The first step was the announcement by Brendan Carr, the new head of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), that he was ordering an investigation of NPR and PBS to determine if they, and their member stations, were breaking FCC rules by airing commercials as opposed to underwriting announcements. Public broadcasting stations are prohibited from running commercials, but can, and actually must, identify for-profit entities that provide funding to support their programming. These announcements can also describe the products and/or services underwriters provide, but must do so in a way that does not include qualitative language, calls to action, or inducements to buy a company鈥檚 products (things like sales and price information). In what may become one of the most boring government investigations of all time, I actually look forward to the debate over if words like 鈥渇resh鈥� are descriptive or qualitative.
But in addition to announcing the investigation, Carr鈥檚 letter to NPR and PBS contained statements that many believe signal the real purpose of the FCC. Near the end of the letter, Carr wrote, 鈥淔or your awareness, I will be providing a copy of this letter to relevant Members of Congress because I believe this FCC investigation may prove relevant to an ongoing legislative debate. In particular, Congress is actively considering whether to stop requiring taxpayers to subsidize NPR and PBS programming. For my own part, I do not see a reason why Congress should continue sending taxpayer dollars to NPR and PBS given the changes in the media marketplace since the passage of the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967.鈥�
The Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 was the legislation that created our nation鈥檚 public broadcasting system, establishing standards and goals for the system and providing baseline federal funding for qualifying stations. Reasonable people could debate how the 鈥渕edia marketplace鈥� has changed since 1967. In my view, the fact that public broadcasting stations like JPR have stepped up to hire more local journalists in response to the dramatic decline of local newspapers across the country, creates a strong case for increased funding.
Carr鈥檚 record on public broadcasting is not a mystery. He wrote the chapter on the FCC in the Heritage Foundation鈥檚 Project 2025 report, which many believe is being used by the Trump administration as a blueprint for strategy and policy. In that report, Mike Gonzalez, a senior fellow at Heritage, calls for the elimination of funding for public broadcasting, writing: "鈥� the next conservative President must finally get this done and do it despite opposition from congressional members of his own party if necessary. To stop public funding is good policy and good politics."
Other recent steps taken by the Trump administration to threaten and decrease the influence of public broadcasting include the activities of the so-called DOGE committee, headed by Elon Musk, and the Defense Department鈥檚 eviction of NPR from its workstation at the Pentagon. In early February, both NPR and PBS received letters from Marjorie Taylor Greene, Chairwoman of the House Subcommittee on Delivering on Government Efficiency (DOGE), announcing that the subcommittee is 鈥減lanning a hearing on federally funded radio and television, including its systematically biased content.鈥� And, under Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, the Pentagon dislodged eight news organizations from their work stations at the Pentagon, including NPR, the New York Times, NBC News, CNN, the Washington Post, Politico, the Hill, and the War Zone. According to NPR, seven conservative outlets took their spots, including Breitbart radio, One America News Network, Newsmax and the New York Post.
Since 1967 when the Public Broadcasting Act became law, there have been healthy debates about the value of public broadcasting in American society. And, every time these debates have taken place a bi-partisan consensus has developed in Congress based on the public鈥檚 overwhelming bi-partisan support in poll after poll for the service provided by both public radio and television stations across the country. But, what鈥檚 happening today is different. The Trump administration, which ironically has made deregulation part of its political platform, is using the regulatory authority of the FCC to indirectly challenge funding public broadcasting. It also appears to be using the DOGE committee to circumvent Congressional input.
Where this all lands is hard to know. For its part, JPR has worked in a disciplined way over the past decade, with the help of our listeners, to build a more financially resilient organization. That said, loss of the core funding we receive from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which totals approximately 15% of our operating budget, would have real impact on the work we do and the service we provide to communities across Southern Oregon and Northern California. We encourage you to support our work as generously as you can, and to engage in the political process when public input will have the greatest impact. The best way to stay engaged is to subscribe to protectmypublicmedia.org.
Thank you for your loyal support over so many years and for sustaining JPR as a vital civic, cultural and educational institution for our region.
