maker. I would never support this language. But I do trust Donald Trump,” said Burlison. “He’s not let me down. I think that he is a man of his word. And so I believe him when he’s when he says he’s going to get it done.”

But that was only half of the battle. The bill earned the support of all but one Senate Republican. But 60 votes are necessary to break a filibuster. Republicans only have 53 GOP members. So that would entail assistance from Democrats.

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said he opposed the bill because it didn’t cut spending. Paul said he didn’t get any blowback from the President or fellow Republicans on his position.

The US Capitol in Washington, DC, on Monday, Nov. 11, 2024.  (Stefani Reynolds/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

“People know kind of where I am. I’m pretty consistent on opposing debt and opposing spending,” said Paul.

Contrast the silence Paul has heard to how President Trump unloaded on his Bluegrass State colleague, Thomas Massie. Mr. Trump argued that Massie should face a primary for his defection.

Sen. John Fetterman, D-Penn., is the only Democrat on the record support the stopgap spending bill.

So, it’s about the math.

With only 52 Republicans primed to crack a filibuster, that means the Senate needs eight Democrats to vote yes. That includes Fetterman. Note that they don’t have to vote yes on the bill. Just to overcome the filibuster. Republicans can pass the bill on their own with a simple majority.

This leaves Democrats as badly torn as any party in recently on any issue.

On one hand, Democrats don’t want to shutter the government. They fear that will imperil already skittish federal workers. And it could lead to additional cuts from Elon Musk and DOGE if federal workers aren’t on the job.

On the other hand, they want to be seen as fighting for their base and rally against President Trump and Musk.

But it is often the darkest before the dawn.

TRUMP’S UNION-ENDORSED PICK CONFIRMED BY SENATE TO LEAD LABOR DEPARTMENT

Democrats must either go to the mat or try to salvage something before the 11:59:59 pm et government funding deadline Friday.

There are rattlings that Democrats may ask for votes on a universe of amendments – none of which would pass. But at least Democrats could save face – telling their loyalists that they fought for their values and tried to stand up to the President and Musk. They could also make the case that a shutdown is worse than keeping the government open.

Fox is told senators would be interested in votes on the following subjects:

• Restoring funding for Washington, DC
• Restricting DOGE and/or efforts by the administration to “impound” money already appropriated by Congress
• A Democratic one-month, stopgap spending bill

Fetterman appeared to be the only Democrat willing to vote for the GOP interim spending bill, but Thursday, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) announced he would vote for it. And it’s possible that a vote on a set of amendments could unlock a few Democratic votes to break a filibuster on the bill.

But tensions are now running high.

Reporters staking out a meeting of Senate Democrats talking about the shutdown heard who they believe was Sen. Kirstin Gillibrand, D-N.Y., screaming at her colleagues through he thick Capitol walls.

Multiple Senate Democrats were utterly silent as they left a lengthy Senate Democratic Caucus. None of the senators approached by Fox were willing to talk – even though some are quite loquacious under other circumstances. In fact Fox even asked several of the Democrats if they were told not to say anything. Several replied “no comment.”

Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., talks with reporters in Russell building after a senate vote on Wednesday, February 19, 2025. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

Quiet on Capitol Hill often means something is up and that lawmakers are trying to broker a very fragile deal. It also means that lawmakers are fuming.

There was genuine fear among Democrats that a government shutdown could permanently imperil the federal government and perhaps trigger additional layoffs of thousands of federal workers.

Here’s the other problem: If the government shut down, no one is quite sure HOW it could re-open. It’s about the math. And the calculus under those circumstances simply did not work to for the House and Senate to eventually pass the same bill and re-open the government. That calculus simply did not seem to work. 

That’s why Schumer made the decision to support the Band-Aid spending bill – as risky as it is. 

Schumer and Trump. (AP/Getty Images)

This is why multiple Senate Democrats refused to comment on what Schumer told them at the closed-door caucus meeting today. That’s why tempers flared and Sen. Kirstin Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) was heard yelling through the thick Senate walls.

But this is not without peril for Schumer.

He needs to convince six other Democrats (for a grand total of eight) to support overcoming a filibuster. 

There are 53 Senate Republicans. 60 votes are needed to avert a filibuster. 

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is a no. So the deficit is eight. Schumer and Sen. John Fetterman (D-Penn.) are the first two Democrats to say they are willing to vote to overcome a filibuster. So Schumer needs six more. 

If he can’t find those votes, the government will close. And Schumer will have committed a tremendous tactical error. 

As the saying goes, a leader with no followers is just a man out for a walk.

Former House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, used to say that “nothing good” ever happens when Congress has been in session for more than three consecutive weeks.

Members grow angry. Antsy. Tempers are short.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., noted that the Senate has met for ten consecutive weeks.

“Senators have been seeing a lot of each other lately. In fact, too much,” said Thune.

That includes three all-night sessions and weekend sessions. This period is the longest stretch of consecutive weeks for Senate activity in 15 years.

The Senate is scheduled to be out next week for the first time this year. A government shutdown trashes the recess. Senators have barely seen their family members. It’s been a frenetic pace.

That’s why the most powerful people in Washington could have the ultimate say about funding the government: Senate spouses.

And if the Senate aligns with the House, they will have averted a government shutdown.

But barely.