North Dakota Senate vote allows funding for public broadcasting, but no guarantee
Prairie Public Broadcasting's offices in downtown Fargo. (Jeff Beach/North Dakota Monitor)
The North Dakota Senate defeated a bill that bans state or federal funding for public broadcasting but some senators who voted against the bill still called for defunding Prairie Public Broadcasting.
North Dakota typically funds Prairie Public Broadcasting through the Office of Management and Budget bill. Gov. Kelly Armstrong's proposed budget included nearly $2.9 million for Prairie Public.
When House Bill 1255 mandating the public broadcasting funding ban passed the House of Representatives, Appropriations Committee members took Prairie Public funding out of the OMB bill.
Sen. Kristin Roers, R-Fargo, said Monday that the appropriations bill is where the funding decision should be made and warned of unintended consequences of passing the House bill.
The bill, sponsored by Rep. Jorin Johnson, R-Fargo, failed on a 24-6 vote.
Prairie Public supporters urge North Dakota Senate to restore state funding
Roers said the House bill would have prevented federal funding for public broadcasting from passing through a state agency. She said the bill also could have prevented state agencies from renting space on towers owned by Prairie Public for things such as emergency sirens and weather instruments.
'If you want to defund public radio and television in North Dakota, do that through the appropriations process,' Roers said.
Roers said there are upsides to continuing to fund Prairie Public, such as supporting broadcasts of state high school sports, educational television and local documentaries that are free over the air. She said Prairie Public's broadcast towers also benefit the state.
Sen. Scott Meyer, R-Grand Forks, and Sen. Janne Myrdal, R-Edinburg, were among those who voted against the funding ban but advocated for cutting funding in House Bill 1015, which funds the Office of Management and Budget.
John Harris, president and CEO of Prairie Public, testified last week in a Senate Appropriations hearing asking that the funding be restored.
Harris said Prairie Public would be spending $4 million to $7 million in the next 18 months to upgrade facilities and buy transmitters.
The nearly $2.9 million for Prairie Public during the 2025-27 biennium in Armstrong's preliminary budget included $1.7 million in one-time funding to assist with transmitter maintenance and replacement.
Prairie Public leaders have testified that the organization can survive without state funding, but that it will mean less local programming. Other sources of funding include charitable gambling, endowment funds and investment funds.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
E&E News
13-06-2025
- E&E News
White House reviewing NEPA plans across agencies
The White House is reviewing proposed rules from a host of federal agencies that would dictate how the government implements the National Environmental Policy Act, the nation's magna carta of environmental laws. The Office of Management and Budget received proposed interim final rules from agencies including the departments of Energy, Interior and Defense, and one final rule from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for NEPA 'implementing procedures,' according to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs dashboard. The reviews mark another step in the Trump administration's bid to overhaul how the federal government conducts environmental reviews at a quick pace, a move that's drawing criticism from environmental groups. Advertisement In February, the Trump White House scrapped decades' worth of rules at the Council on Environmental Quality that governed how agencies conduct reviews under NEPA for power plants, pipelines and other energy projects. In its place, the administration offered up voluntary guidance that legal experts noted was light on details.
Yahoo
09-06-2025
- Yahoo
Exclusive-SEC plan says existing staff cuts help meet DOGE targets
By Douglas Gillison and Chris Prentice (Reuters) -Wall Street's top regulator told the White House in March it had already made substantial progress toward meeting President Trump and Elon Musk's demands for leaner government via voluntary workforce reductions, according to a planning document obtained by Reuters. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission also told the Office of Management and Budget that it is legally required to seek input from Congress before any "significant reorganization" and that changes beyond certain budget thresholds need lawmakers' approval, according to the March 13 document provided in response to a Reuters' public records request. The SEC submission for "reduction in force" and reorganizations, which Reuters is the first to report, responded to February's call from Trump and erstwhile ally Musk for federal agencies to develop plans for "large scale" cuts as part of the so-called Department of Government Efficiency initiative. Though much of the text, released under the Freedom of Information Act, is redacted, the visible portions suggest agency leadership at least in part believed voluntary reductions already in progress could weigh against the need for further cuts. An SEC spokesperson declined to comment beyond recently installed SEC Chair Paul Atkins's public statements and the agency's recent budget request. The Office of Management and Budget did not respond to a request for comment. Since he took office in January, Trump's government-slashing efforts have stirred unease and concern among some SEC staff uncertain about the future of the agency's workforce and its political independence. Critics have said the workforce reductions could hinder the SEC's performance in times of crisis but Atkins has brushed off such concerns. Officials affiliated with the so-called Department of Government Efficiency continue to work on restructuring and cost cutting at the SEC. The March plan was compiled by then-Acting Director Mark Uyeda, who while serving as interim agency chief also rewired top agency positions in Enforcement and Examinations to have them report to new deputy directors. Uyeda declined to comment on the document. The plan predates Atkins' arrival in office in April. In response to an OMB query about how the agency planned to achieve staffing cuts and costs savings in the next three fiscal years, the document highlighted workforce reductions already underway. The "SEC has already used a variety of tools to achieve efficiencies," the memo said, referring to early retirement and resignation programs. It also said that, in addition to voluntary departures, the SEC had "eliminated over 550 authorized positions," leaving agency headcount at that point at 4,300 and falling. "This is below the lowest headcount level during the president's first term in office," it added. Agency data previously released to Reuters shows that by April 600 people had taken the administration's various buyout offers. The SEC last month asked Congress to approve funding for the coming fiscal year that would roughly preserve staffing at around 4,100 full-time positions. In response to a query about working with Congress on agency restructuring, the Uyeda plan pointed out that legally any "significant" restructuring required consultation with the House and Senate appropriations committees and that major funding shifts required those committees' approval. Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
