‘Catastrophic': Rural public media stations brace for GOP cuts

Public media stations around the country are anxiously awaiting the results of Thursday's House vote that could claw back $1.1 billion from public broadcasting, with leaders warning that the cuts present an existential crisis for public media's future.
For smaller stations — many of which are in rural parts of the country — the funding makes up critical chunks of their yearly operating budgets. Many of them are being forced to plan how they'll survive the cuts, if they can at all, public media executives say.
Local leaders say the cuts would not only deprive their audiences of news and educational programming, but could also lead to a breakdown of the emergency broadcast message infrastructure that is critical for communities with less reliable internet or cellular service.
'That would mean an almost immediate disappearance of almost half our operating budget,' David Gordon, executive director of KEET in Eureka, California, said of the rescission proposal. 'Assuming [KEET] would continue, it would be in a very, very different form than it is right now.'
The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the entity that distributes federal money to public media stations via grants, said about 45 percent of public radio and TV stations it provided grants to in 2023 are in rural areas. Nearly half of those rural stations relied on CPB funding for 25 percent or more of their revenue.
But that funding is being targeted for a vote as part of a push from President Donald Trump that also aims to cut $8.3 billion in foreign aid. The rescissions package would cut CPB funding already approved by Congress for the next two fiscal years. The proposal, which only needs approval from a simple majority, must pass both chambers of Congress within 45 legislative days from the day it's introduced. The House is set to vote on Thursday.
If the House and Senate follow their current schedules, the deadline to vote on the cuts is July 18. If the deadline passes and Congress has not approved the cuts, the White House will be required to spend the money — but funding could still be cut in future budgets.
If approved, the package would codify a series of cuts first picked out by the Department of Government Efficiency earlier this year. Both Trump and Elon Musk, former head of DOGE, have repeatedly accused NPR and PBS of bias against Republicans. In 2023, the Musk-owned social media site X labeled NPR as 'state-affiliated media,' falsely suggesting the organization produces propaganda.
Trump regularly suggested cutting federal funding for public media during his first term. But his second term has brought increased hostility to mainstream media outlets, including the Associated Press, Voice of America, ABC News and CBS News.
Approximately 19 percent of NPR member stations count on CPB funding for at least 30 percent of their revenue — a level at which stations would be unlikely to make up if Congress approves the rescissions, according to an NPR spokesperson.
Ed Ulman, CEO of Alaska Public Media, predicts over a third of public media stations in Alaska alone would be forced to shut down 'within three to six months' if their federal funding disappears.
PBS CEO Paula Kerger said in an interview she expects 'a couple dozen stations' to have 'significant' funding problems 'in the very near term' without federal funding. And she believes more could be in long-term jeopardy even if they survive the immediate aftermath of the cuts.
'A number of [stations] are hesitant to say it publicly,' she said. 'I know that some of our stations are very, very worried about the fact that they might be able to keep it pieced together for a short period of time. But for them, it will be existential.'
Smaller stations with high dependency on federal funding may be forced into hard choices about where to make cuts. Some stations are considering cutting some of what little full-time staff they have, or canceling some of the NPR and PBS programming they pay to air. Phil Meyer, CEO of Southern Oregon PBS in Medford, Oregon, said his station will have to get creative just to stay afloat.
'If we eliminated all our staff, it still wouldn't save us enough money,' Meyer said. 'It becomes an existential scenario planning exercise where, if that funding does go away, we would have to look at a different way of doing business.'
Some rural stations are worried they won't be able to cover the costs to maintain the satellite and broadcast infrastructure used to relay emergency broadcast messages without the federal grants. In remote areas without reliable broadband or internet coverage, public media stations can be the only way for residents to get natural disaster warnings or hear information about evacuation routes.
After Hurricane Helene devastated Western North Carolina last year, leaving the region without electricity for days, Blue Ridge Public Radio in Asheville, North Carolina, provided vital information on road closure and access to drinking water for people using battery-powered and hand-cranked radios.
'I think it's pretty catastrophic,' Sherece Lamke, president and general manager of Pioneer PBS in Granite Falls, Minnesota, said of the potential consequences of losing the 30 percent of her station's budget supplied by CPB.
Station managers around the country have made direct pleas to their home congressional delegations in the past year, urging them to protect public broadcasting from the rescission proposal and publicly opposing Trump's executive order calling on CPB to stop providing funding to stations. PBS, NPR and some local stations have sued the Trump administration to block the order.
Brian Duggan, general manager of KUNR Public Radio in Reno, Nevada, said he's optimistic about the chances of the House voting down the funding cuts, particularly after talking with his local member of Congress, Rep. Mark Amodei (R-Nev.), who co-signed a statement opposing cuts to public media on Monday.
'I maintain optimism … based on my conversations with the congressman,' Duggan said. 'I will just hold out hope to see what happens ultimately on the House floor.'
Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, whose public media stations are among the most dependent on federal grants in the country, told POLITICO on Wednesday she's concerned about stations in her state and is trying to get the package changed.
In the wake of Trump administration pressure, some stations have seen an uptick in grassroots donations. But while larger stations in well-populated metro areas have broader, wealthier donor bases to draw on for additional support, many rural stations can only expect so much help from their community. Some of the stations in rural areas are forced to navigate the added complication of asking for donations from Republican voters as Trump rails against the public media ecosystem.
'We live in a very purple district up here,' Sarah Bignall, CEO and general manager of KAXE in Grand Rapids, Minnesota said. 'If we started kind of doing the push and the fundraising efforts that were done in the Twin Cities, it would be very off-putting to a lot of our listeners.'
Increases in donations, sponsors and state funding — only some states fund public broadcasting, and other states are pushing their own cuts to public broadcasting — would be unlikely to cover the full loss of smaller stations with heavy dependence on federal grants.
'It's not like we can just go, you know, 'Let's find a million dollars somewhere else.'' Lamke said. 'If we knew how to do that, we would have.'
Longtime public media employees have experience in managing the lack of certainty that comes with the nonprofit funding model. But some said that the federal cuts, along with the White House effort to eliminate the public media model, have made forecasting the future of their stations more difficult than ever.
'I think this is the biggest risk that we've had, certainly in the time that I've been in public broadcasting,' Kruger said. 'And I've been in this business 30 years.'
Calen Razor contributed to this report.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Yahoo

