Trump’s Rescissions Package Rightly Ends Federal Funding For NPR and PBS

Under the Impoundment Control Act, and as part of the Rescissions Act of 2025, President Donald Trump has eliminated federal funding for National Public Radio (NPR) and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS). 

The usual suspects—media personalities, progressive activists, and establishment politicians—have responded with predictable outrage. However, the case for ending public subsidies to NPR and PBS is strong on both economic and state neutrality grounds.

NPR and PBS Are Not Public Goods

The traditional argument for government-funded broadcasting was that it provided a “public good”: content that would be underproduced or unavailable in a purely commercial media market. Perversely, this argument was predicated on there only being three major television networks when it was FCC gatekeeping commercial broadcasting licenses that led to market concentration in the first place. There was also never a shortage of radio stations – why NPR needed to launch with federal funding remains unclear. 

Today, Americans enjoy a virtually limitless supply of news, culture, and educational programming, including cable news, podcasts, streaming services, YouTube documentaries, and online university lectures. Consumers can access content tailored to every interest and ideology, most of it free or supported by private means.

The internet shattered the idea that cultural programming or educational journalism is a rare commodity requiring taxpayer support. The claim that only NPR can provide thoughtful interviews or that PBS is uniquely capable of airing children’s programming, such as Sesame Street, simply doesn’t hold up in a world where commercial outlets, from Netflix to independent YouTubers, offer a staggering variety of comparable content.

In short, there’s nothing inherently “public” about what NPR and PBS provide. They’re media outlets like any other. If their programming is valuable, people will fund it voluntarily, whether through donations, subscriptions, or advertising. If it’s not, taxpayers shouldn’t be forced to foot the bill.

NPR and PBS Are Not Politically Neutral

The First Amendment prohibits the government from funding religious institutions in part because it recognizes the dangers of state entanglement with matters of belief and conscience. The same logic applies to funding partisan or ideologically driven media.

NPR and PBS claim political neutrality, but anyone who’s listened for more than five minutes knows better. From the editorial slant of Morning Edition to the guest selection on All Things Considered, NPR reliably reflects the worldview of people on the left of the political spectrum. PBS has built its news and documentary brand on a similar set of assumptions, presenting progressive views on everything from climate change to social policy as accepted fact.

NPR, for example, has aired segments defending looting, profiling genderqueer dinosaur enthusiasts, and even exploring supposed racism in bird names—all while receiving taxpayer dollars. PBS affiliates have run drag queen skits for children and collaborated with Democratic campaigns to build donor lists.

Unlike private media companies, NPR and PBS are funded with your tax dollars. Why should Americans of diverse political views be forced to subsidize media outlets that subtly—or not so subtly—undermine their values?

The government shouldn’t fund churches. It shouldn’t fund political parties. And it shouldn’t fund media outlets that amount to the communications arm of one political tribe.Federal funding for NPR and PBS is a relic of a bygone era. It is unnecessary in today’s media landscape and absurd that taxpayers should fund segments of genderqueer dinosaur enthusiasts. Trump’s move to end their subsidies is a small but overdue step toward a government that respects both taxpayers’ wallets and their diverse beliefs. ATR applauds lawmakers for passing the Rescissions Act of 2025.