PBS sues Trump administration over defunding
PBS has filed a legal claim against US President Donald Trump and other administration officials to block his order stripping funding from the American broadcaster, three days after NPR did the same for its radio network.
In the claim, PBS relies on similar arguments, saying Mr Trump was overstepping his authority and engaging in 'viewpoint discrimination' because of his claim that PBS' news coverage is biased against conservatives.
'PBS disputes those charged assertions in the strongest possible terms,' lawyer Z W Julius Chen wrote in the case, filed in a US court in Washington.
One of the control rooms at the Arizona PBS offices at the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication in Phoenix (Katie Oyan/AP)
'But regardless of any policy disagreements over the role of public television, our constitution and laws forbid the president from serving as the arbiter of the content of PBS's programming, including by attempting to defund PBS.'
It was the latest of many legal actions taken against the administration for its moves, including several by media organisations impacted by Mr Trump's orders.
A PBS spokesman said that 'after careful deliberation, PBS reached the conclusion that it was necessary to take legal action to safeguard public television's editorial independence, and to protect the autonomy of PBS member stations'.
Mr Trump's order 'would have profound impacts on the ability of PBS and PBS member stations to provide a rich tapestry of programming to all Americans,' Mr Chen wrote.
PBS said the US Department of Education has cancelled a 78 million dollar grant to the system for educational programming, used to make children's shows like Sesame Street, Clifford the Big Red Dog and Reading Rainbow.
Besides Mr Trump, the claim names other administration officials as defendants, including US education secretary Linda McMahon, treasury secretary Scott Bessent and homeland security secretary Kristi Noem.
PBS says its technology is used as a backup for the nationwide wireless emergency alert system.
The administration has fought with several media organisations. Government-run news services like Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty are also struggling, The Associated Press has battled with the White House over press access and the Federal Communications Commission is investigating television news divisions.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Examiner
3 hours ago
- Irish Examiner
Trump says he is open to regime change in Iran
President Donald Trump has called into question the future of Iran's ruling theocracy, seemingly contradicting his administration's earlier calls to resume negotiations and avoid an escalation in fighting. 'It's not politically correct to use the term, 'Regime Change,' but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change???' Mr Trump posted on social media. 'MIGA!!!' The posting on Truth Social marked something of a reversal from defence secretary Pete Hegseth's Sunday morning news conference that detailed the aerial bombing on three of the country's nuclear sites. 'This mission was not and has not been about regime change,' Mr Hegseth said. "The damage to the Nuclear sites in Iran is said to be 'monumental.' The hits were hard and accurate. Great skill was shown by our military. Thank you!" –President Donald J. Trump — The White House (@WhiteHouse) June 22, 2025 Secretary of state Marco Rubio warned on Fox News that any retaliation against the US or a rush toward building a nuclear weapon would 'put the regime at risk'. Mr Trump's warning to Iran's leadership comes as the US has demanded that Iran not respond to the bombardment of the heart of a nuclear programme it spent decades developing. The Trump administration has made a series of intimidating statements even as it has simultaneously called to restart negotiations, making it hard to get a complete read on whether the president is simply taunting an adversary or using inflammatory words that could further widen the war between Israel and Iran that began earlier this month. Up until the president's post on Sunday afternoon, the coordinated messaging by Mr Trump's vice president, Pentagon chief, top military adviser and secretary of state suggested a confidence that any fallout would be manageable and that Iran's lack of military capabilities would ultimately force it back to the bargaining table. Mr Hegseth had said that America 'does not seek war' with Iran, while Vice President JD Vance said the strikes have given Tehran the possibility of returning to negotiate with Washington. But the unfolding situation is not entirely under Washington's control, as Tehran has a series of levers to respond to the aerial bombings, which could intensify the conflict in the Middle East with possible global repercussions. Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth speaks during a news conference at the Pentagon on Sunday (Alex Brandon/AP) Iran can block oil being shipped through the Strait of Hormuz, attack US bases in the region, engage in cyber attacks or double down on a nuclear programme might seem like more of a necessity after the US strike. Mr Trump, who had addressed the nation from the White House on Saturday night, returned to social media on Sunday to lambast Republican Congress member Thomas Massie, who had objected to the president taking military action without specific congressional approval. 