Demonetizing an Unfree Press
The case for Defunding VOA, PBS, & NPR
EDITOR’S NOTE: This article was revised on January 6, 2025 to address the shut down of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting that occurred the day prior to these revisions.
The idea of news media being funded by the government in which it resides is an alien perspective to the American worldview, mainly due to the fact that our Founding Fathers, like James Madison, forbade that from ever happening. This is why it states explicitly in the First Amendment that, “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom…of the press.”
While the United States Constitution forbids state run media, the Federal government allows a certain percentage of the budget approved by Congress to go towards partial funding for “public broadcasting”. This is broadcasting of information to the general public with the intention of blocking out political or commercial bias.
As of 2025, there are three major public broadcasting agencies: First, is Voice of America (VOA), funded 100% by the Federal government, and administered through the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM). The other two are the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) and National Public Radio (NPR), both of which receive partial federal funding via the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. While all three have been branded for decades as reliable outlets for Americans to receive non-partisan news, recent data tell a different story.
Over the last decade, many Americans (mostly on the Right), have grown critical of these public broadcasting outlets accusing them of dishonest reporting with a skewed Left-Wing bias. As a result of these grievances, President Trump signed two Executive Orders in the last two months—EO 14238 “Continuing the Reduction of the Federal Bureaucracy”, and EO 14290 “Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Biased Media”—both of which are directly aimed removing any and all federal funding received by VOA, PBS, and NPR.
Was this the right policy move for President Trump to do? Is the Federal government complicit in funding news groups with a Left-Wing bias? Or is this all just Conservatives making a mountain out of a molehill when they disagree with the news? Allow me to break it down.
The Voice of Dishonest America
Voice of America (VOA), founded on February 1, 1942, launched to serve as an anti-propaganda tool against the Axis Powers during World War II. Today, it remains the largest, and oldest, of the American international broadcasters, producing digital, TV, and radio content in 48 languages for affiliate stations around the world. In its modern incarnation it’s targeted and primary audience is non-Americans outside Americ’s borders, especially those living in countries without press freedom or independent journalism. At least, that is their supposed intention.
Over the years, however, VOA has been under fire for its journalistic integrity allegedly in question. The institution once dedicated to anti-propaganda has been accused of radicalization and generating propaganda. Dan Robinson, a 34-year veteran of Voice of America, and its former White House correspondent, wrote a damning Op-Ed last year about the state of VOA. The best summarization of his grievances are captured in his statement here:
“I have monitored the agency’s bureaucracy along with many of its reporters and concluded that it has essentially become a hubris-filled rogue operation often reflecting a Leftist bias aligned with partisan national media. It has sought to avoid accountability for violations of journalistic standards and mismanagement.”
From publicly available information, it appears there is a lot of weight to Robinson’s word on just how problematic VOA has become in their reporting:
In 2019, Voice of America faced multiple controversies regarding its reporting and internal practices. For example In March of that same year, VOA aired a segment focusing on transgender migrants seeking asylum in the United States. Then just a couple months later May, the outlet also fired several reporters for abruptly canceling a broadcast due to pressure from the Chinese government, as reported by the Free Beacon. In July, the Daily Caller highlighted that multiple VOA reporters had posted anti-Trump comments on their professional social media accounts, violating the organization’s policy requiring employee impartiality. Later, in September, the Daily Caller further reported that VOA had employed a Russian anti-U.S. propagandist, raising concerns about the outlet’s hiring practices.
In 2020, VOA continued to attract scrutiny. Following the Black Lives Matter protests and George Floyd riots over the summer, VOA published an article titled “What Is ‘White Privilege’ and Whom Does It Help?”, which dove into how “White Privilege” is ingrained into all who are White. In July, VOA faced criticism for sharing a story and video that appeared overly favorable to the-presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden. Additionally, in October, VOA published an article that downplayed the validity of the Hunter Biden laptop story, suggesting that allegations of Russian involvement to benefit the Trump administration could undermine the story’s credibility.
