On Friday’s episode of In The Arena with Kasie Hunt, they were discussing Trump’s executive order to defund NPR and PBS alongside his questioning of federal funding for Harvard with its serious antisemitism problem. They couldn’t actually delve into the evidence of Harvard hating Jews or the incessant liberal bias of “public” broadcasting.

New York Times podcaster Lulu Garcia-Navarro, who spent 17 years at NPR (as Lourdes, not Lulu) had a not-so-surprising theory about Trump — he just hates “independence,” anything that threatens his power. They all cast liberal bias as “independence.”

This implication that Trump as an autocrat is a little bit amusing, because Lulu is not always anti-autocrat. We like to recall in her NPR days, she gushed that being kissed by one of Fidel Castro’s two brothers in Cuba was like being “getting the blessing of the Holy Trinity.” But Trump is not a man of the Left.  

GARCIA-NAVARRO: I think there’s a bigger theory of the case here, which isn’t about Harvard or PBS or NPR or any of the other myriad places that he has directed his ire. The theory of the case is this he does not like independence. Anything that takes away from his center of power, he is trying to challenge and destroy, and that is Harvard. That is PBS and NPR, and that is other institutions as well.
And this you see over and over and over with him, that is the true threat. I’m not denying that there is a crisis of confidence in institutions writ large in this country, all of them left and right center. But that’s not really what he’s up to. He’s not trying to redress that. He’s not trying to say, hey, Harvard, be more open to the people.
He’s actually threatening their very independence. He’s taking away money from them for the things that they do, such as research. And PBS and NPR — I mean, when you ask about whether or not this is legal, I mean, the money is given through the Congress. I mean, this is the way this is supposed to work. We’ve seen President Trump over and over and over again, write these decrees as if they’re sort of royal decrees.

She added Trump should pass a law through Congress, because “just signing something at a document doesn’t make it so.”

This show displayed the current tendency in Anti-Trump World that you can’t grant that anything he says can be treated as Reality. In this case, it extended to suggesting Harvard isn’t elite. Kasie Hunt got out a ten-foot-pole, “with what many in the MAGA community view as elite institutions.”

NPR media reporter David Folkenflik echoed this weird spin:  “It, as you say, certainly the president’s supporters would argue that these are elite institutions which are somehow aimed at against them, functioning against them.”

These are supposed to be smart people, but they can’t figure out that Harvard is elite and has a serious liberal and anti-Trump bias? “Um, Kasie, the president’s supporters would argue that the the Democrats are functioning against them.”

Folkenflik also suggested Trump hates accountability: 

What — certainly, you could also say is that these are institutions that serve as outside sources of information, and oftentimes outside sources of accountability checks on official power by providing information that the public can absorb and process and figure out how they feel about the people acting in their name. In Washington, in the White House, whether Democrat or Republican. And universities, think tanks, research institutes, and, yes, media outlets serve that function.

None of these people can acknowledge that PBS and NPR are not “sources of accountability” for Democrats, from Biden’s mental decline to the Biden family influence-peddling business. The “accountability” is reserved for Republicans and conservatives. NPR has zero Republicans on staff, which they have in common with Harvard. 

It was Christmas in May for the Media Research Center and NewsBusters after President Trump signed an executive order defunding the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. On this episode of the NewsBusters Podcast, Curtis Houck and I fill in and discuss the EO and the necessity of defunding state-sponsored media like PBS and NPR. And since the EO was such a major event, usual host Tim Graham called in to share his decades of wisdom and insights.

After decades of working toward the divesting American tax-dollars from the liberal state-media outlets of NPR and PBS, we were surprised and excited to see major progress happen literally overnight.

We reviewed the text of the executive order, which accurately noted that, “Americans have the right to expect that if their tax dollars fund public broadcasting at all, they fund only fair, accurate, unbiased, and nonpartisan news coverage.”

Adding: “No media outlet has a constitutional right to taxpayer subsidies, and the Government is entitled to determine which categories of activities to subsidize.”

The EO also called for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting “cease direct funding to NPR and PBS” and for other associated agencies to do the same.

We discussed the four items, including three PBS studies published by NewsBusters’ Clay Waters exposing PBS’s liberal bias, which were cited by the White House.

Finally, we also looked to the future and note that the fight is not over, seeing as an executive order could be undone by a Democratic president.

Enjoy!

 

The fundraising arms of PBS and NPR were already on the defensive over challenges to their overwhelmingly biased reporting on the taxpayers’ dime. Now comes President Trump’s executive order Thursday night cutting taxpayer funding of PBS and NPR. The text of the order was posted on the Trump team’s “Rapid Response 47” account on X.

Before that storm broke, both outlets took advantage of the latest “Public Media Giving Days” (they need two?) to release pleading emails on early Thursday afternoon, stressing different angles while asking the public to give generously. As if the public doesn’t do that already, to the tune of over half a billion dollars a year to PBS and NPR via the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, at least for now.

The PBS email subject line fostered a sense of panic: “Urgent: PBS funding threats,” was signed by Alyson Brokenshire, identified as “PBS News Hour Principal and Major Gifts.”

Dear Friend,

We’re at a pivotal moment. Public media is facing intensifying threats to federal funding, which makes up 35% of PBS News Hour’s annual budget through direct federal appropriations and indirect PBS station contributions.

The stakes are high. If federal funding is eliminated, the consequences for PBS News Hour could be significant. At a time when public media is more essential than ever, your donation doubled will help us navigate the uncertainty ahead.

That’s why the 3rd annual Public Media Giving Days — May 1 and 2 — are especially important this year. This nationwide campaign is a chance for friends like you to stand up for the essential services that public media stations and programs like PBS News Hour provide in communities across the country.

Brokenshire promised “integrity.” Did she not dare to claim “objectivity,” given PBS’s clearly liberal skew?

We’re committed to bringing you journalism with integrity. But with the mounting threats to federal funding, we’re concerned about our future.

By contrast, the NPR email subject line laid down a mild guilt trip – do something for us, after all we’ve done for you! “On Public Media Giving Days, Give Back.”

NPR’s emphasis was on local reporting.

It’s Public Media Giving Days! As calls to defund public media get louder, we ask you to join people all around the country in reflecting on all that public media adds to your life.

The NPR Network is a vital piece of the public media ecosystem. We provide:

Independent, local journalism: Across the NPR Network, over 3,000 local journalists live and work in the communities they serve.
Full, free access to fact-based reporting: With rising paywalls and closing news services, fewer media outlets provide high-quality information to those who can’t pay. We are a vital lifeline, leveraging our newsrooms in all 50 states to make our coverage available to nearly 99% of the U.S. population–free of charge.
Eye-opening conversations about local arts, culture and music: We aim to reflect the whole human experience through its reporting on artistic expression and entertainment–from beloved cultural traditions to new work by hometown artists.

This is actually the third annual “Days” pitch, a puzzlingly plural phenomenon which resulted in awkward headlines this year like “Public Media Giving Days is Today.” (Apparently Sesame Street can’t teach you everything.)

Meta is on the hot seat after Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) drew attention to a video that he wrote “describes in detail the ruthless and elaborate defamation campaign waged by Meta AI.”

Lee responded in a Thursday X post to political commentator and podcast host Robby Starbuck’s X post announcing “a major multi-million dollar defamation lawsuit against @Meta, the owner of @Facebook & @Instagram.” Lee denounced Meta and wrote that he looks “forward to hearing Meta’s side of this—but from what I’m seeing, it doesn’t look good for Meta.” On Tuesday, Starbuck wrote that Meta’s AI chatbot had been “falsely claiming that I was charged with a crime from January 6th,” which he said was found out in August 2024. In response, Lee connected Meta AI’s claims about Starbuck to years of censorship of conservatives. The Utah Senator made clear that Meta’s history left little room for any benefit of the doubt and called for a “thorough investigation.” 

[Story Continues on MRC Free Speech America] 

Former scandal-plagued NPR CEO Vivian Schiller joined CNN News Central guest host Erica Hill on Friday to freak out over President Donald Trump’s Thursday executive order that ceased taxpayer money from going to NPR and PBS. According to Schiller, the move is just another example of Trump “attacking a free press” for reporting on things he does not like.

