Participants walk through the Broadway Townhouses in Camden, N.J., as part of a training program to help neighborhoods affected by violence. The Community-Based Public Safety Collective, which offered the training, is one of at least 554 organizations affected by the U.S. Department of Justice’s abrupt termination in April of at least 373 public safety grants. (Photo courtesy of Aqeela Sherrills)

Community-based violence intervention programs nationwide have long worked alongside law enforcement officers to deescalate conflict, prevent retaliatory shootings and, in some cases, arrive at crime scenes before police do.

In many communities, these initiatives have been credited with saving lives and reducing violence.

But the Trump administration last month abruptly terminated at least 373 public safety grants from the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Justice Programs, pulling roughly $500 million in remaining funds across a range of programs, according to a new report by the Council on Criminal Justice, a nonprofit think tank. The cuts come just as summer is approaching — a season when violence consistently peaks.

The grants were initially valued at $820 million, but many were multiyear awards at different stages of rollout, which means some of the money has already been spent.

At least 554 organizations across 48 states are affected by the cuts, many of them small, community-based nonprofits that rely on this money. The rescinded grants supported everything from violence prevention and policing to victim advocacy, reentry services, research, and mental health and substance use treatment. Some of the grants also were cut from state and local government agencies.

Another new report from the Council on Criminal Justice dug deeper into local effects: It found that the Trump administration’s cuts also eliminated 473 minigrants — known as “subawards” — passed from primary recipients to smaller groups that often face challenges accessing federal dollars directly, such as rural government agencies and grassroots nonprofits.

About $5 million of those subawards was intended for state, local and tribal law enforcement agencies working to reduce violence in rural areas, according to the report.

Experts warn the timing couldn’t be worse. The summer months — historically linked to higher rates of violent crimes — are approaching, and the safety net in many cities is fraying. A growing body of research has found a correlation between spikes in temperature and violent crime, with studies suggesting that heat waves and sudden weather swings can inflame tensions and increase aggression.

“These programs are having to cut staff and cut services, and that will be felt in communities in states all over the country at exactly the time when they’re most needed,” said Amy Solomon, a senior fellow at the Council on Criminal Justice and the lead author of the report.

Solomon also previously served as assistant U.S. attorney general in the Biden administration, where she led the Office of Justice Programs — the Justice Department’s largest grantmaking agency.

Many of the primary grants that were terminated contained no references to race, gender or diversity-related language, according to the report — despite claims from federal officials that such criteria were driving the cuts. Primary grant recipients received their funding from the feds directly.

‘Wasteful grants’

U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi defended the cuts in a late April post on X, stating that the department has cut “millions of dollars in wasteful grants.” She also signaled that additional cuts may be on the way. In her post, she specifically cited grants that supported LGBTQ+ liaison services in police departments and programs providing gender-affirming care and housing for incarcerated transgender people.

The Department of Justice’s cuts come amid a broader push by the Trump administration and the newly created Department of Government Efficiency to pull funding from a range of federal programs — a move they say is aimed at reducing spending and saving taxpayer dollars.

For some groups, the sudden withdrawal of funds has meant scaling back crime victim services or pulling out of some neighborhoods altogether.

Community violence prevention groups aim to stop shootings and other forms of violence before they happen by working directly with those most at risk. Staff — often with experience in the justice system — mediate conflicts, respond to crises, and connect people to support such as counseling or job training. In some cities, they’re dispatched to high-risk areas to deescalate tensions, often before police arrive.

And research shows that community-level violence prevention programs can contribute to drops in crime.

After a historic surge in homicides in 2020, violent crime in the United States dropped in 2024 to pre-pandemic levels — or even lower — in many cities. Preliminary 2025 data suggests that the downward trend is continuing in major cities, including Baltimore, Houston, Los Angeles and Washington, D.C.

But the progress hasn’t reached every community. Some neighborhoods are still grappling with high rates of gun violence and car theft.

Organizations that faced the toughest financial cuts had been funded through the U.S. Department of Justice’s Community Based Violence Intervention and Prevention Initiative — the federal government’s primary mechanism for supporting this work.

Since the program’s launch in 2022, the federal Office of Justice Programs has invested about $300 million in community violence intervention efforts and related research. But nearly half of that funding has now been wiped out, according to the Council on Criminal Justice report.

