Introduction
A recent CNBC article reported that PBS has filed a lawsuit against former President Donald Trump over a new executive order to eliminate federal funding for public broadcasters. The order, according to PBS, retaliates against them for alleged bias and raises constitutional questions about press freedom and political interference. Given the historic role of public broadcasting in America, this article has raised significant public concern—especially around the truthfulness of the claims made and the implications for media independence.
Historical Context
Public broadcasting in the United States began with the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967, signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson. The law created the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), which funds educational content through NPR and PBS. This model was intended to provide the American public with unbiased, non-commercial news and educational programming. It was designed to remain independent of political influence, with specific language barring governmental control over broadcast content. Over the decades, public television and radio have received bipartisan support, often praised for their educational value across underserved communities.
Fact-Check of Specific Claims
Claim #1: “Trump’s executive order legally cuts federal funding for PBS and NPR.”
This claim lacks full legal accuracy. While presidents can propose budget changes or issue executive orders, funding for agencies like CPB is determined by Congress through appropriations bills. The CPB operates independently and is governed by legislation that includes legal protections from executive retaliation or influence. Specifically, 47 U.S. Code § 396 imposes restrictions preventing federal officials from controlling content or funding decisions of public broadcasters. Therefore, PBS has a strong legal basis to challenge the order, making the claim partially misleading. Cutting funding without congressional legislation would conflict with existing federal law.
Claim #2: “PBS and NPR receive significant federal funding.”
This claim is contextually misleading. While both organizations receive some federal funding, it comprises a small portion of their overall budgets. According to NPR’s official financial reports, only about 1% of its total annual revenue comes directly from the federal government—it primarily relies on corporate sponsorships and membership fees from local stations. As for PBS, approximately 35% of the PBS NewsHour’s funding comes from a mix of CPB funds and member station dues. Much of the CPB’s $545 million annual budget is passed on directly to hundreds of local stations—not to the national organizations themselves. Therefore, the claim may exaggerate the dependency on federal funds.
Claim #3: “Government-funded news is ‘corrosive’ to journalistic independence.”
This is a subjective claim that does not hold up when examined historically. Many democratic nations—including the United Kingdom (BBC) and Canada (CBC)—have long maintained publicly funded media while safeguarding editorial independence. The U.S. model follows a similar structure, protected by a legal mandate that bars governmental oversight of content. There is no consistent pattern suggesting that CPB funding compromises journalistic neutrality. This assertion by Trump offers a political opinion more than a substantiated fact and reflects bias in the framing of public broadcasting as inherently untrustworthy due to its funding mechanism.
Claim #4: “Trump’s order violates First Amendment protections.”
This legal argument holds substantial merit. Courts have consistently struck down government actions that seek to penalize media entities based on the content of their reporting. The First Amendment ensures freedom of the press, and when funding is cut explicitly due to perceived bias—as alleged in this case—it can be interpreted as unconstitutional retaliation. Legal experts note that a government attempt to dictate news content by financial leverage crosses a constitutional line. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in cases like Board of Education v. Pico that viewpoint discrimination in public institutions can be unconstitutional, lending credibility to PBS’s legal position.
Conclusion
Our analysis found multiple claims in the article that are either exaggerated, lack crucial context, or reflect partisan bias. The executive order’s legality is questionable based on constitutional and legislative protections for public broadcasting. The argument that public broadcasters are heavily reliant on federal funding is misleading, as most of their budgets are supported by corporate and individual contributions. More importantly, defunding based on content criticism likely violates press freedoms protected under the First Amendment. Overall, the article accurately reports on the lawsuit and positions of both sides, but readers should be aware of the oversimplifications and legal complexities involved.
Encourage Readers to Take Action
Help stop the spread of misinformation. Download the DBUNK app today for unbiased, factual news and real-time article verification. Join the movement by following us on all major social platforms.
Link to Original Article
You can read the full article here: https://www.cnbc.com/2025/05/30/pbs-trump-funding-sesame-street.html