A worried Hill wrapped up their interview by wondering, “We’re really tight on time, but I’m just curious, your take. I mean, this is whether or not this goes through, right? What it does is it creates a narrative. It creates a narrative, multiple narratives. But the president has long pushed back against NPR, against PBS. What does that do overall in terms of the credibility of these organizations? How harmful is this?”

 

 

Schiller replied that, “I don’t think the government’s, sorry, the White House’s attack, will particularly harm people who have been reliant on NPR or PBS programming for a long time, but this is part of an overall narrative of attacking a free press, an independent free press that reports on things that maybe the president doesn’t like.”

It is impossible to take such comments seriously. For years, the media has attacked the Republican Party for being enthralled with Trumpism, but Republicans they now claim to like also once favored defunding public broadcasting, and they freaked out then too.

Nevertheless, Schiller continued, “I mean, this is one of many examples. You’ve covered them amply on CNN. And I will also say this is not the only way that they’re going after public radio and public television. There’s a whole bunch of other things that they’re doing, too, in trying to fire trustees of CPB and other kinds of cuts and legal attacks”

NPR has had twelve-and-a-half years since Mitt Romney brought up defunding PBS at a debate with Barack Obama, and it has nothing since then to show that they have become less left-wing. If anything, they have become more progressive. Trying to make Trump the main character in this story won’t work.

Here is a transcript for the May 2 show:

CNN News Central

5/2/2025

1:40 PM ET

ERICA HILL: We’re really tight on time, but I’m just curious, your take. I mean, this is whether or not this goes through, right? What it does is it creates a narrative. It creates a narrative, multiple narratives. But the president has long pushed back against NPR, against PBS. What does that do overall in terms of the credibility of these organizations? How harmful is this?

VIVIAN SCHILLER: I don’t think the government’s, sorry, the White House’s attack, will particularly harm people who have been reliant on NPR or PBS programming for a long time, but this is part of an overall narrative of attacking a free press, an independent free press that reports on things that maybe the president doesn’t like.

I mean, this is one of many examples. You’ve covered them amply on CNN. And I will also say this is not the only way that they’re going after public radio and public television. There’s a whole bunch of other things that they’re doing, too, in trying to fire trustees of CPB and other kinds of cuts and legal attacks.

Former Republican congressman-turned-Democrat-endorsing CNN talking head Adam Kinzinger joined former Today co-host and CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric on her Next Question podcast to discuss President Donald Trump. During their interview, Kinzinger would lob off Nazi comparisons, bizarre hypotheticals, and long for a version of the pre-Trump good old days that never actually existed.

As he was discussing Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s deportation to a Salvadorian prison, Kinzinger suggested he may not be far behind in terms of people whose rights are at risk, “Each step in and of itself is not enough to be outrage to the point of take to the streets in general and general strike, right? But in cumulation they are, and when you say to somebody, ‘We’re not gonna to due process for this bad person,’ Well, next thing it’s okay, ‘we’re not gonna do due process, because we did it for the bad guys, for the people that are here illegally.  And then, well, there are enemies of the state, and I get it, they’re American citizens, but you know they were Palestinian rallies or whatever. And then next it’s Adam Kinzinger, ‘Well, he’s a RINO, and he went against the president.’”

 

 

What is about media “conservatives,” Trump, and strikes? Still, Kinzinger moved on to the regularly scheduled Nazi comparison, “I don’t want to make comparisons to Nazi Germany, but in this case it’s a good example, which is, if in 1935 they’d have opened concentration camps, the German public would have rebelled. But if you just boil the frog to the point where you open it in and of itself, you get yourself to a point where it’s not outrageous enough.

Later, Kinzinger came up with another example he wished to highlight, “A judge in Wisconsin is arrested, like, some of this stuff is outrageous and we’ve grown numb to it.”

Couric then asked him to elaborate, “Let’s talk about the arrest of that Wisconsin judge, Hannah Dugan, who was arrested by the FBI on suspicion that she had steered an undocumented immigrant through a side door to evade federal agents. Why is that such an outrage in your view?”