“It’s really unprecedented to see these kinds of grants cut midstream,” Solomon told Stateline. “This was an effort that had bipartisan support [in Congress] and in the field all across the country.”

Impact on communities nationwide

In late April, Aqeela Sherrills received a letter from the federal Justice Department terminating a $3.5 million grant that supported the Community-Based Public Safety Collective. Sherrills is the co-founder and executive director of the national organization, which focuses on community-led approaches to preventing violence, including mediating conflicts, building relationships in high-risk neighborhoods and connecting people to resources such as housing, mental health care and job training.

The letter said the organization’s efforts no longer aligned with the federal Justice Department’s priorities, which include supporting “certain law enforcement operations, combatting violent crime, protecting American children, and supporting American victims of trafficking and sexual assault.”

Until the end of April, the collective had an agreement with the Justice Department to provide training and technical assistance to 95 local groups — including community groups, police departments, city and county governments, and state agencies — that had each been awarded $2 million over three years to run community violence intervention programs.

But after the department cut $3.5 million, the Community-Based Public Safety Collective was forced to lay off 20 staff members.

“Without the significant funding … it destabilizes the organizations. People’s ability to be able to provide for themselves and their family is at risk,” Sherrills said in an interview. “We’re bracing for what could potentially be a high-violence summer.”

The deepest funding cuts hit states led by both Republican and Democratic governors, including California, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Virginia and Washington.

About $145 million in violence intervention funding was rescinded overall, along with an additional $8.6 million for related research and evaluation efforts, according to the Council on Criminal Justice report.

Some of the canceled grants funded studies and research on forensics, policing, corrections issues and behavioral health. Now, those projects may be left unfinished.

Some of the largest losses hit intermediary organizations, such as the Community-Based Public Safety Collective, that support smaller programs by providing microgrants, training and technical assistance.

For organizations such as the Newark Community Street Team in New Jersey, the loss of federal funding has left some areas of the city without coverage.

The funding had allowed staff to monitor neighborhoods and engage directly with community members to prevent violence. That included weekly community walks, where team members connected with victims of crime and people who may have witnessed violence, linking them to resources such as counseling or legal aid. The team also operates a hotline where residents can report crimes or alert staff to tensions that might escalate — allowing the team to step in before violence occurred.

Some of the lost funding also supported school-based initiatives, where mediators helped students resolve conflicts before they escalated into fights or other forms of violence.

Of the 15 Newark positions affected by the cuts, four employees were reassigned to other departments; the others were let go. Some of the team’s staff members are formerly incarcerated, a vital trait that helps them connect with residents and build trust in communities that are often wary of traditional law enforcement.

“We just have to continue working and serving our community the best we can,” said Rey Chavis, the executive director of the street team.

That work appears to be contributing to a decrease in the community’s crime rates.

City crime data from Jan. 1 to April 30, 2025, shows a significant drop in violent crime in Newark compared with the same period in 2024. The total number of violent crimes reported to police fell by 49%, driven largely by a 68% decrease in robberies, according to Stateline’s analysis of the data. Homicides dropped by 53%, while aggravated assaults declined by 43%. Rapes dropped slightly by 3%.

Stateline reporter Amanda Hernández can be reached at ahernandez@stateline.org.

Stateline is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Stateline maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Scott S. Greenberger for questions: info@stateline.org.

A sign for the Public Broadcasting Service, or PBS,  is seen on its building headquarters on Feb. 18, 2025 in Arlington, Virginia. (Photo by Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — The Public Broadcasting Service and Lakeland PBS in Minnesota sued the Trump administration Friday, arguing an executive order seeking to cut off their federal funding violates the Constitution and would “upend public television.”

The lawsuit was filed just days after a collection of National Public Radio stations sued President Donald Trump over the same executive order, which blocked the Corporation from Public Broadcasting from funding the networks.

PBS wrote in its 48-page filing that it disagrees with claims made by the executive order, including that federal spending on public media is “corrosive to the appearance of journalistic independence” and that the news organization doesn’t present “a fair, accurate, or unbiased portrayal of current events to taxpaying citizens.”