26 minutes ago

• Yahoo

Europe Frets About US Retreating From Region Ahead of NATO

(Bloomberg) -- NATO's European allies are focused on getting through this week's summit unscathed. But even if President Donald Trump is satisfied with fresh pledges to ramp up spending, anxiety is growing about the US military presence in the region. Bezos Wedding Draws Protests, Soul-Searching Over Tourism in Venice One Architect's Quest to Save Mumbai's Heritage From Disappearing JFK AirTrain Cuts Fares 50% This Summer to Lure Riders Off Roads NYC Congestion Toll Cuts Manhattan Gridlock by 25%, RPA Reports Only after the June 24-25 summit meeting in The Hague – where North Atlantic Treaty Organization members will pledge to spend 5% of GDP on defense – will the US present its military review, which will spell out the scope of what are likely significant reductions in Europe. With some 80,000 US troops in Europe, governments in the region have factored in at least a reversal of the military surge under former President Joe Biden of about 20,000 troops. The stakes got significantly higher overnight after US struck nuclear sites in Iran with the risk that Trump will get sucked into a spiraling conflict in the Middle East after being a vocal critic of US military involvement overseas. His foreign policy U-turn will be a topic that will be hard to avoid at the gathering, especially with NATO ally Turkey present and a key stakeholder in the region. Europeans have been kept in the dark on the Trump administration's plans. But officials in the region are bracing potentially for a far bigger withdrawal that could present a dangerous security risk, according to officials familiar with the discussions who declined to be identified as closed-door talks take place before the review. Up until early June, no official from the US had come to NATO to talk about the US force posture review, spurring concern among allies that this could be done at very short notice, according to a person familiar with the matter. It's unclear whether European nations have started planning to fill any potential gaps left by US forces. Withdrawing the aforementioned 20,000 troops could also have an even greater impact if other NATO allies follow the US lead and remove their troops from the east. The worry with even deeper cuts impacting US bases in Germany and Italy is they could encourage Russia to test NATO's Article 5 of collective defense with hybrid attacks across the alliance, the person familiar also said. Since returning to the White House, Trump and his allies have warned European capitals that – despite the mounting threat from Russia – they need to take charge of their security as the US turns its military and diplomatic focus to the Indo-Pacific region. Contacted by Bloomberg, NATO declined to respond to questions but referred to a statement by NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte in early June. When asked about a US drawdown from Europe, he said it was normal they would pivot to Asia. 'I'm not worried about that, but I'm absolutely convinced we will do that in a step-by-step approach,' Rutte said then. 'There will be no capability gaps in Europe because of this.' The White House referred questions to the Pentagon. 'The U.S. constantly evaluates force posture to ensure it aligns with America's strategic interests,' a defense official responded. The geopolitical shift is likely to have enormous consequences for the 32-member alliance, which is weathering its greatest challenge since it became the bulwark against Soviet power in the decades after World War II. European militaries long reliant on American hard power will have to fill the gap as Washington scales back. If a troop reduction focuses on efficiency, it would be far less problematic for Europeans than one that hits critical assets and personnel that Europe couldn't replace immediately, according to one European diplomat. The nature of a withdrawal would be more important than the troop numbers, the person said. A dramatic pullout announcement is likely to trigger an instant reaction from eastern member states, with those closer to Russia immediately requesting deployments from