Are NPR, PBS Funding Cuts a First Amendment Violation?

Key takeaways:

• The U.S. government funds several media organizations delivering news, information and culture to both domestic and international audiences.
• The current administration has taken action to cut funding to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which oversees NPR and PBS, and the U.S. Agency for Global Media, the government agency that oversees several U.S. networks with international audiences.
• In late May 2025, NPR and PBS filed lawsuits against the Trump administration in federal court, claiming the order amounts to viewpoint discrimination, in violation of the First Amendment.
• While government has a strong power of the purse, these cuts may violate the First Amendment if they are intended to censor news media or retaliate.

In spring 2025, the Trump administration issued executive orders cutting federal funding to media outlets, including National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service, that reach both U.S. and international audiences. Some of these outlets and their employees have filed legal challenges, including NPR, PBS and some of their local stations, which are claiming that the order violates the First Amendment.

Some of these First Amendment claims are based on past cases that indicate the government cannot require an organization to give up its First Amendment rights, like freedom of speech and freedom of the press, as a condition of getting funds. These cases also suggest that the government cannot take away funds in retaliation against those organizations exercising these rights.

The actions have sparked significant public conversation around that topic — but also around whether the U.S. government should be funding news organizations in the first place.

This article takes a look at the state of government-funded media. We explore current conflicts and why the government provides financial support for news organizations and other media outlets. We also discuss whether government-funded media raises First Amendment concerns and if the First Amendment is violated when that funding is removed.

How does the U.S. government fund news organizations?

The U.S. government provides funding for several media outlets that broadcast news, information and entertainment inside and outside the U.S.

Domestic media

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting is a nonprofit corporation created by Congress in 1967 to promote and support public broadcasting, specifically, “to ensure universal access to content and services that educate, inform, foster curiosity, and promote civil discourse essential to American society.” Its annual budget comes almost entirely from federal funding.

The CPB does not produce programming and does not own or control any networks or individual stations. It simply distributes the money it receives from Congress to PBS, NPR and more than 1,500 local stations.

PBS, NPR and individual stations also raise their own money through public donations and sponsorships; federal funding makes up about 15% of public broadcasting’s revenue in the U.S. With the funding they receive through the CPB, these organizations have certain financial and other obligations to ensure they are being fair and equitable in their news coverage, including a requirement that they provide nonpartisan news coverage. If the CPB finds that a station or outlet is violating any of these requirements, then the CPB can cut off funding to that outlet, though the outlet will have the opportunity to seek review of this decision.

In this case, though, the White House has ordered the CPB to cut off this funding via executive order, claiming that PBS, NPR and their affiliates receiving CPB money are violating the nonpartisanship requirement and, as a result, the CPB is failing the statutory requirement that it “may not contribute to or otherwise support any political party or candidate for elective public office.”

Overseas media

Congress also funds six U.S. broadcast networks with overseas audiences through an independent government agency called the U.S. Agency for Global Media, whose mission is “to inform, engage and connect people around the world in support of freedom and democracy.”

These six networks receive all or almost all their funding from the government (according to these outlets’ tax forms) but enjoy independence from government interference through several requirements, including a clear prohibition on political intervention in newsgathering and publication.

Two of these federal networks are part of the of the U.S. government, with leadership and staff who are government employees:

• Voice of America: Established in 1942, this is the largest U.S.-funded international broadcaster, reaching more than 350 million people in nearly 50 languages via radio, television and the internet.
• Office of Cuba Broadcasting: Better known as Radio Martí and TV Martí, its mission is to provide objective news and information to the people of Cuba.

The remaining four government-funded networks under the USAGM are nonprofit media outlets:

• Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty: It broadcasts in 27 languages to 23 countries and reaches more than 47 million people, most of whom live in countries where a free press does not exist.
• Radio Free Asia: It broadcasts to some Asian countries with challenging media environments and few protections for the press, like China, North Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos and Myanmar.
• Middle East Broadcasting Networks: An Arabic-language news organization, it reaches 33.5 million people in the Middle East and North Africa, where press freedom is generally considered very limited, and journalists often face physical threats.
• Open Technology Fund: Originally a part of Radio Free Asia, this became its own entity in 2019. Its purpose is to support and fund digital security and privacy protections for journalists around the world.