“PBS disputes those charged assertions in the strongest possible terms,” the lawsuit states. “But regardless of any policy disagreements over the role of public television, our Constitution and laws forbid the President from serving as the arbiter of the content of PBS’s programming, including by attempting to defund PBS.”

The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, but hadn’t been assigned to a judge as of Friday evening.

White House: PBS supports ‘a particular political party’

White House principal deputy press secretary Harrison Fields wrote in a statement responding to the lawsuit that the “Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) is creating media to support a particular political party on the taxpayers’ dime.

“Therefore, the President is exercising his lawful authority to limit funding to NPR and PBS. 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.”

The lawsuit says Trump’s executive order violates the law that governs the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which gives it independence from politicians who might try to control its programs.

“Congress took pains to ensure that the development of public television would be free from political interference, including with respect to content and funding decisions,” the suit states.

It also claims implementing the order would violate the First Amendment of the Constitution.

“The EO makes no attempt to hide the fact that it is cutting off the flow of funds to PBS because of the content of PBS programming and out of a desire to alter the content of speech,” the lawsuit states. “That is blatant viewpoint discrimination and an infringement of PBS and PBS Member Stations’ private editorial discretion.”

PBS says federal funds ‘instrumental’ for operations

The lawsuit says the loss of funding from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting envisioned in the executive order would upend programming at PBS and its member stations throughout the country.

“Public television stations receive approximately $325 million in annual federal funding from CPB, nearly all of which goes to PBS Member Stations,” the lawsuit states. “Those funds, which comprise more than 50% of the overall budgets of certain PBS Member Stations, are instrumental to enabling them to operate, to produce programming that serves their local communities, and to pay PBS dues that make PBS programming and services possible.”

The National Public Radio headquarters in Washington, D.C., is pictured on Tuesday, May 27, 2025.  (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — A collection of National Public Radio stations sued the Trump administration on Tuesday, seeking to block an executive order that would cut off their federal funding.

The 43-page filing says the order that President Donald Trump signed earlier this month “violates the expressed will of Congress and the First Amendment’s bedrock guarantees of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of association, and also threatens the existence of a public radio system that millions of Americans across the country rely on for vital news and information.”

The executive order called on the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which receives its funding from Congress, to cease sending money to the Public Broadcasting Service and NPR.

The order stated that government funding for public media “is not only outdated and unnecessary but corrosive to the appearance of journalistic independence.”

The Trump administration also appeared to take issue with the types of news stories that PBS and NPR report, arguing “that neither entity presents a fair, accurate, or unbiased portrayal of current events to taxpaying citizens.”

‘Viewpoint-based discrimination’

The lawsuit says the executive order has an “overt retaliatory purpose” and “is unlawful in multiple ways.”

“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 states. “Lastly, by seeking to deny NPR critical funding with no notice or meaningful process, the Order violates the Constitution’s Due Process Clause.”

The lawsuit was filed by NPR along with three Colorado stations — Aspen Public Radio, Colorado Public Radio and KSUT Public Radio — in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The case has been assigned to Judge Randolph D. Moss, who was nominated by then-President Barack Obama.

White House principal deputy press secretary Harrison Fields wrote in a statement that the “Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) is creating media to support a particular political party on the taxpayers’ dime.

“Therefore, the President is exercising his lawful authority to limit funding to NPR and PBS. 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.”

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which is funded by Congress and in turn provides grants to more than 1,500 public radio and television stations throughout the United States, was established as a private “nonprofit corporation” and is not “an agency or establishment of the United States Government,” according to the lawsuit.

Power of the purse

Congress has consistently approved funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting on a bipartisan basis, including its current $535 million appropriation.

The lawsuit contends that the “loss of all direct funding from CPB and the loss (or significant decline) of revenue from local stations would be catastrophic for NPR.”

It also states the president “has no authority under the Constitution to” interfere in funding decisions made by lawmakers.” 

“On the contrary, the power of the purse is reserved to Congress, and the President has no inherent authority to override Congress’s will on domestic spending decisions,” the lawsuits says. “By unilaterally imposing restrictions and conditions on funds in contravention of Congress, the Order violates the Separation of Powers and the Spending Clause of the Constitution.”