09-06-2025
- Yahoo
What's a Medicaid cut? Senate GOP tiptoes around $800B question
When is a Medicaid cut not actually a cut? That's the $800 billion question facing Senate Republicans as they write their own version of the sweeping House-passed tax and spending bill. Administration officials and senators defending against attacks on the bill have coalesced around a message that there will be no cuts to benefits, and the only people who will lose coverage are the ones who never deserved it to begin with: namely immigrants without legal status and 'able-bodied' individuals who shouldn't be on Medicaid. 'This bill will preserve and protect the programs, the social safety net, but it will make it much more commonsense,' Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought said during a recent CNN interview. 'That's what this bill does. No one will lose coverage as a result.' Among many provisions, the House bill would require states to deny Medicaid to people who can't prove they are working, looking for work, in school or volunteering for 80 hours a month. It would prohibit states from using their own money to cover immigrants without legal status and would deny coverage to other lawfully present immigrants who are currently eligible. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the legislation will result in nearly 11 million people losing health insurance coverage over the next decade. The Medicaid provisions alone would result in 7.8 million people losing their insurance. Those coverage losses would equate to hundreds of billions of dollars in savings for the federal government. However, GOP lawmakers and administration officials insist the legislation will protect Medicaid for 'deserving' people such as the elderly and disabled, while forcing others to prove they aren't freeloading. 'It's important for us to provide a nudge to some Americans to remember that they have agency over their future,' Mehmet Oz, the administration's Medicare and Medicaid chief, told reporters on Wednesday, following a closed-door meeting with GOP senators. Later Wednesday in an interview on Fox Business, Oz elaborated. 'Go out there, do entry-level jobs, get into the workforce, prove that you matter. Get agency into your own life,' he said. Republicans are wary about being attacked over health care cuts, and they're eager to reframe the debate and try to go on offense. Voter backlash over the 2017 ObamaCare repeal effort led to widespread GOP losses and cost them control of the House in the 2018 midterms. 'Give me a break, This is just fear-mongering from Democrats,' Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) said in a post on the social platform X. 'No one's losing health care—unless you count the 1.4 million illegal immigrants getting Medicaid on your dime.' Most immigrants without legal status can't qualify for Medicaid at the federal level, but some blue states have extended health care coverage to them. The legislation would penalize those states if they continued to offer coverage by lowering their federal matching rate. In a CNBC interview Thursday, Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) said the people who lose Medicaid coverage will merely transition to employer-sponsored health care. 'It's not kicking people off Medicaid. It's transitioning from Medicaid to employer-provided health care. So yes, we've got 10 million people that are not going to be on Medicaid, but they then are going to be on employer-provided health care,' Lankford said. Yet according to the CBO, 'few of those disenrolled from Medicaid because of the policy would have access to and enroll in employment-based coverage.' A bloc of Republican senators has been raising concerns about some of the Medicaid provisions, and some have said they do not like the idea of anything that could be interpreted as a cut. But by and large, they've signaled the coverage losses aren't what's troubling. '[We need to] protect the program for the people that really deserve and need the help and need the program, you know, and that's children, disabled, seniors, on and on and on,' said Sen. Jim Justice ( 'That's what we got to do. You know, at the end of the day, we shouldn't be protecting the program for people that are abusing or people that shouldn't be eligible, or whatever.' Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) has said he worries about the bill's potential impact on rural hospitals and pledged to withhold support from any bill that cuts Medicaid benefits. But what is a benefit cut? 'If my state tells me that, because of legislative changes in the House bill, the Senate bill, we're going to have to cut benefits. That's a benefit cut,' Hawley told The Hill. Missouri has 1.3 million Medicaid beneficiaries, but Hawley said he thinks there would only be a small number impacted by the work requirements. 'I'm fine with people who are able-bodied and not working … I'm all for that. So you know what, cut benefits from illegal aliens. Yeah, I'm fine with that, but I'm concerned about people who are here legally, residents of my state, citizens of my state, who are working and would lose health care coverage,' he said. Hawley has said that President Trump reiterated his opposition against any Medicaid cuts during recent conversations about the 'big, beautiful bill,' though the president supported the House version. Health experts say the impact of the cuts will go far beyond the small slice of the population Republicans claim. Work requirements will likely add layers of red tape for people to prove they meet the threshold. 'The people losing coverage aren't people who aren't working … but they're actually people who should satisfy the work reporting or should qualify for an exemption, but they can't navigate the complex systems for either reporting one's hours for work or other activities,' said Edwin Park, a research professor at the Georgetown University McCourt School of Public Policy. The legislation includes some exemptions, like for caregiving, but it doesn't specify what would qualify or how beneficiaries would prove they qualify. There's no requirement that states exempt people automatically, Park said, so many people who would be eligible likely wouldn't be enrolled. No matter how Republicans spin it, Park said, 'these are huge Medicaid cuts. They're going to take away coverage from millions of low-income people.' 'And those cuts are going to affect everyone throughout the Medicaid program, not just the expansion group, but also kids, seniors and people with disabilities,' he added. 'And it's going to have big ripple effects throughout the health care system.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