 

 

The alleged crime took place in a courtroom by a public official, but Kinzinger made up some fictional scenario about a private citizen at their private residence, “So, it’s two things. First off, I didn’t know it was illegal to, you know, kind of hide somebody that has not been convicted necessarily by the feds, they wanted to deport him. I don’t know all the details, but is this saying that if you know somebody who’s illegal and they’re at your house and the police come, that it’s illegal to say they’re not there. That’s kind of chilling, to be honest with you, if it’s like that.”

In any event, the answer is still yes. Regardless, Kinzinger then dreamed up another hypothetical. Instead of the real world example where the guy is an alleged domestic abuser, Kinzinger wondered, “if you have a rape victim, for instance, who’s an illegal immigrant, are they going to go the law enforcement if they know that ICE is camped out right there and ready to deport them.” 

As for the judge, Kinzinger claimed in the pre-Trump GOP, conservatives would have trashed the move as an assault on federalism, “And then the other thing is just look, I’ll say this is as and old school former Republican is, like, we actually used to believe in sovereignty of states. We actually used to believe that states had a certain power that the federal government didn’t. And so the idea that the feds are going to come in and say we’re going to arrest a duly elected, by the way, not appointed, a duly elected judge in Milwaukee is very chilling.”

That’s ridiculous. Nobody ever made the argument that public officials personally helping illegal immigrants escape ICE was blessed by the Tenth Amendment, but this is a bad habit for Kinzinger. He claims his problem with the GOP is that is has been captured by Trumpism, but then he goes on liberal shows and says things that no conservative would ever say, even before Trump decided to get into politics.

Here is a transcript for the May 1 show:

Next Question with Katie Couric

5/1/2025

15 Minutes, 32 Seconds

ADAM KINZINGER: Each step in and of itself is not enough to be outrage to the point of take to the streets in general and general strike, right? But in cumulation they are, and when you say to somebody, “We’re not gonna to due process for this bad person,” Well, next thing it’s okay, “we’re not gonna do due process, because we did it for the bad guys, for the people that are here illegally.  And then, well, there are enemies of the state, and I get it, they’re American citizens, but you know they were Palestinian rallies or whatever. And then next it’s Adam Kinzinger, “Well, he’s a RINO, and he went against the president.”

And the next thing it’s you. That’s how these little steps, each of which is not enough to spark massive outrage, but in accumulation is.

As as they said, you know, and again I don’t want to make comparisons to Nazi Germany, but in this case it’s a good example, which is, if in 1935 they’d have opened concentration camps, the German public would have rebelled. But if you just boil the frog to the point where you open it in and of itself, you get yourself to a point where it’s not outrageous enough.

KATIE COURIC: How frightening is this to you?

KINZINGER: Uh? Pretty frightening.

And look, I’m going to steal this from Charlie Sykes, but I think it’s well said, he said. “I am not optimistic, but I am hopeful.” And that’s how I feel, which is I look back at history, and I know every time we’ve faced, like, dark moments, we’ve come though them. I mean, one took a civil war, but we’ve come through those moments and actually come out stronger. So, I have no reason to believe that the American people have fundamentally—their DNA has changed, that we’re not going to come back out of this stronger. Three-and-a-half years seems like forever when you’re on this side of it, but once it’s past, you look back and it goes by in an instant.

So, I do believe that there is still enough, like, and I mean, by the way, we’re 100 days in and already millions of Americans have taken to the streets in almost every organized town and city in this country. 

Those are good signs, but our defense of democracy is not automatic. And that’s where I’m very concerned, is, you know, we have to step up. A judge in Wisconsin is arrested, like, some of this stuff is outrageous and we’ve grown numb to it.

COURIC: Let’s talk about the arrest of that Wisconsin judge, Hannah Dugan, who was arrested by the FBI on suspicion that she had steered an undocumented immigrant through a side door to evade federal agents. Why is that such an outrage in your view?

KINZINGER: So, it’s two things. First off, I didn’t know it was illegal to, you know, kind of hide somebody that has not been convicted necessarily by the feds, they wanted to deport him. I don’t know all the details, but is this saying that if you know somebody who’s illegal and they’re at your house and the police come, that it’s illegal to say they’re not there.