Gov. Tony Evers celebrates "historic" tax cuts in the last state budget. Schools are still facing austerity. Photo via Gov. Evers' Facebook page

As Republicans in Congress struggle to deliver President Donald Trump’s massive cuts to Medicaid, food assistance, education, health research and just about every other social good you can think of, in order to clear the way for trillions of dollars in tax cuts to the richest people in the U.S., here in Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers and state lawmakers are working on the next state budget.

The one thing our Democratic governor and Republican legislative leaders seem to agree on is that we need a tax cut.

After throwing away more than 600 items in Evers’ budget proposal, GOP leggies now say they can’t move forward with their own budget plan until  Evers makes good on his promise to meet with them and negotiate the terms for the tax-cutting that both sides agree they want to do. Evers has expressed optimism that the budget will be done on time this summer, and said the tax cuts need to be part of the budget, not a separate, stand-alone bill. Evers wants a more progressive tax system, with cuts targeted to lower-income people. In the last budget, he opposed expanding the second-lowest tax bracket, which would have offered the same benefits to higher earners as the lower middle class.

But what if we don’t need a tax cut at all?

It has long been an article of faith in the Republican Party that tax cuts are a miracle cure for everything. Trickle-down economics is  a proven failure:  The wealthy and corporations tend to bank their tax cuts rather than injecting the extra money into the economy, as tax-cutters say they will. The benefits of the 2017 tax cuts that Congress is struggling to extend went exclusively to corporations and the very wealthy and failed to trickle down on the rest of us. 

 In the second Trump administration, we are in new territory when it comes to tax cutting. The administration and its enablers are hell-bent on destroying everything from the Department of Education to critical health research to food stamps and Medicaid in order to finance massive tax breaks for the very rich. 

If ever there were a good time to reexamine the tax-cutting reflex, it’s now.

Evers has said he is not willing to consider the Republicans’ stand-alone tax-cut legislation, and that, instead, tax cuts should be part of the state budget. That makes sense, since new projections show lower-than-expected tax revenue even without a cut, and state budget-writers have a lot to consider as we brace for the dire effects of federal budget cuts. The least our leaders can do is not blindly give away cash without even assessing future liabilities.

But beyond that, we need to reconsider the knee-jerk idea that we are burdened with excessive taxes and regulations, that our state would be better off if we cut investments in our schools and universities, our roads and bridges, our clean environment, museums, libraries and other shared spaces and stopped keeping a floor under poor kids by providing basic food and health care assistance. 

Wisconsin Republicans like to tout the list of states produced annually by the Tax Foundation promoting “business friendly” environments that reduce corporate taxes, including Wyoming, South Dakota, Alaska and Florida. They also like to bring up ALEC’s “Rich States, Poor States” report that gave top billing last year to Utah, Idaho and Arizona for low taxes and deregulation. 

What they don’t track when they lift up those states are pollution, low wages and bankrupt public school systems. 

I’m old enough to remember when it was headline news that whole families in the U.S. were living in their cars, when homelessness was a new term, coined during the administration of Ronald Reagan, the father of bogus trickle-down economics and massive cuts to services for the poor. 

Somehow, we got used to the idea that urban parts of the richest nation on Earth resemble the poorest developing countries, with human misery and massive wealth existing side by side in our live-and-let-die economy.

Wisconsin, thanks to its progressive history, managed to remain a less unequal state, with top public schools and a great university system, as well as a clean, beautiful environment and well-maintained infrastructure. But here, too, we have been getting used to our slide to the bottom of the list of states, thanks in large part to the damage done by former Republican Gov. Scott Walker. 

We now rank 44th in the nation for investment in our once-great universities, and the austerity that’s been imposed on higher education is taking a toll across the state. Our consistently highly rated public schools have suffered from a decade and a half of budget cuts that don’t allow districts to keep pace with inflation, and recent state budgets have not made up the gap. 

Now threats to Medicaid, Head Start, AmeriCorps, our excellent library system, UW-Madison research and environmental protections do not bode well for Wisconsin’s future.

In the face of brutal federal cuts, we need to recommit to our shared interest in investing in a decent society, and figure out how to preserve what’s great about our state.