Western European allies. The holistic review of the US military, which Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth says should focus on threats facing the US, is meant to reflect the tilt in the global power dynamic, bringing potentially large-scale redeployment of weapons and troops. But European diplomats have bristled at the timing of the review, taking place only after NATO signs off on its most ambitious new weapons targets since the Cold War — with member states agreeing to foot the bill. A withdrawal that is more dramatic than anticipated will mean that, after acceding to Trump's ramp-up in defense spending, they still may be left with a heavy burden to respond to a rapidly growing Russian military. 'We would be remiss in not reviewing force posture everywhere, but it would be the wrong planning assumption to say, 'America is abandoning'' or leaving Europe, Hegseth said in Stuttgart in February. 'No, America is smart to observe, plan, prioritize and project power to deter conflict.' After the Trump administration balked at providing a backstop to European security guarantees to Ukraine, a pullout of more US troops could embolden Russia's Vladimir Putin, according to people familiar with the matter. 'The question is when pressure is on for a greater focus on the Indo-Pacific, what capabilities do they need to think about moving,' said Matthew Savill, director of military sciences at RUSI, a defense think tank. 'I don't get an impression that they have yet decided what that means for force levels in specific terms.' Germany, Europe's richest and most populous nation, is positioning itself to take on the largest share of the redistribution. Defense Minister Boris Pistorius is taking the lead in building out the military after the country scrapped constitutional debt restrictions when it comes to security. Berlin will do the 'heavy lifting,' he's said. Pistorius recently unveiled a new battle tank brigade in Lithuania and has said the country is committed to boosting its armed forces by as many as 60,000 soldiers. The military currently has about 182,000 active-duty troops. European governments are pushing Washington to communicate its plans clearly and space out any troop draw-downs to give them time to step up with their own forces. 'There are some capabilities, like deep precision strikes, where we Europeans need some time to catch up,' said Stefan Schulz, a senior official in the German Defense Ministry. He called for any US reduction to be done in an orderly fashion, 'so that this process of US reduction is matched with the uplift of European capabilities.' The ideal scenario would be an orderly shift within NATO toward a stronger Europe that would take about a decade, said Camille Grand, distinguished policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations and a former NATO assistant secretary general. A more dire scenario would involve a US administration acting out of frustration with European progress and drastically reducing troop presence. Grand said a 'plausible' scenario would be a cut to about 65,000 US troops, matching a low-point figure before Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014 — a level that NATO could manage. 'But if we go below that, we are entering uncharted waters, a different world,' Grand said. --With assistance from Courtney McBride and Milda Seputyte. (Adds a graph of context referencing developments in the Middle East in fourth paragraph.) Luxury Counterfeiters Keep Outsmarting the Makers of $10,000 Handbags Is Mark Cuban the Loudmouth Billionaire that Democrats Need for 2028? Ken Griffin on Trump, Harvard and Why Novice Investors Won't Beat the Pros The US Has More Copper Than China But No Way to Refine All of It Can 'MAMUWT' Be to Musk What 'TACO' Is to Trump? ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Error al recuperar los datos Inicia sesión para acceder a tu cartera de valores Error al recuperar los datos Error al recuperar los datos Error al recuperar los datos Error al recuperar los datos

Washington Post

26 minutes ago

• Washington Post

Hundreds protest in The Hague against NATO, days before the Dutch city hosts alliance summit