'We had a spectacular military success yesterday, taking the 'bomb' right out of their hands (and they would use it if they could!)' Mr Trump said as part of the post on Truth Social. At their joint Pentagon briefing, Mr Hegseth and Air Force General Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said 'Operation Midnight Hammer' involved decoys and deception, and met with no Iranian resistance. General Caine indicated that the goal of the operation — destroying nuclear sites in Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan — had been achieved. 'Final battle damage will take some time, but initial battle damage assessments indicate that all three sites sustained extremely severe damage and destruction,' he said. An electronic billboard beams an image of president Donald Trump alongside the message 'Thank you, Mr. President' referring to the US involvement in the war between Israel and Iran (Bernat Armangue/AP) While US officials urged caution and stressed that only nuclear sites were targeted by Washington, Iran criticised the actions as a violation of its sovereignty and international law. Iran's foreign minister Abbas Araghchi said Washington was 'fully responsible' for whatever actions Tehran may take in response. 'They crossed a very big red line by attacking nuclear facilities,' he said at a news conference in Turkey. 'I don't know how much room is left for diplomacy.' China and Russia, where Araghchi was heading for talks with President Vladimir Putin, condemned the US military action. The attacks were 'a gross violation of international law,' said Russia's Foreign Ministry, which also advocated 'returning the situation to a political and diplomatic course.' A Turkish Foreign Ministry statement warned about the risk of the conflict spreading to 'a global level'. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said the United Kingdom was moving military equipment into the area to protect its interests, people and allies. His office said he talked on Sunday with Mr Trump about the need for Tehran to resume negotiations, but Mr Trump would have posted his remarks about regime change after their conversation. The leaders of Italy, Canada, Germany and France agreed on the need for 'a rapid resumption of negotiations.' France's Emmanuel Macron held talks with the Saudi Crown Prince and the Sultan of Oman.
Irish Examiner
3 hours ago
- Irish Examiner
John Whelan: Ireland behind the curve in pharma R&D amid Pfizer call
Pharma companies met with the Trump administration earlier this month to try and defer implementation of the executive order signed by President Trump on May 12, effectively forcing drug companies to commit to aligning their US prices with 'the lowest price of a set of economic peer countries''. At the meeting of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) with the Trump administration, Pfizer chief executive Albert Bourla called for the US government to lead an initiative to increase overall drug spending outside the US. While the exact mechanism of implementing the Trump executive order to reduce drug prices in the US remains unclear, the Pfizer chief proposed an alternative solution, suggesting that other countries should spend a certain percentage of their GDP per capita on innovative medicines. In an attempt to lead on the recommendation, he added that Pfizer could consider not making its drugs available for government reimbursement in some countries if the US carries through on its price control and other countries don't increase their prices. Effectively, Mr Bourla, who chairs the pharma industry lobby group PhRMA, suggested the US should push for a Nato-type agreement, which commits each country to a minimum 2% of their national GDP on defence spending. And whereas there may be good logic in the Pfizer proposal, any commitment of this nature will likely create major challenges for Ireland, as OECD and World Bank figures show Ireland lagging well behind other countries in research and development expenditure. In 2022, the last year for which finalised figures have been released, US pharmaceutical companies' R&D spending amounted to 2.33% of the nation's GDP. There is no comparable figures for the Irish market, in terms of pharmaceutical industry expenditure in research and development. However, the figures available from the World Bank and the OECD for years 2022/2023 show that total R&D for all industry as a percentage of GDP, in Ireland was 0.9%. This is well below the EU average of 2.29%, and even further below countries like the US at 3.6% and Israel at 6.3% who invest more heavily in R&D than Ireland. Economists have inferred that Trump is leveraging unfavourable policies such as drastically lowering prices points of US drugs and tariffs on imports, to coerce the pharmaceutical industry to increase investments in the US. Several large pharma companies, including