Tax cuts do not make the top of the list of priorities.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

A protester holds a sign in support of funding for public media during a May 1, 2025, rally at the Kansas Statehouse in Topeka as part of a 50501 national day of action. (Photo by Sherman Smith/Kansas Reflector)

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump urged Congress to eliminate funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting during his first term, but was largely unsuccessful.

Now, in his second go-around, Trump is once again asking lawmakers to scrap federal spending on the private, nonprofit corporation that Congress established in the 1960s.

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting allocates funding to National Public Radio, or NPR, and the Public Broadcasting Service, or PBS, as well as more than 1,500 local radio and television stations throughout the country.

Trump’s renewed focus on public media — in his budget proposal, an executive order and an expected rescissions request — has led the organizations that benefit from the CPB to start talking more than they have in recent years about their funding and their journalism.

Katherine Maher, president and CEO of NPR, rejected the idea that ending funding for the CPB would have a significant impact on the federal ledger, since the “appropriation for public broadcasting, including NPR and PBS, represents less than 0.0001% of the federal budget.”

Maher also opposed what she viewed as the Trump administration seeking to influence journalists and news organizations.

“The President’s order is an affront to the First Amendment rights of NPR and locally owned and operated stations throughout America to produce and air programming that meets the needs of their communities,” Maher wrote in a statement. “It is also an affront to the First Amendment rights of station listeners and donors who support independent news and information.”

Paula Kerger, CEO and president at PBS, also defended the CBP as well as the news programs that receive its funding.

“There’s nothing more American than PBS, and our work is only possible because of the bipartisan support we have always received from Congress,” Kerger said. “This public-private partnership allows us to help prepare millions of children for success in school and in life and also supports enriching and inspiring programs of the highest quality.”

NPR receives about 1% of its direct funding from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, while PBS receives about 15%. Those numbers fluctuate for the local stations, which tend to get more, but not all, of their operating budgets from CPB funding.

Senate likely to balk

House Republicans, who have sought to zero out funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting in recent appropriations bills, are likely to get on board. But senators, who write broadly bipartisan bills, haven’t taken that step and appear unlikely to do so this year — possibly helping public media resist Trump’s cutback attempts, as it did during his first term.

The differences between the House and Senate will lead to heated debate for months to come about future spending on the Corporation for Public Broadcasting as well as the dozens of other programs Trump told lawmakers to stop funding in his budget request.

Wisconsin Democratic Sen. Tammy Baldwin, ranking member on the panel that funds CPB, told States Newsroom during a brief interview she hopes lawmakers “can effectively fight back against that proposed budget.”

“I find that some of my Republican colleagues, especially those from rural states, hear from their constituents that they are reliant on public broadcasting, especially radio for local information, news, etcetera,” Baldwin said. “And there’s not a lot of other radio resources out there. But I think the same can be said about the public television offerings.”

Opinions among Republicans vary, though.

Louisiana Republican Sen. John Kennedy, who sits on the spending panel, said funding for CPB “may have made sense at one time, but the American taxpayer has no business spending half a billion dollars a year subsidizing media.”

Kennedy said he doesn’t expect rural residents will lose access to local television and radio programming should Congress eliminate the funding.

“Rural communities have the same access as everybody else to cable, to streaming, to getting their news off of this thing,” Kennedy said, pointing to his cell phone. “It’s just an argument by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to hold on to a government subsidy.”

Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski, a senior member of the Appropriations Committee, pushed back against defunding.

She wrote in an op-ed published in the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner that while she shares “the desire to reduce government spending, defunding the CPB, and particularly the essential reporting it allows locally owned radio and television stations to provide in Alaska, is not the place to start.”

Alaska’s local stations received $12 million last year from CPB, which made up between 30% and 70% of their total budget, in addition to individual donation and state funding, according to the op-ed.

“Not only would a large portion of Alaska communities lose their local programming, but warning systems for natural disasters, power outages, boil water advisories, and other alerts would be severely hampered,” Murkowski wrote. “What may seem like a frivolous expense to some has proven to be an invaluable resource that saves lives in Alaska.”

CPB has a state-by-state breakdown on its website detailing how much it provided during each of the past six years. The individual profiles show what portion of each state’s funding went to different programs, like the Next Generation Warning System, radio programming, Ready to Learn and Television Community Service Grants.