That’s kind of chilling, to be honest with you, if it’s like that. But secondarily, simply the fact that ICE in general has always kind of had an unspoken rule, or maybe spoken rule with local jurisdictions, that they won’t enforce there because what you want to do is first off, tell anybody that’s in the country illegally that they can still use the judicial system. Maybe they’re a victim of a crime, right? 

And if ICE is instead camped out, you know, if you have a rape victim, for instance, who’s an illegal immigrant, are they going to go to the law enforcement if they know that ICE is camped out right there and ready to deport them. 

And then the other thing is just look, I’ll say this is an old school former Republican is, like, we actually used to believe in sovereignty of states. We actually used to believe that states had a certain power that the federal government didn’t. And so the idea that the feds are going to come in and say we’re going to arrest a duly elected, by the way, not appointed, a duly elected judge in Milwaukee is very chilling.

Over the next couple of years, the late night comedy shows will become a stomping ground for 2028 Democratic presidential hopefuls and on Thursday, ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel helped kick start that process by welcoming Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker to the show. Together the two would implicitly accuse Republicans of racism by claiming they “know full well” Abraham Lincoln would be a Democrat today and explicitly as Pritzker recalled his 2018 campaign message of “Everything we care about is under siege by a racist, misogynist, homophobic, xenophobic president of the United States.”

Pritzker’s speech that has liberal pundits swooning took place in New Hampshire, which led Kimmel to quip that the only reason a politician visits New Hampshire is because they want to run for president. Eventually, Kimmel asked, “I know this is not an announcement that you would make now, but can I ask you this? Is—what is it, like, three years and eight months too far in advance even to be thinking about something like that?”

 

 

Before he gave the standard politician answer where he declared he does not know his future plans, Pritzker declared, “Listen, I’m governor of the great state of Illinois, the land of Lincoln, I might add. He would be a Democrat if he were alive today.”

Kimmel agreed, “He would, yes. They like claiming him,” which led Pritzker to add, “Yeah, they do. But they’re not anything like him.”

Subtly playing the race card, Kimmel continued, “They know full well which side he would be on. Although, at like 200 years old, he might be watching Fox News.”

Later, Kimmel returned to Pritzker’s speech, “Well, let me ask you about something specific that you said in the speech, and I think this is the thing that got people fired up. You said, ‘It is time to fight everywhere and all at once.’ You called for mass protests. There are mass protests today. What does that mean, fight everywhere and all at once? What should we do?”

Pritzker began by falsely claiming, “I think everybody understands that, at this point, we’ve got an authoritarian in office. He’s essentially tearing apart the things that really matter to working families across the United States, and nobody’s stopping him. Congress is under the control of his party. They’re all paying homage to him at all times. No one’s willing to break with him, even though they’re taking away health care from millions of people across the United States and threatening Social Security.”

 

 

His solution was to simply make more noise:

The only thing, in my view, that we really can do on a national level is let them know about our displeasure because none of those Republicans in Congress, you know, are—they know they’re up for re-election in 2026. And if they don’t know how much resistance there is out there in their own districts, then they’re just going to keep following Donald Trump and doing whatever he wants. So, we’ve got to be out there loud, proud, stand up, speak out, and today, I think you saw that all across the United States. I think it’s appropriate it’s May Day, but it’s mayday, everybody. It is literally. Time to fight.

Kimmel then wondered, “I assume you’ve met the president?”

Pritzker then got more explicit in his allegations of racism:

I was invited to the White House. In fact, when I first got elected, I was governor-elect and he invited all the new governors to the White House. And I have to say, I contemplated whether to go or not… because I’d run an entire campaign where every chance I got—in fact, I started a lot of my speeches by saying, ‘Everything we care about is under siege by a racist, misogynist, homophobic, xenophobic president of the United States.’ … but I got invited because I was governor-elect and with the other governors-elect. And that’s where I really met him. And oddly, he spent a lot of time, you know—I don’t know, talking to me, seemingly interested in being my friend. It was very odd.

Not nearly as odd as a billionaire governor citing May Day, the day where hard-left, anti-capitalist types frequently resort to violence, including rioting, and highway closures as a good “time to fight.”