Further controversy emerged in 2022 when the American Accountability Foundation (AAF) filed a lawsuit against VOA, alleging that the outlet had been infiltrated by anti-American, pro-Islamic state interests, particularly in its Persian reporting. The lawsuit, reported by Breitbart, stemmed from VOA’s failure to respond to Freedom of Information Act requests regarding alleged pro-Islamic bias. Additionally, in the wake of the October 7, 2023, terrorist attack in Israel, according to the National Review VOA management instructed staff not to refer to Hamas and its members as terrorists, except when directly quoting statements.
These incidents collectively raised questions about VOA’s editorial integrity and impartiality. By comparison, however, it is still nowhere near the issues from the media contributions made by PBS & NPR.
Our American Pravda & Izvestia
During the era of the Soviet Union, there were two main newspapers that citizens had available for information: Pravda (‘Truth’), and Izvestia (‘Newspaper’); both of which were funded directly by the U.S.S.R. For Americans, there was an old joke about the two agencies:
"In Pravda (Truth) there is no news (Izvestia), In Izvestia (News) there is no truth (Pravda)." The joke was reflecting the ironic nature of the two agencies; that as media funded by the Soviet government, it would only ever report on information approved by the state, as well as even going so far as manufacturing stories that were made up. To summarize, Izvestia and Pravda were propaganda arms for the Soviet Communist Party.
Flash forward to present day America, and we can see that the information we receive is once again under threat by our own Pravda and Izvesitia in the form of PBS & NPR. As stated previously, both news agencies are funded through the publicly funded Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB). Despite the institution’s established sentiment of being legally bound to remaining politically unbiased, the CPB has enabled (time and time again) allowing both PBS and NPR to have freely unchecked biased reporting. Furthermore, there is a mountain of evidence to support this claim.
On Race Relations
NPR’s and PBS’s coverage of race relations often present narratives that align with progressive ideologies while sidelining dissenting perspectives. As early as October 2010, NPR terminated journalist Juan Williams, who claimed his firing stemmed from not adhering to the “predictable, black liberal” mold, signaling an early intolerance for viewpoints that deviated from a specific ideological framework. Moving on to July 2017, PBS aired an episode of A Seat at the Table that focused on concepts like “white privilege” and what it means to be “woke,” terms closely associated with progressive racial discourse, further embedding these ideas into public media. In June 2020, amid the Black Lives Matter riots, PBS’s Sesame Street partnered with CNN for a children’s town hall to “address racism,” presenting a one-sided narrative that critics argue prioritized activism over balanced education. That same year, in July 2020, NPR explored the “racial origins of fat phobia,” framing a health-related issue through a racial lens, and in August 2020, ran stories defending looting, a controversial stance that appeared to justify criminal behavior during racial unrest. In November 2022, NPR suggested that public concerns about crime were rooted in racism, further aligning their reporting with progressive interpretations of social issues. NPR has also described its diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) practices as “inseparable” from its content, effectively institutionalizing ideological considerations in its journalism. Most recently, in 2024, PBS aired America Reframed, a documentary advocating for slavery reparations, a policy position strongly associated with progressive activism. Together, these instances illustrate a pattern where NPR and PBS have consistently framed race-related issues through a left-leaning lens, often prioritizing ideological narratives over balanced reporting.
On Gender & Queer Ideology
NPR and PBS have also frequently promoted left-wing perspectives on gender and queer ideology. As early as July 2015, NPR dedicated a segment to exploring the “population of anthropomorphic animal enthusiasts known as ‘furries,’” framing a niche subculture in a sympathetic light that aligned with emerging progressive discussions on identity. By 2017, PBS produced Real Boy, a film celebrating a transgender teen’s transition, emphasizing a narrative of affirmation without delving into broader debates surrounding transgender issues. In April 2021, NPR published a piece lamenting that “animals deserve pronouns, too,” extending gender ideology into the natural world in a way that critics argue anthropomorphizes animals to fit a progressive agenda. This trend continued in January 2022, when NPR highlighted a “whole community of genderqueer dinosaur enthusiasts” and the concept of a “trans-ceratops,” further blending speculative gender narratives with popular culture. In May 2022, NPR ran a feature titled “What ‘Queer Ducks’ can teach teenagers about sexuality in the animal kingdom,” followed by a Valentine’s Day piece that described “queer animals,” suggesting the fictional clownfish in Finding Nemo would be better as female, noting “banana slugs are hermaphrodites,” and claiming “some deer are nonbinary.” These stories framed animal behavior through a lens of human gender ideology, promoting progressive interpretations to a broad audience. NPR’s internal directive to avoid the term “biological sex” when discussing transgender issues further illustrates its institutional alignment with progressive orthodoxy, as this guidance discourages language that could ground discussions in biological reality. Additionally, a PBS station’s decision to feature drag queen Lil Miss Hot Mess on a program aimed at children ages 3-8 introduced queer performance art to young audiences, a move critics argue prioritizes ideological exposure over age-appropriate content. Collectively, these instances demonstrate NPR and PBS’s pattern of advancing left-leaning gender and queer ideology, often presenting one-sided narratives that align with progressive activism.