Public media among multiple Trump targets

Trump’s skinny budget request, released last week, calls on Congress to cease funding the CPB as well as dozens of other organizations, including the National Endowment for Democracy and the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, or LIHEAP.

The section on CPB says the request is “consistent with the President’s efforts to decrease the size of the Federal Government to enhance accountability, reduce waste, and reduce unnecessary governmental entities.”

Trump has also signed an executive order directing the CPB Board of Directors as well as executive departments and agencies to halt funding NPR and PBS.

The order stated that the “viewpoints NPR and PBS promote does not matter. What does matter is that neither entity presents a fair, accurate, or unbiased portrayal of current events to taxpaying citizens.”

Patricia Harrison, president and CEO of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, wrote in a statement responding to the executive order that Trump didn’t have the authority he was trying to wield.

“CPB is not a federal executive agency subject to the President’s authority,” Harrison wrote. “Congress directly authorized and funded CPB to be a private nonprofit corporation wholly independent of the federal government.

“In creating CPB, Congress expressly forbade ‘any department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over educational television or radio broadcasting, or over [CPB] or any of its grantees or contractors…’ 47 U.S.C. § 398(c).”

There are also several news reports that the Trump administration will send a rescissions request to Capitol Hill, asking lawmakers to pull back funding already approved for CPB. But the Office of Management and Budget hasn’t yet taken that step.

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting received steady funding from Congress starting at its founding, before the last Trump administration asked lawmakers to phase out its appropriation.

The last Trump administration’s first budget request called on lawmakers to “conduct an orderly closeout” by providing $30 million for CPB that would have gone toward salaries, rent and other costs.

The proposal argued that “private fundraising has proven durable, negating the need for continued Federal subsidies.”

“Services such as PBS and NPR, which receive funding from the CPB, could make up the shortfall by increasing revenues from corporate sponsors, foundations, and members. In addition, alternatives to PBS and NPR programming have grown substantially since CPB was first established in 1967, greatly reducing the need for publicly funded programming options.”

Funding increased despite Trump

Congress didn’t go along with the fiscal 2018 budget request for the CPB, and it wouldn’t for the rest of Trump’s first term.

In March 2018, lawmakers approved $445 million, followed by the same amount in the next year’s bill. Congress then lifted spending to $465 million in December 2019 and then again just before Trump left office for a total funding level of $475 million.

Those allocations continued rising during the Biden administration, reaching a $535 million appropriation in March 2024, the last full-year spending law enacted before Trump returned to the Oval Office. 

House Republicans did, however, try to phase out funding for CPB during the second half of President Joe Biden’s term. The House GOP provided a two-year advanced appropriation until 2023, when Republicans announced they wanted “the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to compete with other programs in the bill for annual funding.”

Those efforts didn’t work and the final spending bill, which became law in March 2024, included funding for CPB.

Senate Democrats wrote after negotiating the bipartisan agreement that it “protects funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to support more than 1,500 locally owned TV and radio stations nationwide—rejecting House Republicans’ proposal to zero out funding and weaken Americans’ access to local reporting.

“The bill maintains a critical investment of $60 million for digital interconnection and $535 million as a two-year advance appropriation, of which roughly 70% is provided directly to local public TV and radio stations.”

Final resolution far off

Congress is expected to begin work on its dozen annual appropriations bills sometime this summer, which collectively total about $1.8 trillion and make up about one-third of all federal spending. 

The House Appropriations Committee will likely propose phasing out CPB funding, or at least its advanced appropriation, in its bill.

The Senate Appropriations Committee tends to write more bipartisan bills, so as long as several of the panel’s members advocate for CPB in its funding measure, the program will likely receive its advanced funding in that bill.

Final agreement between the House and Senate is supposed to come before the start of the next fiscal year on Oct. 1. But that rarely happens and lawmakers often use a stopgap spending bill to push off final negotiations until mid-December.

That’s likely the earliest this year the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and those who rely on it will learn if Congress will reduce or eliminate its funding. That is, unless lawmakers fail to reach agreement on that particular funding bill.

Congress would then have to use a stopgap spending bill, which mostly keeps funding levels on autopilot, until it can enact a full-year bill.