NPR has suspended a veteran editor who wrote an essay criticizing the public broadcaster for having what he described as a lack of politically diverse viewpoints.

Uri Berliner, an award-winning business journalist who has worked at the network for 25 years, will be off the job for five days without pay. Berliner acknowledged the suspension Monday in an interview with National Public Radio. He did not respond to The Times’ request for comment.

The suspension came after Berliner put a harsh spotlight on NPR with an April 9 opinion piece for the Substack newsletter the Free Press. He said the decline in NPR’s audience levels is due to a move toward liberal political advocacy and catering to “a distilled worldview of a very small segment of the U.S. population.” The overall thrust of the piece asserted that NPR has “lost America’s trust.”

An NPR representative said the network “does not comment on individual personnel matters, including discipline. We expect all of our employees to comply with NPR policies and procedures, which for our editorial staff includes the NPR Ethics Handbook.”

Berliner was told by management last week that he violated company policy by failing to secure its approval to supply work for other news outlets, according to an NPR news report by media correspondent David Folkenflik. Berliner was informed that he will be fired if he violates that policy again.

Berliner’s essay has been seized on by right-wing media outlets that frequently accuse NPR and other mainstream news sources of a liberal bias.

On Monday, conservative activists resurfaced years old social media posts by current NPR Chief Executive Katherine Maher, in which she expressed her disdain for former President Trump. In one 2020 post, she called Trump a racist.

Maher took on her NPR role in January. She previously headed the nonprofit Wikimedia Foundation, which operates Wikipedia, and has no previous experience in journalism. NPR has said Maher was not in an editorial role at the foundation when she made the social media posts, adding that she “is entitled to free speech as a private citizen.”

Berliner’s essay said the network began to lose its way after Trump’s 2016 election victory.

“I eagerly voted against Trump twice but felt we were obliged to cover him fairly,” Berliner wrote. “But what began as tough, straightforward coverage of a belligerent, truth-impaired president veered toward efforts to damage or topple Trump’s presidency.”

Berliner said the network overplayed the investigation of Russian collusion with the Trump campaign in the 2016 presidential election. He also said the news operation turned a blind eye to the story of the laptop abandoned by President Biden’s son Hunter in October 2020, out of concern that coverage of the matter would help reelect Trump.

Berliner was also critical of NPR’s coverage of the Israel-Hamas war and the origins of the COVID-19 virus, as well as the organization’s focus on race and identity, which he said “became paramount in nearly every aspect of the workplace.”

Edith Chapin, NPR’s chief news executive, rejected Berliner’s analysis in a memo to staff after his piece was published.

“We’re proud to stand behind the exceptional work that our desks and shows do to cover a wide range of challenging stories,” she wrote. “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.”

New York Attorney General Letitia James is pushing the judge in former President Donald Trump’s civil fraud case to void the $175 million bond that Trump previously posted to appeal his New York civil lawsuit.

In her 26-page filing obtained by Fox News Digital, James questions whether the insurance company has sufficient funds to back it up.

Trump’s bond was posted by California-based Knight Specialty Insurance Company (KSIC), but James argued that the insurer was “not authorized” to write business in New York, stating it is a small insurer that is not authorized to write business in New York and is not regulated by the state’s insurance department, had never before written a surety bond in New York or in the prior two years in any other jurisdiction, and has a total policyholder surplus of just $138 million.

The company has a total policyholder surplus of just $138 million, the filing states. According to New York state law, smaller businesses like KSIC are not permitted to expose themselves to liabilities, like a bond, or any potential loss greater than 10 percent of their surplus.

NEW YORK AG TAKES VICTORY LAP AFTER TRUMP FRAUD RULING: ‘JUSTICE HAS BEEN SERVED’

“Based on KSIC’s policyholder surplus in its most recent annual financial statement of $138,441,671, the limitation of loss on any one risk that KSIC is permitted to write is $13.8 million,” the lawyers wrote. “The face amount of the bond exceeds this limitation by $161.2 million.”

James also wrote in the filing that “KSIC is not qualified to act as the surety under this standard because its management has been found by federal authorities to have operated affiliated companies within KSIC’s holding company structure in violation of federal law on multiple occasions within the past several years.”

