PBS, alongside a public television station in rural Minnesota, has filed a lawsuit against President Trump over an executive order that demands the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) cease all funding to the network.
The lawsuit contends that Trump’s executive order is unlawful, exceeding his presidential authority while violating constitutional protections of free speech. It argues that there is clear evidence the order is motivated by Trump’s discontent with PBS’s news coverage and programming.
According to the lawsuit, this unprecedented directive strikes at the heart of PBS’s independence and threatens to dismantle public television.
The order cuts funding based on the content of programming, representing blatant viewpoint discrimination against PBS and its member stations, the suit claims. The lawsuit insists that the President’s actions infringe upon the editorial discretion of PBS and its member stations.
PBS President and CEO Paula Kerger chose not to comment on the lawsuit on Friday, but the network publicly stated that the legal action was necessary to protect its editorial independence.
In support, the Minnesota station, Lakeland PBS, expressed its alignment with PBS’s rationale for the lawsuit, emphasizing the consequences the funding cut would have on local programming and member stations.
The White House offered a rebuttal to the lawsuit, with spokesperson Harrison Fields arguing that CPB has been using taxpayer money to create media that supports one political party.
Fields stated, “The President was elected with a mandate to ensure efficient use of taxpayer dollars, and he will continue to use his lawful authority to achieve that objective.” This response underscores Trump’s broader critique of PBS and NPR, which he claims do not deliver fair and unbiased news coverage.
Trump’s executive order not only calls for the defunding of PBS and NPR but also accuses these organizations of being outdated in the context of the modern media landscape, which is rich in alternatives.
In the executive order, Trump emphasizes the corrosive nature of government funding on journalistic independence, stating that certain media options should not rely on federal financial support.
The lawsuit filed by PBS and Lakeland PBS follows a similar legal action initiated by NPR and three Colorado public radio stations, reflecting unified opposition to the funding cuts.
PBS claims that losing federal grants could result in a loss of $81 million annually, with additional cuts potentially impacting the $227 million public TV stations contribute to PBS for program rights, including child-centric shows and historical documentaries.
The lawsuit notes that just a day after the executive order was issued, the U.S. Education Department rescinded a $31 million grant for an educational initiative benefiting CPB and PBS.
Located in Northern and central Minnesota, Lakeland PBS serves numerous impoverished counties and tribal reservations, supplying the region’s only nightly news broadcast. The station also provides various educational resources, a critical asset restated in the court filing.
Federal funding from CPB accounts for 37% of Lakeland PBS’s annual revenue, emphasizing the dire implications of funding cuts. Moreover, the lawsuit stresses that Lakeland PBS lacks sufficient unrestricted funds to replace PBS programming with alternative content.
As the financial support from local businesses diminishes, the station faces a precarious financial situation. The lawsuit argues that the executive order poses an existential threat to Lakeland PBS, which functions as the sole local television source for many viewers across its broadcast area.
The legal challenge was launched by Akin Gump Strauss, a prominent Washington-based law firm. This lawsuit adds to a growing list of complaints against Trump’s directive from various public media entities.
Furthermore, the CPB board, which is a private entity, has not aligned itself with the president’s executive order. Instead, the board is engaged in a separate lawsuit against Trump regarding another order that purportedly aimed to dismiss three of its members.
According to legal experts and advocates for public broadcasting, both CPB and public broadcasters are designed to operate free from political pressure, as established by federal law safeguards. These protections aim to ensure editorial independence, an argument that underscores the ongoing litigation.
As the situation unfolds, Congress is bracing for a request from Trump in early June to rescind a substantial $1.1 billion funding allocation for public broadcasting that was approved earlier in the year.
Speaker of the House Mike Johnson and other lawmakers indicated Trump is prioritizing spending cuts, including the potential rescission, as part of his broader fiscal agenda.
The process in Congress will afford lawmakers the opportunity to debate the rescission request, which must be acted upon within 45 days for it to take effect. The outcome of these events will have significant implications for the future of public broadcasting, an essential resource that serves communities nationwide.
As public television entities mobilize legal actions to preserve their operations, the dispute raises critical questions regarding the relationship between government, media, and the independence of public broadcasting, setting the stage for potential shifts in the media landscape.
image source from：https://www.npr.org/2025/05/30/nx-s1-5418084/pbs-and-minnesota-public-tv-station-sue-trump-white-house