Eli Lilly, Merck & Co, and Bristol Myers Squibb, have unveiled major US investments planned for the next few years in attempt to curry favour with the Trump administration. But noticeably Pfizer remains an exception to that trend. However, Mr Bourla stated that Pfizer has invested in US manufacturing and will continue to do so, but risks from those Trump policies are making it difficult for the company to commit further. "I don't think it makes sense to make announcements of future investments in an environment that is very fluid,' Mr Bourla said. That suggests Pfizer, one of our largest and longest-term investors in the pharmaceuticals space, is unlikely to back off its Irish investments anytime soon. However , we need to heed the Pfizer CEO's call for more R&D support in Europe, which clearly includes Ireland. Besides Pfizer, many pharma companies are leveraging the United States' threat of tariffs on drug imports to push for policy changes in the EU. In a letter sent on April 11 to European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, 32 pharma companies demanded more favourable policies in order for them to maintain operations in the EU . In the same letter they say that policy changes are needed to ensure Europe remains a location to research, develop, and manufacture medicines. The CEOs also included in their letter that European countries should rethink their drug pricing policies and enable a better commercial environment for innovative medicines. Ireland's Research and Innovation Act 2024 , replaces Science Foundation Ireland in an attempt to fast forward the provision for the funding of research and innovation, but this caters for all fields of activity and neither commits to double the level of funding to €2bn per year needed to reach EU level, nor does it commit to meet the specific requirements of the pharma industry.
Irish Examiner
3 hours ago
- Irish Examiner
Is Ireland sliding into a gerontocracy where the older generation dominates?
A gerontocracy is a system where the elderly hold sway, governing by and for their own interests. The concept traces back to the classical period, with Plato describing a society where 'the elder man rules, and the younger submits.' In Sparta, the Gerousia, a council of elders including two kings and nearly 30 elite full-citizen men of the city state of Sparta over 60, wielded significant judicial and legislative power, embodying this structure. The term 'senate' derives from the Latin senex, meaning old man. From antiquity to today, gerontocracy persists in places such as China, where CCP leaders seldom retire before their late 80s, perhaps adhering to that Confucian adage that 'when you meet someone older, you must respect and submit to that person's wisdom and power because he must have come across problems you encounter'. Perhaps the most vivid example of modern gerontocracy is in the world's superpower the United States where an octogenarian and septuagenarian candidate dominated the field during the last presidential election in a country where the average age is 38. Polling showed that many voters in the US were uneasy with 81-year-old Donald Trump and 78-year-old Joe Biden, before being replaced by his 60-year-old vice president Kamala Harris, as the two early nominees with age a major factor in their discontent. Beyond the executive branch, the second branch of government - the legislative - is dominated by elders. The current Senate is the second oldest, with an average age of 63, and the House of Representatives is the third oldest, averaging 57 years of age, since the foundation of the US Congress in 1789. It was president Ronald Reagan who, at the ripe old age of 78, in 1984 said he would not make age an issue during his presidential campaign against Walter Mondale. But while candidates may not make age an explicit issue during the campaign it certainly dominates their time in office. Currently, about a third of the federal budget is dedicated to Social Security and Medicare payments which benefits those over 60, who make up less than 20% of the US population. These costs are mainly borne by young workers and employers even as older generations are financially better off than younger cohorts. Talk of cuts to such programmes are usually met with voter rage as candidates and office holders alike walk a tightrope in accommodating older voters and promising to balance budgets. Aside from international examples, Ireland offers a closer look at gerontocratic rule. A recent study carried out by the Electoral Commission reveals the older generation's outsized influence on Irish elections. Titled the National Election & Democracy Study General Election 2024, the findings, carried out by Red C, indicates that 90% of those aged 65+ voted in last year's general election. But while the older generation enthusiastically headed to polling stations in their droves, young people, for the most part, stayed at home - their parents' home, that is. Housing between the generations Housing, the top electoral issue, underscores this divide. While voters express frustration with the crisis, 89% of those who turned out to vote are homeowners, with