“KSIC does not now have an exclusive right to control the account and will not obtain such control unless and until it exercises a right to do so on two days’ notice,” the filing read.

James also wrote that the Court should not rely on KSIC’s financial summary attached to the bond as evidence that KSIC has sufficient capacity to justify writing a $175 million bond.

“That is because KSIC sends 100% of its retained insurance risk to affiliates in the Cayman Islands, where lax regulations allow KSIC to use this risk transfer to reduce the liabilities it carries on its books in a way that artificially bolsters its surplus, a practice New York regulators have dubbed “shadow insurance” and about which they have sounded the alarm,” the filing read. 

For these reasons, James writes that the Court should deny the Motion and require Defendants to post a replacement undertaking within seven days of the Court’s ruling.

NY AG LETITIA JAMES BOOED AT FDNY CEREMONY WITH CHANTS OF ‘TRUMP! TRUMP! TRUMP!’

Democrat New York Attorney General Letitia James and former President Donald Trump. (Getty Images)

In September, Judge Arthur Engoron ruled that Trump and the Trump Organization had committed fraud while building a real estate empire by deceiving banks, insurers and others by overvaluing his assets and exaggerating his net worth on paperwork used in making deals and securing financing.

The judge also prohibited Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump from serving as an officer or director of any New York corporation or legal entity in New York for two years. 

The former president has repeatedly slammed the case against him and denied any wrongdoing, calling it a “witch hunt.” 

James brought the lawsuit against Trump, accusing Trump and the Trump Organization of fraudulent business practices. James claimed Donald Jr., Ivanka, and Eric, as well as his associates and businesses, committed “numerous acts of fraud and misrepresentation” on their financial statements.

Trump has pleaded not guilty on all counts. 

CLICK TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

The judge is expected to hold a hearing Monday to discuss the issues raised by the attorney general’s office. The hearing is set to run in conjunction with opening statements in Trump’s New York criminal trial.

Fox News’ Brooke Singman and Timothy Nerozzi contributed to this report.

Just a few years ago, California’s budget was overflowing with a record high surplus, spurring the creation of a slew of programs reflecting the state’s liberal ideals.

Democrats who control the state Capitol funded pilots to test new ways to support foster youth, help oil workers transition to cleaner industries and prevent more Californians from becoming homeless — just some of the ambitious ideas that became reality when the budget was flush.

Now, as the state faces an enormous budget deficit that the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office predicted in February could be as much as $73 billion, some of those programs could come to a screeching halt.

Gov. Gavin Newsom and Democratic lawmakers are considering significant cuts to some of the very initiatives they recently helped launch while promising to “protect our progress.”

It’s both a reflection of California’s wild budget fluctuations and what can happen in a one-party state known as a progressive policy trailblazer when financial times are good.

For Republicans, it’s an “I told you so” moment.

“The surpluses were absolutely abnormal. They should have put much more money into the budgetary reserve than they did,” said Sen. Roger Niello (R-Fair Oaks), vice chair of the Senate Budget Committee.

Newsom’s budget last year included record reserves of nearly $38 billion, but for those in the minority party like Niello, more could have been put away in lieu of creating costly new programs.

“Let’s not get too crazy with these huge revenues,” is the approach Democrats should have taken, Niello said.

Organizations such as the California Budget Policy Center, which advocates for low-income residents and policies that curb inequities, argue there’s nothing wrong with trying out new ideas when the money is there.

“The state needs these opportunities to experiment and practice innovation because you can improve the efficiency and effectiveness during those periods of time,” said Chris Hoene, executive director of the center. “The deficit is forcing them to pull back on a significant share of programs but … if there are better revenue periods ahead, they have said they will continue to make those investments.”

Reducing or altogether eliminating newer programs that are still being tested is better than cutting long established programs that Californians rely on, said H.D. Palmer, a spokesperson for Newsom’s Department of Finance.

“These clearly are proposals that wouldn’t be put forward were [it] not for the fact that we’ve got a substantial shortfall,” Palmer said. “It is understandable that people would have objections to these proposals. The question then becomes: What alternatives would people want to put forward, if you choose not to do these measures, that would provide us a like amount of savings to close the shortfall?”