Here is a transcript for the May 1-taped show:

ABC Jimmy Kimmel Live!

5/2/2025

12:23 AM ET

KIMMEL: I know this is not an announcement that you would make now, but can I ask you this? Is — what is it, like, three years and eight months too far in advance even to be thinking about something like that?

PRITZKER: Listen, I’m governor of the great state of Illinois, the land of Lincoln, I might add. He would be a Democrat if he were alive today.

KIMMEL: He would, yes. They like claiming him.

PRITZKER: Yeah, they do. But they’re not anything like him.

KIMMEL: They know full well which side he would be on.

PRITZKER: Exactly.

KIMMEL: Although, at like 200 years old, he might be watching Fox News. 

…

KIMMEL: Well, let me ask you about something specific that you said in the speech, and I think this is the thing that got people fired up. You said, “It is time to fight everywhere and all at once.” You called for mass protests. There are mass protests today.

PRITZKER: Yeah.

KIMMEL: What does that mean, fight everywhere and all at once? What should we do?

PRITZKER: I think everybody understands that, at this point, we’ve got an authoritarian in office. He’s essentially tearing apart the things that really matter to working families across the United States, and nobody’s stopping him. Congress is under the control of his party. They’re all paying homage to him at all times. No one’s willing to break with him, even though they’re taking away health care from millions of people across the United States and threatening Social Security. 

So, I guess, you know, the question is, what can you do in that circumstance? And the only thing, in my view, that we really can do on a national level is let them know about our displeasure because none of those Republicans in Congress, you know, are — you know, they know they’re up for re-election in 2026. And if they don’t know how much resistance there is out there in their own districts, then they’re just going to keep following Donald Trump and doing whatever he wants. 

So, we’ve got to be out there loud, proud, stand up, speak out, and today, I think you saw that all across the United States. I think it’s appropriate it’s May Day, but it’s mayday, everybody. It is literally –

KIMMEL: Yeah, it is.

PRITZKER: Time to fight.

KIMMEL: I assume you’ve met the president?

PRITZKER: I did meet the president, yeah. I was invited to the White House. In fact, when I first got elected, I was governor-elect and he invited all the new governors to the White House. And I have to say, I contemplated whether to go or not, but he’s president of the United States. This is 2018, 2019, rather. Well, late 2018, and I thought about, you know, whether to go because I’d run an entire campaign where every chance I got — in fact, I started a lot of my speeches by saying, “Everything we care about is under siege by a racist, misogynist, homophobic, xenophobic president of the United States.”

KIMMEL: You meant him, right?

PRITZKER: Yeah. And — yeah, he wasn’t going to invite me to Thanksgiving dinner for sure, but I got invited because I was governor-elect and with the other governors-elect. And that’s where I really met him. And oddly, he spent a lot of time, you know — I don’t know, talking to me, seemingly interested in being my friend. It was very odd.

The Supreme Court heard arguments on April 30 on whether a Catholic school in Oklahoma named for St. Isidore the Farmer can be the first charter school with a religious foundation. It’s the latest case to alarm the media about the so-called “separation of church and state.”

New York Times legal reporter Adam Liptak cited a study finding that since Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court in 2005, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of religious people and groups over 83 percent of the time, compared with about 50 percent of the time for other courts since 1953. “In most of these cases, the winning religion was a mainstream Christian organization, whereas in the past pro-religion outcomes more frequently favored minority or marginal religious organizations,” two professors concluded.

This underlines how the Left fears “mainstream Christians” are going to ruin public education. On CBS Evening News, Oklahoma’s Republican Attorney General Gentner Drummond was so aggressive about touting a “slippery slope” of allowing Christians to have charter schools, he claimed it would open the door to “Satanic School” and “Wiccan School.”

In reality, many public school teachers today preach the polar opposite of “mainstream Christian” values, but that’s never something that liberal reporters think should be separate from the state. Take a look at the LGBTQ-pushing teachers sporting purple hair featured on “Libs of Tik Tok.” You can put up rainbow flags on the wall, but you can’t put up a cross. You can’t “establish” religion, but you can establish its godless opposite.

