Connect with us

Politics

PBS and NPR on edge over FCC letter and Trump budget scrutiny

Published

on

PBS and NPR on edge over FCC letter and Trump budget scrutiny

Forty years ago, the Reagan administration told PBS to find ways to increase funding for public television outside of taxpayer dollars.

It did.

PBS’ response to the challenge was to enhance the way it acknowledged sponsors. Instead of merely running a company logo before its programming, PBS let corporate underwriters place messages that looked more like standard commercials.

That process helped sustain such programs as “Nova,” “Masterpiece” and Ken Burns’ acclaimed documentaries. But it’s now under scrutiny from Trump-appointed Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr, who says the spots “cross the line into prohibited commercial advertisements.”

In a Jan. 30 letter to PBS and NPR, which also airs corporate sponsorship messages, Carr stated his support for ending federal funding of public broadcasting.

Advertisement

“For my own part, I do not see a reason why Congress should continue sending taxpayer dollars to NPR and PBS,” he wrote, citing the array of media choices available to consumers.

Conservative politicians have long argued for cutting support of PBS and NPR, which they accuse of promoting liberal policies. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) has proposed a bill calling for ending federal funding of the outlets, calling his legislation the Defund Government-Sponsored Propaganda Act.

Republican administrations have tried to cut off government funding since the days of the Nixon White House. But in the age of DOGE, where Elon Musk is given free rein by President Trump to slice and dice the federal budget, Carr’s focus feels more urgent.

“Carr bringing this up so early in his chairmanship shows that this is something that he’s really interested in dealing with,” said Jeff McCall, a professor of communications at DePauw University. “That’s what makes it feel different.”

PBS and NPR are just the latest targets of Carr, who has been aggressive in attacking the owners of broadcast channels licensed by the government. His actions have dovetailed with Trump’s animus toward mainstream media outlets that cover him critically.

Advertisement

Since taking over as chairman, Carr has revived bias complaints against CBS, ABC and NBC over their 2024 presidential campaign coverage after the Biden administration dismissed them. He has taken public comments in an inquiry of a news distortion complaint against CBS over the way “60 Minutes” edited an interview with Vice President Kamala Harris before the election.

The complaints against CBS, ABC and NBC were filed by the Center for American Rights, a conservative nonprofit law firm.

Carr’s Jan. 30 letter raised no specific examples that showed PBS or NPR violating the rules for public broadcasters.

“We’ve always envisioned a small amount of government funding matched by philanthropy and then matched by corporate support,” said PBS President Paula Kerger in an interview. “We have worked with the FCC to make sure that we’re complying in the spirit of what they believe we should be doing.”

Katherine Maher, president and chief executive of NPR, also said in a statement that the service has adhered to the FCC guidelines on underwriting messages.

Advertisement

As far as the fate of federal funding for PBS is concerned, Kerger is used to playing defense when a new administration takes over the White House.

“I never make the assumption that our government funding is just going to continue in the way that it has,” Kerger said. “I think it’s up to us, frankly, every year to make the case of why public media is important.”

Kerger noted that most of the government funding goes directly to PBS member TV stations that are locally owned and managed. The $595 million requested for the next appropriation for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which distributes government funds to public stations, is more vital for outlets in rural areas which were more likely to have voted for Trump.

“The budgets of those stations are smaller, and proportionately, the amount of government funding that goes to them is usually quite significant,” Kerger said. “Sometimes as much as 40 to 50% comes out of the federal appropriation. And so we argue for this money specifically because those stations clearly would not exist.”

During her tenure, Kerger has paid close attention to stations in smaller towns such as Cookeville, Tenn. that provide free over-the-air PBS programming to residents who can’t afford pay TV subscriptions or adequate broadband for streaming. The stations also provide a backup for the wireless emergency alert system used to send weather warnings and Amber alerts.

Advertisement

“The needs of Cookeville are different than New York City,” Kerger said. “And in the case of a state like Florida, our television stations actually run a really robust network of information for people, not only as a storm is approaching, but throughout the storm.”

Nonprofit organizations that run public radio and TV stations are urging their donors and listeners to call on their representatives in Congress to resist cuts. Public media funding has survived thanks to bipartisan support.

PBS SoCal and others are promoting Protect My Public Media Day on March 6 to rally support.

Stations are using the data from a recent YouGov poll commissioned by PBS that shows Trump voters are in favor of government funding for the service, with 65% of them saying the current levels are “about right or too little.”

While public media has fended off proposed cuts in the past, McCall believes PBS and NPR need to buckle up with a determined Carr in charge.

Advertisement

“Even when you had Republican presidents, I don’t think those [FCC] chairmen ever really had the stomach to deal with this kind of thing,” he said.

Politics

Trump takes unusual step, lets bipartisan housing bill become law unsigned amid SAVE pressure campaign

Published

on

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. 

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

“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.”

Advertisement

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

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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.”

Advertisement

Continue Reading

Politics

Trump administration clears path for controversial Mojave Desert water pipeline

Published

on

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.

Advertisement

“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.

Advertisement

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.”

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

“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.

Advertisement

“The area I represent cannot afford to absorb the long-term costs of a commercially driven groundwater export scheme,” Ruiz said.

Continue Reading

Politics

Trump Promotes ‘Freedom Fuel’ Gas Stations as Gas Prices Rise Again

Published

on

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.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending