Future Retirement Success
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Investing
  • Stocks
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Investing
  • Stocks

Future Retirement Success

Investing

End All Taxpayer Funding of CPB, NPR, PBS

by April 11, 2025
April 11, 2025
End All Taxpayer Funding of CPB, NPR, PBS

Michael Chapman

President Donald Trump is not a libertarian, but some of his policies for downsizing the federal government certainly fall in the libertarian column. This is true, for instance, of the administration’s drive to defund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), which helps to fund PBS and NPR. Scholars at the Cato Institute have called on Congress for decades to stop subsidizing the CPB. With enough political momentum behind them, perhaps Congress can get it done this time.

“Republicans must defund and totally disassociate themselves from NPR & PBS,” said Trump on Truth Social on April 1. In late March, he told reporters that he “would love to” defund PBS and NPR. “It’s been very biased. The whole group … and it’s a waste of money especially,” he said.

Elon Musk, who advises the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) on reducing federal waste, tweeted in February, “Defund NPR. It should survive on its own.” 

On March 26, the House Subcommittee on DOGE held a hearing entitled, “Anti-American Airwaves: Holding the heads of NPR and PBS accountable.” The chairman of that subcommittee, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R‑GA), said, “For far too long, federal taxpayers have been forced to fund biased news. This needs to come to an end, and now.”

It is long overdue. The CPB was established by Congress in 1967; in 1970, the CPB founded NPR. On its website, the CPB says it “is the steward of the federal government’s investment in public broadcasting and the largest single source of funding for public radio, television, and related online and mobile services.” More than 70 percent of the funds the CPB receives are redistributed to 1,500-plus public radio and TV stations nationwide.

The so-called “investment” by the federal government is roughly $500 million a year—that’s taxpayer money. For FY2025, the CPB was allocated $535 million. Some of that money is distributed to NPR and PBS. For instance, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting provides grants to local radio stations that, in turn, pay to use content created by NPR, such as the news programs All Things Considered and Morning Edition. NPR also receives funding from private donors, corporate sponsors, foundations, and state and local governments. 

PBS started in 1970, supplanting National Education Television, which was originally funded by the Ford Foundation. In addition to the CPB funding, PBS gets donations from individuals and foundations, corporate sponsorships, and the leasing of programs to its member stations. Some of those shows include PBS NewsHour, Frontline, and Sesame Street.

Today, with cable news and the Internet, there are thousands of media outlets American consumers can access, nationally and globally. There is no reason why the programs on PBS and NPR, many of which are popular—Sesame Street, NewsHour—should not compete in the same marketplace as everyone else. Further, nowhere in the Constitution does it say Congress should fund a national media.

“We wouldn’t want the federal government to publish a national newspaper,” Cato’s David Boaz testified before Congress in 2005. “Neither should we have a government television network and a government radio network.” Congress should “terminate the funding for CPB,” he added. 

Boaz, author of The Libertarian Mind and former Distinguished Senior Fellow at Cato, further testified, “If anything should be kept separate from government and politics, it’s the news and public affairs programming that informs Americans about government and its policies. When government brings us the news—with all the inevitable bias and spin—the government is putting its thumb on the scales of democracy. Journalists should not work for the government. Taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize news and public affairs programming.”

The Cato Institute has called for defunding the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (and NPR and PBS) since the 1970s. In the Cato Handbook for Policymakers, 9th Edition, it says that Congress should “eliminate the National Endowment for the Arts; eliminate the National Endowment for the Humanities; and defund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.” (In a new briefing paper, Cato’s Ryan Bourne details why DOGE and Congress should work to eliminate the National Endowment for the Arts.) 

“In a society that constitutionally limits the powers of government and maximizes individual liberty, there is no justification for the forcible transfer of money from taxpayers to artists, scholars, and broadcasters,” states the Handbook. “… [W]hen government gets into the arts funding business, political conflicts ensue. To avoid political battles over how to spend the taxpayers’ money, to keep art and its power in the realm of persuasion, we would be well advised to establish the separation of art and state.”

On March 24, House Rep. Ronny Jackson (R‑TX) reintroduced the “No Partisan Radio and Partisan Broadcasting Services Act,” also called the “NPR and PBS Act.” It would eliminate “taxpayer funding for the partisan broadcasting outlets known as National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service.” The legislation currently has 13 co-sponsors. 

Way back in 1964, Ronald Reagan said, “No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth.” 

But perhaps Ronald Reagan was too fatalistic. Maybe PBS and NPR can be eliminated. After all, who thought four months ago that the Department of Education would be largely dismantled, USAID slashed, and thousands of government bureaucrats shown the door?

0
FacebookTwitterGoogle +Pinterest
previous post
Trade War Mayhem? Here’s How to Cut Through the Noise!
next post
SCOOP: Biden-era grant program described as ‘gold bar’ scheme by Trump EPA administrator under scrutiny

You may also like

On the Presidential Power to Impose Tariffs, Appoint,...

December 20, 2024

Census Bureau Seeks to Expand Racial Profiling

February 10, 2025

Jimmy Lai: Prisoner of the State

May 30, 2023

Commercial-to-Residential Zoning Reform Gains Steam

November 10, 2023

Tradeoffs Podcast: the Case for Medicaid Reform

January 23, 2025

The Xylazine Scourge Widens

July 17, 2024

The Equal Rights Amendment Isn’t Part of the...

December 18, 2024

Speech Codes and Commissions Trample on the Expressive...

May 30, 2024

David Boaz: The Essential Libertarian

June 7, 2024

Four Things the Senate Can Do to Improve...

May 22, 2025

    Get free access to all of the retirement secrets and income strategies from our experts! or Join The Exclusive Subscription Today And Get the Premium Articles Acess for Free

    By opting in you agree to receive emails from us and our affiliates. Your information is secure and your privacy is protected.

    Recent Posts

    • Rand Paul says he would support ‘big, beautiful bill’ if debt ceiling hike removed

      June 1, 2025
    • Kevin Hassett ‘very, very confident’ courts will back Trump’s tariffs amid legal setback

      June 1, 2025
    • Senate Republicans eye changes to Trump’s megabill after House win

      June 1, 2025
    • Trump shares post saying Biden was executed, replaced with clones

      June 1, 2025
    • House Dems’ campaign chair says her party’s ‘on offense’ in 2026 battle to win back majority from GOP

      June 1, 2025
    • Trump warns Rand Paul he’s playing into ‘hands of the Democrats’ with ‘Big, Beautiful Bill’ opposition

      June 1, 2025

    Categories

    • Business (8,105)
    • Investing (2,000)
    • Politics (15,458)
    • Stocks (3,119)
    • About us
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms & Conditions

    Disclaimer: futureretirementsuccess.com, its managers, its employees, and assigns (collectively “The Company”) do not make any guarantee or warranty about what is advertised above. Information provided by this website is for research purposes only and should not be considered as personalized financial advice. The Company is not affiliated with, nor does it receive compensation from, any specific security. The Company is not registered or licensed by any governing body in any jurisdiction to give investing advice or provide investment recommendation. Any investments recommended here should be taken into consideration only after consulting with your investment advisor and after reviewing the prospectus or financial statements of the company.

    Copyright © 2025 futureretirementsuccess.com | All Rights Reserved