A week earlier, when the high court took up Maryland’s Montgomery County removing any parental choice in opting out students during discussions of illustrated children’s books like Pride Puppy and Uncle Bobby’s [Gay] Wedding. Liptak found two professors who argued “The First Amendment does not shield public school students from the mere exposure to ideas that conflict with their personal views, whether secular or religious.”

How does Liptak reconcile these two arguments about public schools? It would seem that introducing Catholic views is a dangerous intrusion, but introducing the LGBTQ advocacy is merely “inclusion.” If a religious parent showed up in the grade-school classroom to add a little balance to the discussion, they wouldn’t welcome that as “the mere exposure of ideas” some find disagreeable.

At least reporters can clearly label the two sides of this debate. On NBC Nightly News, legal reporter Laura Jarrett (daughter of Obama’s White House chief of staff Valerie Jarrett) touted the views of Oklahoma’s Erin Brewer, as just a “mom of two teens.” Brewer argued “For the government to choose a particular religion to force us as taxpayers to fund it or to force us as students to study those tenets, that’s un-American.” Jarrett didn’t tell viewers that Brewer was a losing Democrat candidate for the Oklahoma state senate in 2024.

Brewer, like many liberal journalists, decries the spread of “Christian nationalism” and campaigned against Oklahoma superintendent of schools Ryan Walters, who has touted bringing the Bible back into public schools.

Secular reporters often betray that their minds meld with Ron Reagan Jr. and the Freedom From Religion Foundation. “Freedom” is about keeping religion out of the public square, while the opposing view gets untrammeled promotion. “Freedom” also somehow means preventing parents from opting out on the propaganda, and calling that a lesson in “civility and respect.” That’s Orwellian. 

Late on Thursday night, President Donald Trump signed an executive order to cut taxpayer funds to PBS and NPR through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. The text was posted on the Trump team’s “Rapid Response 47” account on X.

It said: “@POTUS just signed an executive order ENDING the taxpayer subsidization of NPR and PBS — which receive millions from taxpayers to spread radical, woke propaganda disguised as ‘news.’”

The executive order includes this argument:

Unlike in 1967, when the CPB was established, today the media landscape is filled with abundant, diverse, and innovative news options. Government funding of news media in this environment is not only outdated and unnecessary but corrosive to the appearance of journalistic independence.

At the very least, Americans have the right to expect that if their tax dollars fund public broadcasting at all, they fund only fair, accurate, unbiased, and nonpartisan news coverage.

Since PBS and NPR are funded by all the American people, it should reflect the viewpoints of the people, and instead, after Trump was re-elected, both networks have doubled down in their anti-Trump animus. This was the top of the NPR home page on Thursday morning: 

 

PBS News Hour marked the first 100 days of Trump with White House correspondent Laura Barron-Lopez quoting federal judges slamming Trump for a “path of perfect lawlessness” and bringing in leftist historian Mark Updegrove to proclaim “Donald Trump campaigned on the notion of making America great again. We have seen him tear down much of what has made America great to this point.”

Earlier this week, the CPB sued Trump over his move to fire three members of its five-person board that were Democrats appointed by President Biden. 

The Trump administration has been working to defund the U.S. Agency for Global Media, including Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, which were founded to provide unbiased broadcast news coverage for people inside totalitarian regimes, but now sound more like NPR. You can tell, because liberal media outlets have presented them as journalistic heroes. Federal judges have ruled against some of these efforts, finding that funds were already appropriated by Congress.

The White House was expected to send a request to Congress this week that they rescind forward funding for the CPB, which has been given $535 million a year to provide a taxpayer-funded TV and radio equivalent to MSNBC.

The order demands an end of their taxpayer funding not just through CPB, but through :all executive departments and agencies,” since public broadcasting entities have received grants through the Department of Education, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and other federal sources.

Tonight’s CBS Evening News gave viewers something beyond the normal network fare: garden-variety Malthusianism couched in equal parts brave self-determination and concern for others. And it was quite disconcerting to view.