THE HAGUE, Netherlands — Hundreds of people protested Sunday against NATO and military spending and against a possible conflict with Iran, two days before a summit of the alliance in The Hague that is seeking to increase allies' defense budgets. 'Let's invest in peace and sustainable energy,' Belgian politician Jos d'Haese told the crowd at a park not far from the summit venue. Although billed as a demonstration against NATO and the war in Gaza, protesters were joined by Iranians who held up banners saying 'No Iran War,' the day after the United States launched attacks against three of Iran's nuclear sites. 'We are opposed to war. People want to live a peaceful life,' said 74-year-old Hossein Hamadani, an Iranian who lives in the Netherlands. Look at the environment. 'Things are not good. So why do we spend money on war?' he added. The Netherlands is hosting the annual meeting of the 32-nation alliance starting Tuesday, with leaders scheduled to meet Wednesday. The heads of government want to hammer out an agreement on a hike in defense spending demanded by U.S. President Donald Trump. The deal appeared largely done last week, until Spain's Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez wrote to NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte that committing Madrid to spending 5% of its gross domestic product on defense 'would not only be unreasonable, but also counterproductive .' U.S. allies have ramped up defense spending since Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered a full-scale invasion of Ukraine more than three years ago, but almost a third of them still don't meet NATO's current target of at least 2% of their gross domestic product. The summit is being protected by the biggest ever Dutch security operation, code named 'Orange Shield,' involving thousands of police and military personnel, drones, no-fly zones and cybersecurity experts. ___ Associated Press writer Molly Quell in The Hague contributed.

The Hill

27 minutes ago

• The Hill

Hegseth says ‘Iran has a choice,' US not seeking regime change

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Sunday morning that Iran faces a choice between a negotiated settlement or an escalating conflict with the U.S. after strikes hit three nuclear sites in the country on Saturday. 'Now is the time to come forward for peace,' Hegseth told reporters at the Pentagon along with Joint Chiefs Chair Gen. Dan 'Razin' Caine. 'And I think Tehran is certainly calculating the reality that planes flew from the middle of America and Missouri overnight, completely undetected over three of their most highly sensitive sites, and we were able to destroy nuclear capabilities,' he added. Caine said the damage assessment was ongoing but that all three nuclear sites targeted in the strikes sustained 'severe damage and destruction.' Trump on Saturday said the facilities had been 'obliterated.' Iran signaled little interest in diplomacy in the hours after the strikes, dubbed as Operation Midnight Hammer. 'The events this morning are outrageous and will have everlasting consequences,' Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Aragaci posted on the social media site X shortly after the strikes. 'In accordance with the UN Charter and its provisions allowing a legitimate response in self-defense, Iran reserves all options to defend its sovereignty, interest, and people.' Hegseth said Saturday's strikes were limited in scope, but pointed to President Trump's warning on Truth Social that 'any retaliation by Iran against the United States will be met with force far greater than what was witnessed tonight.' The Pentagon chief said the operation was 'not and has not been about regime change' in Iran. He said it had set back Iran's nuclear timeline. Caine also provided new details about the operation during Sunday's briefing, which he called the largest B-2 bomber operation in history. He said the U.S. dropped 75 guided weapons on the Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan nuclear enrichment and research sites. This included 14 30,000-pound bunker-buster bombs, the first operational use of the weapon, and two dozen Tomahawk cruise missiles launched from a submarine, he said. A total of 125 aircraft were involved in the mission. The B-2 bombers involved in the operation flew 37 hours non-stop from their base in Missouri, refueling in the air. Caine said that a group of the bombers had been deployed west over the Pacific Ocean as a decoy. The weapons were dropped in a window from 6:40 p.m. to 7:05 p.m. Eastern time. Trump announced the strike via a Truth Social post about 45 minutes later. The American forces appear to have gone undetected in Iranian airspace. Caine said no shots were fired at American aircraft, nor did Iran's missile defense system notice them. 'Throughout the mission, we retained the element of surprise,' he said. Hegseth said Congress was only notified of the attacks after warplanes had dropped their payload and exited Iranian airspace. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle accused the administration of violating the Constitution, which requires congressional approval before entering foreign wars. 'This is not Constitutional,' Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) tweeted as the news broke. Massie sponsored a House resolution earlier this week to require Congressional authorization for any strike in Iran. Vice President Vance, a veteran and frequent skeptic of foreign intervention, congratulated the troops and others involved in the strike on Sunday morning. 'I think what they did was accomplish a very core American national objective. Iran cannot have a nuclear weapons program,' said in an interview on ABC News.