NPR takes Trump to court
12:53 Share

NPR has been in the news lately. I've lost confidence in public radio. I don't think, Madam Chair, they should get a penny of federal funds. That's Republican Congressman James Comer of Kentucky at a House hearing back in March. The title of that hearing? Anti-American Airwaves Holding the Heads of NPR and PBS Accountable.

NPR, of course, is the news outlet that makes this podcast a reminder here about how we cover our own organization. David Fokenflik, our media reporter, as well as his editors and other journalists like me working on stories about NPR, all operate without involvement from corporate officials or news execs.

At that March hearing, Republicans accused NPR of a liberal bias and attacked social media posts that NPR CEO Catherine Maher made before she joined NPR. Let me inform you that your federal funding is also paid for by the other half of the country. That is Republican Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene from Georgia. The 77 million Americans who voted for President Trump.

someone you called a deranged, racist sociopath. Marr defended NPR's work. She also expressed regret for those tweets and for some of NPR's past news coverage. I do want to say that NPR acknowledges that we were mistaken in failing to cover the Hunter Biden laptop story more aggressively and sooner. And she pointed to new initiatives aimed at ensuring fair journalism—

These changes came to the newsroom after one of our senior editors wrote an essay last year alleging liberal bias at NPR. He has since resigned. Maher said NPR has sought to...

Throughout the hearing, Republicans called for cutting or eliminating federal funding for public media. Greene was unequivocal. After listening to what we've heard today, we will be calling for the complete and total defund and dismantling of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Consider this. The White House didn't wait for Congress. Trump signed an executive order this month seeking to end federal funding to NPR and PBS. Now, NPR and some member stations are suing. From NPR, I'm Mary Louise Kelly.

This message comes from Mint Mobile. If you're tired of spending hundreds on big wireless bills, bogus fees, and free perks, Mint Mobile might be right for you with plans starting from $15 a month. Shop plans today at mintmobile.com slash switch. Upfront payment of $45 for 3-month 5GB plan required. New customer offer for first 3 months only. Then full price plan options available. Taxes and fees extra. See Mint Mobile for details.

This message comes from Viking, committed to exploring the world in comfort. Journey through the heart of Europe on an elegant Viking longship, with thoughtful service, destination-focused dining, and cultural enrichment on board and on shore. And every Viking voyage is all-inclusive, with no children and no casinos. Discover more at viking.com.

This message comes from Mint Mobile. Mint Mobile took what's wrong with wireless and made it right. They offer premium wireless plans for less, and all plans include high-speed data, unlimited talk and text, and nationwide coverage. See for yourself at mintmobile.com slash switch. ♪♪

It's Consider This from NPR. The lawsuit was filed this morning by NPR and three Colorado public radio stations. We're going to start with the details of that suit and what prompted it. And for that, I'm joined by NPR media correspondent David Fokenflik. Hey, David. Hey. On what grounds are NPR and these local stations suing?

So there was this executive order that the president put out on May 1st and then was accompanied by a memo the next day in which essentially he said the coverage on NPR and PBS was biased and that he was acting to ensure that that would not be subsidized by federal taxpayer money. And the accompanying material made clear that he thought they were biased against the right, that they were woke, they were left wing propaganda. Choose any epithet that you are denigration that you want that's popular these days in his circles.

NPR and the stations are making two arguments in the court filings fundamentally. One is that he's trying to the president is trying to usurp congressional power and authority to pass laws, to set budgets, to determine where money should be spent and how and to even set certain kinds of protections for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and public broadcasters in law. The corporation being how money is funneled to public broadcasters like NPR stations.

The second and in some ways more fundamental element is that NPR's arguing this is a violation of NPR's free speech protections in the Constitution, that by grounding his executive order in the accusation of bias, he's saying he doesn't like that speech. Those aren't grounds he can act, is their argument. I mentioned there are three stations, all Colorado stations that have joined NPR in this suit. What is their role here?

So in a sense, they're very representative. Our CEO, Catherine Marr, put out a call and said who'd be interested in joining. Three stations from Colorado each joined. One was Colorado Public Radio, effectively a statewide network. One, Aspen Public Radio, reaches...

predominantly a rural audience. And one, KSUT, was founded by the Native American Ute tribe some decades ago, now serves four federally recognized tribes in the Four Corners area of the American Southwest. Each says they have a lot at stake, that federal funding isn't the

majority of their funding, but it's a lifeline to help them keep afloat to get, yes, NPR programs, but also do important coverage of news and culture that's vital to their listenership there. Okay. So this is an effort to make clear what the stakes are for local audiences, local communities. The White House has responded. What is it saying?

So a spokesperson told me this morning that the president is acting within his lawful authority to ensure the taxpayer dollars don't go towards funding bias. PBS is not part of this lawsuit, but tells me today it's weighing its options. And interestingly, the Corporation of Public Broadcasting itself, which technically a private corporation, is not suing over this, but has already sued the president over his efforts to fire three of their five board members. They say he doesn't have the authority to do that.

Give us the broader context here. The Trump executive order is part of a broader attack on public media, on media writ large. Where do things stand?

Well, there's no money has been frozen yet by the Corporation of Public Broadcasting. They say he just doesn't have the standing or power to do that. We'll see what a judge says. The Federal Communications Commission is investigating the corporate underwriting spots. And there's been, of course, a call from the president's allies in Congress to eliminate all funding for public media. And as you say, it's part of a larger essentially assault on the standing and financial grounding of both public media and the media writ large.