Watch as our interview subjects host a party for their fellow childless, and weep for the future:

FRIEND: Was it financial, was it not finding the right — the right-the body style…

BATTISTE: When Tiana’s friends began having kids, she started organizing occasional get-togethers for others who want to be child-free.

FRIEND: Just seems like every time you turn on the news, something bad is happening. Just not the world I would want to raise a kid in.

FRIEND: Can’t control climate change. I think everything else is fixable. But that, I’m not so sure.

Far from striding into the future, these people seem to want to avoid it- a sort of bizarre Peter Pan-ism. These people have been spooked by network news to such a degree that they refuse to even consider the idea of having a baby.

The juxtaposition between the featured Florida couple and the Ghosts of Childlessness Future, if you will, also looked bleak. And also, incredibly selfish.

A small amount of credit is due for mentioning that the birth rate has plummeted in the United States. It has, due to a large number of factors. This is true for most of the West. The remedy is for governments to encourage, rather than discourage, increased childbirth. And to develop pro-family policies. Even if the media seem to want to go in the opposite direction.

Click “expand” to view the full transcript of the aforementioned report as aired on the CBS Evening News on Thursday, May 1st, 2025:

MAURICE DuBOIS: As the oldest of the Baby Boomers, including President Trump, turn 80 next year, and the youngest become eligible for Social Security, he is pushing for a second baby boom, With the U.S. birth rate declining, Mr. Trump is considering incentives for having kids, including a $5,000 bonus. But for many young couples, there is no amount of money. Nikki Battiste has tonight’s “Eye on America” from just west of Mar-a-Lago. 

TIANNA MORALES: You everything that I…

NIKKI BATTISTE: Tianna and PJ Morales said their I do’s seven years ago.

PJ MORALES: I’m super excited to take the next step in our life.

BATTISTE: As newlyweds,s they traveled the war world and before too long, they say, family would ask if they plan to have children. But the Florida couple says they are not having kids. Not now, not ever. 

When you have told people you are child free, what have their reactions been?

PJ: Why?

TIANNA: Yeah, I’ll get typically a blank stare or, “Oh, really?”

BATTISTE: Like pity?

TIANNA: Yeah, pity. Like, “You don’t want a mini you running around?”

BATTISTE: Tiana, now 37, says when she was younger she assumed she would be a mom but after spending her early 20s as a nanny caring for four kids at once, that assumption change.

TIANNA:It just dawned on me as this what I want to do every single day peered.

BATTISTE: The U.S. fertility rate has plummeted in the last two decades and now sits near record lows according to CDC data released last week. Some young adults say high costs are holding them back. Others fear climate change or are putting their careers first. But many say they simply don’t want kids.

AMY BLACKSTONE: We are raised to believe that it is our destiny to become parents.

BATTISTE: Amy Blackstone and her husband, Lance, decided years ago to be a family of just two. Blackstone, a University of Maine sociology professor, has published a number of studies on those who call themselves child-free by choice.

BLACKSTONE: A child-free person will say “I valued my relationship with my partner so much that I didn’t want another party changing that relationship.” A parent will say “the imagined relationship with a child is so important to me that I want that relationship.”

FRIEND: Was it financial, was it not finding the right — the right-the body style…

BATTISTE: When Tiana’s friends began having kids, she started organizing occasional get-togethers for others who want to be child-free.

FRIEND: It just seems like every time you turn on the news, something bad is happening. And it’s just not the world I would want to raise a kid in.

FRIEND: Can’t control climate change. I think everything else is fixable. But that, I’m not so sure.

BATTISTE: On a scale of 1-10, how confident are you on your decision?

TIANNA: I’d say a 9.5.

BATTISTE: What’s that half point?

TIANNA: I grew up in a big family and holidays were always surrounded by a large family. It’s fun. And so, as I age, what will holidays look like? Will they be just as fun? I don’t know.

BATTISTE: A choice, theirs and only theirs, made with careful thought. For “Eye on America,” I’m Nikki Battiste in West Palm Beach, Florida.

DuBOIS: A study found that over five years, the share of childless adults under 50 who don’t plan to have kids rose ten points, to 47%. And about that $5,000 baby bonus: estimates of the cost of raising a child out to the age of 18 are in the hundreds of thousands.