Entering ‘Bizarre’ Woke Territory
There have also been occasions where NPR’s reporting has gone as far as covering areas that one would say is “going off the rails,” often embracing fringe or controversial viewpoints. In February 2017, NPR ran a story titled “Cannibalism: It’s ‘Perfectly Natural,” where an author described eating a human placenta prepared “osso bucco style,” framing the act as culturally intriguing rather than taboo, aligning with progressive tendencies to normalize unconventional practices. By January 2022, NPR critiqued “healthism” as a problematic “cousin of diet culture,” suggesting that the pursuit of health itself is inherently flawed, a stance that critics argue dismisses personal responsibility in favor of progressive skepticism toward societal norms. That same month, NPR claimed doorway sizes reflect “latent fatphobia,” injecting social justice terminology into architectural design and furthering a narrative that everyday structures perpetuate systemic bias. These examples illustrate NPR and PBS’s pattern of advancing left-leaning ideological positions, often prioritizing provocative or progressive interpretations over mainstream perspectives.
More Examples of PBS & NPR’s Left-Wing Bias
NPR and PBS have consistently demonstrated a left-wing bias on high-profile topics, often aligning with progressive narratives while dismissing or downplaying perspectives that challenge them. In January 2018, NPR CEO Katherine Maher labeled President Trump “racist” and shared a photo wearing a “Biden for President” 2020 campaign hat, while also serving on the board of a Soros-funded activist group and describing “reverence for the truth” as a “distraction,” revealing an ideological bent in NPR’s leadership. In April 2020, NPR’s coverage of the COVID-19 origins dismissed the lab-leak theory in articles like “Scientists Debunk Lab Accident Theory Of Pandemic Emergence,” followed by May 2020 and May 2021 pieces comparing the theory to Iraq War misinformation and emphasizing natural origins, despite later assessments by the FBI, CIA, and Department of Energy deeming a lab leak plausible. NPR’s skepticism persisted in March 2023, with a virologist claiming lab-origin reports could hinder scientific research, and in September 2024, they highlighted a controversial raccoon dog theory as a pandemic trigger which had zero standing compared to the lab leak hypothesis. Furthermore, during the 2020 election—unlike VOA which at least downplayed the story—NPR refused to cover the Hunter Biden laptop story, dismissing it entirely as a “waste of time” and “pure distraction,” despite its relevance, stating they avoid “stories that are not really stories” to preserve listeners’ time, a decision critics argue shielded progressive interests.
This pattern of bias continued with other incidents. In January 2021, a Project Veritas investigation exposed PBS Principal Counsel Michael Beller defending violent attacks on the White House, endorsing re-education for Trump supporters’ children, and praising COVID-19 deaths in red states. Appropriately, PBS fired him hours later, but the incident underscored ideological extremism within the organization. In 2023, PBS’s Washington Week roundtable downplayed Joe Biden’s mental decline, with far-left journalist Jeff Goldberg claiming Biden was “quite acute,” a narrative that critics argue misrepresented evident cognitive issues to protect a Democratic figure. In April 2024, NPR veteran Uri Berliner, after 25 years, exposed NPR’s political bias in an exclusive at The Free Press, highlighting a newsroom where registered Democrats outnumbered Republicans 87 to zero and reiterating CEO Maher’s view of “truth” as a harmful “distraction.” Along with a myriad of the other claims already addressed in this article. NPR’s response—suspending Berliner—further signaled an intolerance for internal dissent. These examples collectively illustrate NPR and PBS’s consistent prioritization of progressive narratives, suppression of inconvenient stories, and institutional alignment with left-wing ideologies, often at the expense of journalistic impartiality.