NPR media correspondent David Fulkenflik. Thank you, David. You bet. Now, as we noted at the top, when NPR is in the news, we report on ourselves as we would any other organization. So we invited NPR president and CEO Catherine Marr to walk downstairs from her office here at headquarters to Studio 31 to take our questions. Catherine, welcome. Lovely to be here.

In the interest of transparency, I want to note we asked to interview you because you're a stakeholder in this news story. You don't know what I'm about to ask. You had no input into these questions. That's right. Okay. So to the questions.

The lawsuit cites NPR's First Amendment right, quote, to be free from government attempts to control private speech, as well as retaliation aimed at punishing and chilling protected speech, end quote. Can you explain in plain English what that means, what the thrust of this lawsuit is? So NPR is a private organization, and we have the right as a media organization to make our own...

editorial choices about what it is that we cover and how we cover it. And what we found in the executive order was that the order itself

Right.

It's very clear from the Public Broadcasting Act that public media is meant to be an independent source of information. And in fact, it is protected in the statute that established the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. We believe that this is an infringement on NPR's First Amendment rights, but it is also an infringement on those rights of our station, both their editorial First Amendment rights and their rights to associate with NPR if they are unable to use their funds to choose to air our program.

So the argument, as I understand what you're saying, is that NPR, like any other news organization in the United States, is free to choose what it covers, how it covers it, what language we use to do so. That's correct. And even though we receive federal funding, we are still protected by those same rights. There's a line that jumped out at me that I marked in the lawsuit, and I'll quote it.

It is not always obvious when the government has acted with a retaliatory purpose in violation of the First Amendment, but this wolf comes as a wolf. Antonin Scalia. Yeah. It's a great line. The late conservative Supreme Court Justice Scalia. What does it mean here? In this instance, it is evident from the president's executive order, as well as statements released by the White House and prior statements by the president, that we are being punished for our editorial choices.

What about PBS? Because the executive order targeted funding to NPR and PBS. Why is PBS not suing alongside NPR? Well, PBS is a separate organization. We know from their statement when the executive order came out that they similarly find this order to be unlawful. Do you worry about further retaliation? We're witnessing with Harvard what happens when an institution decides to stand up and fight back.

We definitely thought about what the consequences might be when we move forward to file the suit. And I should say that we are not choosing to do this out of politics. We are choosing to do this as a matter of necessity and principle. All of our rights that we enjoy in this democracy flow from the First Amendment, freedom of speech, association, freedom of the press. When we see those rights infringed upon, we have an obligation to challenge them. And that's what's at stake here.

And retaliation is something we all think about. And yet the principle of what we do and how we do it, we have to defend our editorial integrity and the integrity of those rights. Yeah.

For people listening, will NPR sound any different as this plays out? No, I don't believe so. The entire point of going forward with this litigation is to protect our editorial independence. And as you started this segment by saying, there is a firewall between the newsroom and management such as myself.

I believe that the way that we do our work and the way that we are successful is by pursuing journalism that is excellent. And so I don't think we'll sound different. I think we'll sound exactly as we are, fair, responsible, nonpartisan, and seeking the facts. Last thing, Catherine Marr, the backdrop here is, of course, bigger than NPR. It's bigger than public broadcasting. We are witnessing a wider assault by the Trump administration on a free press.

Are you speaking with leaders of other news organizations about how to navigate this moment? Are you getting support from other news organizations? Yeah, I've had a number of conversations with leaders of larger media organizations, even than NPR. And I do believe that many of us feel as though this is a very difficult moment for this profession. Also a difficult moment for our role as the press in democracy. And I think that that is the...

Without sounding grandiose, I think that's what animates many people who step into newsroom roles, leadership roles at media organizations. And so we're feeling not just the importance of the moment in terms of operations of an NPR or another media company, but really sort of the existential moment for what is it that we're doing to serve the American public right now. Thank you. Thank you.

That's Catherine Marr, NPR's CEO and president. And NPR did reach out to the White House for comment on the lawsuit. Here is what we heard back today from White House spokesperson Harrison Fields. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, CPB, is creating media to support a particular political party on the taxpayer's dime. Therefore, the president is exercising his lawful authority to limit funding to NPR and PBS. Mr. Fields continues, quote,

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 episode was produced by Matt Ozog and Connor Donovan. It was edited by Patrick Jaron-Wadanan, Courtney Dorney, Emily Kopp, and Vicki Walton-James. Our executive producer is Sammy Yenigan. It's Consider This from NPR. I'm Mary Louise Kelly.

This message comes from NPR sponsor, Rosetta Stone, an expert in language learning for 30 years. Right now, NPR listeners can get Rosetta Stone's lifetime membership to 25 different languages for 50% off. Learn more at rosettastone.com slash NPR.

This message comes from Crown, publisher of The Demon of Unrest, a saga of hubris, heartbreak, and heroism at the dawn of the Civil War by Eric Larson. The Demon of Unrest is available wherever books and audiobooks are sold. This message comes from Thrive Market. The food industry is a multi-billion dollar industry, but not everything on the shelf is made with your health in mind.

At Thrive Market, they go beyond the standards, curating the highest quality products for you and your family while focusing on organic first and restricting more than 1,000 harmful ingredients. All shipped to your door. Shop at a grocery store that actually cares for your health at thrivemarket.com slash podcast for 30% off your first order plus a $60 free gift.