Sen. Dave Min (D-Irvine) put it more bluntly during a legislative budget meeting held at the Capitol last week: “I’ll just be honest, this sucks.”

Newsom signed into law this week a budget agreement made with lawmakers that reduces the deficit by $17 billion, though it’s only a first step toward closing the yawning gap in the state’s spending plan.

As negotiations continue leading up to the June 15 deadline for lawmakers to pass a budget, here are some of the pilot programs Newsom has suggested scaling back or eliminating:

Support for public defenders and eligible prisoners

Prisoners who can’t afford to pay private attorneys and are eligible to have their sentences shortened could potentially stay behind bars longer due to one proposed funding reduction.

In 2021, a public defense pilot program was created to help attorneys cope with a backlog of cases involving prisoners eligible for earlier release under the state’s latest progressive resentencing laws.

Under the program, county public defender offices have received $100 million, collectively helping free more than 8,000 people in the program’s first six months, according to the California Board of State and Community Corrections. Many of those beneficiaries were charged with murder because of their involvement in a felony that led to a death, even if they were not the actual killer — a remnant of a law that California overturned in 2019.

The program now faces a $40-million reduction — a move proponents say could render some of California’s resentencing laws useless because understaffed and overburdened offices won’t be able to adequately assist those eligible.

A representative for Newsom said the funding given so far “still provides data for the evaluation of the results” of the program. But Ricardo Garcia, public defender for Los Angeles County, says it will hamper the state’s efforts to “right some of the mistakes of the past.”

In Los Angeles County, the program has led to the release of more than 100 prisoners, representing 685 fewer years of total potential incarceration, according to Garcia. The program has allowed Garcia’s office to hire more public defenders, social workers and support staff as they represent more than 800 eligible clients who await resentencing.

“Having all these statutes in place … isn’t very helpful if we don’t have the resources to implement it and to really make them effective,” Garcia said.

Help for struggling foster kids

Since 2019, thousands of foster kids — and some of their caretakers — have been able to call a 24/7 hotline for help with everyday conflicts and receive expert support.

The urgent response system was prompted by concerns about “placement disruptions” that can lead to instability and possibly homelessness for the already vulnerable youths.

The hotline annually serves about 5,000 foster children and caregivers, according to state data.

Child welfare advocates are calling on the governor and lawmakers to reconsider a $30-million proposed reduction — a cut they say will shutter the program entirely.

Foster placement changes in California decreased by 16% since the launch of the hotline, according to the data, and advocates say that’s no coincidence.

“We’re certain cutting it will lead to serious negative outcomes for foster children, including increased hospitalization and criminalization,” Ted Lempert, president of Children Now, said.

Funding for low-income housing

In 2023 alone, more than 100,000 Californians had to move because the owners of their homes fell behind on their bills, according to the Community Landtrust Network.

The foreclosure intervention housing preservation program was launched as a way to prevent displacement of renters. It offers grants to residents and nonprofits so they can buy properties at risk of foreclosure and keep them available as homes for people with low incomes.

Proponents of the program called it an “unprecedented” solution to the state’s homelessness crisis because it allows at-risk renters to stay where they are instead of potentially being forced onto the streets or into shelters.

Newsom proposed cutting $248 million meant for the program over three years — about half its total budget. Advocates are urging him to change his mind, as the funding has not even yet been disbursed.

“The need for the program is too great and both [the California Department of Housing & Community Development] and other key stakeholders have sunk too many resources into this pioneering housing strategy to hobble it now,” the Community Landtrust Network said in a statement.

A slew of climate friendly programs

Low-income Californians at the highest risk of wildfires destroying their homes, and oil and gas workers at risk of losing their jobs, are among those who could feel the brunt of climate programs now on the chopping block.

Funding reductions are proposed for a home hardening initiative, a program that helps workers find new jobs as the state moves away from fossil fuels, and a program that promotes composting in local governments.

The proposed reductions have environmental activists concerned, even as the budget draft maintains billions in investments to curb climate change and California is considered an international leader on the issue.

“The state needs to accelerate its efforts to prepare, not pull back — especially in vulnerable and underresourced communities,” Zack Cefalu, a legislative affairs analyst for the League of California Cities, said.