two-thirds reporting stable or improved economic conditions. Since the Troika's exit in 2013, house prices have doubled, boosting wealth for homeowners — mostly older generations. Meanwhile, wages, especially for younger people, have lagged, rising just 27% since the crash from 2013-2022. The ESRI highlights Ireland's stark generational homeownership gap: nearly 80% of those over 40 own homes, compared to just a third of those under 40. In 1993, 70% of 25-34-year-olds were homeowners; by 2016, 60% of this group were renters, and the 2022 census showed over two-thirds of 18-34-year-olds still living with their parents - way above the EU average. With 30% of Ireland's population aged 18-39, the over-40 cohort, around 10% larger, dominates both homeownership and voter turnout. Despite desperate attempts by the Millennial 'TikTok Teesh' Simon Harris to appeal to the youth, the 34th Dáil's power rests on older homeowners' support. This influence is reflected in government policy. Pensions In 2020, nearly every party opposed raising the state pension age from 66, with Sinn Féin, popular among under-65s, pledging to lower it to 65. A post-election Commission on Pensions recommended gradually raising the age to 67 by 2031. With the average life expectancy standing at 87, it only makes sense that the pension age rise concurrently. Yet the government, seemingly wary of older voters, rejected the recommendation, offering higher pensions for those retiring at 70 and proposing PRSI hikes — largely borne by younger workers. With birth rates declining and the worker-to-pensioner ratio projected to drop to 2:1 by 2050, PRSI costs will likely climb, further impacting working age people. Pensions, like housing, favour the old. Only 30% of 20-24-year-olds have some sort of pension plan, compared to over 70% of 45-54-year-olds, often tied to property wealth. Maybe the government's refusal to raise the pension age is informed by the last time geriatric rage was elicited. Following the crash, and the imposition of brutal austerity, the Fianna Fáil-Green-PD government did away with the automatic entitlement for over 70s to free healthcare and a medical card. This sparked major protests with opposition leaders, including Fine Gael's Enda Kenny and Labour's Eamon Gilmore, addressing some demonstrators. Fearing the electoral repercussions, the coalition government backtracked on their plans but ploughed ahead with gruelling cuts for mainly younger, working-age people. Shortly after the crash, Ireland registered one of the highest unemployment rates among those aged 15-24 at over 40%. Many young people emigrated — nearly 10% during the recession — rather than protest. The housing trap Housing remains the starkest indicator of youth disenfranchisement. Average rents now exceed €2,000 monthly, and post-crash rules requiring 10-20% deposits trap young people in a cycle of paying more in rent than a mortgage would cost. House prices are seven times the average income, compared to 1.5 times in the 1980s. A new report from the Central Bank of Ireland found that the wealthiest 10% of households held just below half of the total net wealth in 2024 mainly due to high house prices. According to the bank, Irish households have financial assets worth €570bn. For them, rising house prices are a positive development with politicians equally richly rewarded at the ballot box. When Mary Lou McDonald proposed lowering house prices to €300,000, her party was accused of recklessness. Fine Gael Senator John Cummins warned: 'We'd see our construction sector and economy crash.' Similar sentiments were echoed by then Taoiseach Leo Varadkar when he stated that "one person's rent is another person's income" when voicing his opposition to rent caps. Such Freudian slips reveal how politicians view housing: as an asset whose rising price must be maintained in order to satisfy the equity of a homeowners' property and yields for a landlord. Meanwhile, those desperate to get onto the property ladder and stuck paying gargantuan rents are left scraping by and politically unrepresented. Independent TD Barry Heneghan, at just 27 years of age, is one of the youngest candidates to sit in the current Dáil. Photo: Sam Boal/Collins Photos While some younger candidates did manage to get elected during the last general election, including Barry Heneghan at age 27, the spectre of career politician and septuagenarian Michael Lowry giving Paul Murphy the two fingers in the Dáil chamber as the new government was formed could not have shown more clearly whose interests they will represent. Minister of state for international development and the diaspora, Neale Richmond, recently mentioned that Ireland's greatest export was its people. With 70% of young people in Ireland contemplating emigration, you can expect bumper figures for exports in the future if this situation continues. The fissures between old and young are widening with housing causing the rupture and youth despair filling the crevice. Going back to first principles and re-examining who housing policy should represent and what the purpose of a home is would go a long way in stabilising that societal chasm.