Current conflicts over government-funded media

The Trump administration has taken steps to remove funding from both domestic and international media that the U.S. government has supported for decades.

Domestic media

In early May 2025, the administration issued an executive order directing the CPB to stop providing federal funds to PBS and NPR, which affects funding for all their local affiliates as well. The order claims that government funding of news media is “outdated” and that neither PBS nor NPR present “a fair, accurate, or unbiased portrayal of current events to taxpaying citizens.”

On May 27, NPR and three of its local stations filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration in federal court, arguing that the order violates the First Amendment. 

“The Order is textbook retaliation and viewpoint-based discrimination in violation of the First Amendment, and it interferes with NPR’s and the Local Member Stations’ freedom of expressive association and editorial discretion,” the lawsuit claims. 

PBS filed its own lawsuit three days later, relying on similar arguments as the NPR suit. 

RELATED: Why Government Can’t Restrict Speech It Doesn’t Like: Viewpoint Discrimination Explained 

In a separate move by the Trump administration, three of the five members of the CPB board of directors were fired in April, even though they hadn’t completed their six-year terms. These individuals have filed a lawsuit in federal court; the suit is currently pending.

Overseas media

In March 2025, the administration issued an executive order directing the USAGM to reduce funding to minimum levels. As a result, the agency terminated funding to Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio Free Asia and Middle East Broadcasting Networks, as well as for Voice of America, where employees found themselves locked out of the building the next day. VOA news programming was replaced initially by music and more recently by the feed from One America Network, a conservative, for-profit political TV channel. More than 600 VOA employees have been fired in the wake of the funding cuts.

The media outlets and their employees filed several lawsuits in federal court, which ordered the government to reinstate funding. A federal appeals court initially froze the money again but then reversed its own decision and ordered the government to release April funds to the outlets while the court continues to consider this case.

Arguments for and against government funding of media

Some media companies, both domestic and international, are facing financial challenges that may threaten the existence of small, independent news outlets. Government funding, like other financial support for media, can help ensure that the public has free access to news, information and culture, and particularly to essential emergency information. In the U.S., while federal funding constitutes only a small share of public broadcast revenue, it makes up 99%-100% of funding for those six U.S. networks with overseas audiences, according to these outlets’ tax forms.

U.S. government-funded media often provides the only source for a free and independent press in the countries in which they broadcast. This can lead to increased civic participation and government oversight. Government financial support can also often allow private media entities to remain focused on the public interest rather than sensationalized stories primarily designed to get page views.

But government funding can also create problems. Freedom of the press has always been understood to mean that there will be no government interference with newsgathering, editorial decision-making and publication. Yet, as soon as the government gets involved in any way, it can open the door to government control of the media.

This is particularly true where funding is involved. Government funding often comes with conditions, which can provide the government with leverage to threaten editorial independence — something that has been occurring with both domestic and international news organizations funded by the government.

Government funding of media may also create bias, rather than eliminate it; media outlets may change their reporting or self-censor just to look neutral to please whoever is in power. And even the existence of government funding may undermine the appearance of independence in the public’s eye.

Legal barriers to removing government funding

There aren’t many cases (yet) regarding government decisions to withdraw funding for media. But past cases indicate that the government violates the First Amendment when it singles out individual media outlets for unfavorable financial treatment.

For example, the U.S. Supreme Court has said that income taxes targeting specific newspapers, or taxes on supplies for specific newspapers or magazines, violates the First Amendment.

RELATED: Can Government Cut Funding Based on Speech, Protest Issues?

Federal courts have similarly found that the government cannot revoke, or threaten to revoke, financial benefits — such as paid government advertising in a newspaper, subsidies to offset business-related costs or tax exemptions — to punish critical coverage or to coerce favorable coverage.

Generally, the government cannot take away funding for reasons that violate the First Amendment, most specifically to promote a particular viewpoint or punish someone for dissent or criticism.

This article was updated on June 2, 2025. It may be updated with future developments.

Kevin Goldberg is a vice president and First Amendment expert at Freedom Forum. He can be reached at [email protected].