The Empirical Data on Their Bias Record
Empirical data also proves consistent left-wing bias in NPR and PBS programming, beyond the high profile cases addressed up to this point. In 2023, a Media Research Center study found that PBS’s flagship news program, PBS NewsHour, gave congressional Republicans 85% negative coverage while offering congressional Democrats 54% positive coverage, indicating a clear disparity in tone. This trend continued into 2024, with another Media Research Center report revealing that PBS’s coverage of the 2024 Republican National Convention was 72% negative, in stark contrast to 88% positive coverage of the Democratic National Convention, suggesting a preference for progressive narratives. Additionally, a third Media Research Center analysis, from back in December 2024, showed that over six months, PBS NewsHour used variations of the term “far-right” 162 times but “far-left” only six times, demonstrating a disproportionate focus on critiquing conservative ideologies. As for NPR’s observational studies, a survey by media bias rating agency AllBias, which polled nearly 24,000 readers, concluded that NPR’s content aligns with “liberal, progressive, or left-wing thought and/or policy agendas”. These studies and reports further validate the fact that both news agencies continually promote Left-Wing agendas.
What This Means Moving Forward
It should be made very clear that President Trump’s Executive Orders will not shut down these organizations. For Voice of America, what will happen is to, “reduce the performance of their statutory functions and associated personnel to the minimum presence and function required by law.” This translates to VOA not necessarily shutting down (as that would require a statute by Congress to do so), but rather cease as many operations legally possible within their executive functions. As for PBS & NPR, the Executive Order only instructs the CPB to “...cease direct funding to NPR and PBS…”, as well as ceasing “…indirect funding to NPR and PBS, including by ensuring that licensees and permittees of public radio and television stations, as well as any other recipients of CPB funds, do not use Federal funds for NPR and PBS.” Now the question is, how much money is that, specifically? According to PBS’s own website, Congressional appropriations to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is around $500 Million each year, which is allocated to PBS and NPR. That may sound like they both need that money to thrive, but in reality, neither media agency has those appropriations as a majority of their revenue. Federal funding only makes up 15% of PBS’s revenue, and federal grants from the CPB only make up 1% of NPR’s operating budget. The rest comes from contributions made from private donations plus state and local taxes. So, cutting off federal funding will barely make a dent.
The core of this policy change has nothing to do with the fact that these agencies choose to have a political bias, or the fact that it is a bias favoring Left-Wing politics. It certainly does not help their cause with President Trump, but that’s beside the point. It is the fact that these news agencies are misleading the public, asserting that they are established, apolitical media institutions, and that they are being partially or fully monetized by tax-payer dollars. American taxpayers should not be compelled to fund media agencies that receive partial federal funding while consistently promoting a one-sided political narrative, as this practice undermines democratic principles, erodes public trust, and misuses public resources. Tax dollars are collected from citizens across the political spectrum; therefore, using these funds to support outlets that disproportionately favor a single ideological perspective violates the expectation of impartiality inherent in public institutions. Publicly funded media should serve the entire nation by providing balanced, fact-based reporting that respects diverse viewpoints, not act as a platform for advancing a particular political agenda. When these agencies prioritize narrative over neutrality, they betray their mandate and squander taxpayer money, which could be better allocated to initiatives that genuinely serve the public interest without a partisan slant.
UPDATE: As a result of the H.R. 4 Rescissions Act of 2025 (codifying EO 14290) being signed into law on July 24, 2025, the CPB lost $1.1 Billion in Federal funding. As a result, the CPB announced on August 1, 2025, that they will shut down all operations in the coming months. On January 5, 2025, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting Board voted to fully dissolve as an organization.
Thank you for taking the time to read! If you enjoyed it and wish to support my future work, you can tip me at this link: https://buymeacoffee.com/timelinesandheadlines
Thank you so much!