Share and Follow
President Donald Trump speaks to reporters as he arrives for a meeting with the House Republican Conference at the Capitol, Tuesday, May 20, 2025, in Washington (AP Photo/Rod Lamkey, Jr.).
A group of states are imploring a federal judge to side with PBS, and against the Trump administration, in a legal battle over controversial plans to strip away the broadcast network”s federal funding.
In a 41-page amicus brief filed Friday, Colorado and 21 other states say President Donald Trump’s attempts to defund PBS and National Public Radio (NPR) through an executive order are “unlawful” actions that threaten “the critical importance of public media.”
“Public media is a public good,” the filing begins. “That good is even more valuable at the local level, where newsworthiness, reach, and financial incentives often do not align.”
The friend of court brief argues public media is particularly beneficial to small, local and tribal communities where English is not the primary language spoken at home. The foray into the pre-existing lawsuit aims to vindicate the interests of the states while supporting the broader arguments raised by the plaintiffs.
Love true crime? Sign up for our newsletter, The Law&Crime Docket, to get the latest real-life crime stories delivered right to your inbox.
On May 1, the 45th and 47th president issued Executive Order 14290, entitled: “Ending Taxpayer Subsidization Of Biased Media.” The order claims neither PBS nor NPR present “a fair, accurate, or unbiased portrayal of current events to taxpaying citizens.” Trump’s order directs the Corporation for Public Broadcasting Board of Directors (CPB Board) “and all executive departments and agencies” to cease funding NPR and PBS.
In the underrlying lawsuit, PBS and Minnesota-based Lakeland PBS say the “unprecedented presidential directive” attacking them and other member stations “will upend public television,” and they dispute the “charged assertions” leveled in Trump’s order.
The states say they are uniquely positioned to offer input.
“Plaintiffs’ educational commitment extends to higher education and lifelong learners,” the amicus brief reads. “Several of the Amici States host television and radio partnerships with high schools, colleges, and universities. Likewise, affiliates across the Amici States report high viewership of NPR and PBS’s flagship programs and especially their documentary, educational, and news content.”
The states’ primary concern is to vindicate the basic remit of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting – which was formed via originating legislation in 1967 – and which then created PBS in 1969 and NPR in 1970.
“The Executive Branch’s duty is to faithfully execute this law and carry out Congress’ appropriations,” the brief goes on. “[T]he challenged Executive Order is ultra vires and violates the First Amendment. Amici States have a strong interest in the safeguarding of constitutional values, as well as in the preservation of their unique local media tapestries. At bottom, it is up to Congress, with its exclusive power of the purse, to decide whether and how to fund public media. If the Executive Branch disagrees, the lawful course is to ask Congress to rescind appropriations, as it has now belatedly asked. But the Executive Branch’s actions challenged here, unilaterally terminating appropriations, are unlawful.”
To hear the states tell it, the Trump administration’s efforts to defund PBS and NPR are an an assault on crucial local sources of information – and not simply typical content available through the news media.
The brief notes that PBS and NPR provide a litany of emergency-related, life-saving, weather-related, crisis-related, and disaster-related alerts. They argue similar such information would not be provided by private actors in public broadcasters’ absence.
“Public radio and television stations also often have hardened and resilient infrastructure that allows them to continue broadcasting during emergency situations that may knock out power or other communications resources,” the brief continues. “Beyond weather, the [Emergency Alert System] also communicates public safety alerts.”
The filing explains the reach of many such systems, at length:
Public radio and television broadcasters also contribute to the emergency alert systems by reaching remote and rural areas that other outlets or media cannot access. In Arizona, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, and New York, for example, public radio or television broadcasters cover 95 percent or more of the state. In rural and remote regions where Internet or cellular coverage is unavailable or unreliable, public radio or television often is the only means government authorities have for immediately communicating emergency information. Public stations in Minnesota and Maryland, for instance, have also provided emergency alerts in multiple languages, ensuring emergency communications reach communities that might not otherwise be reached due to language barriers.
“Public radio and television stations’ alerts and reporting on emergency situations are often a lifeline for audiences in Amici States,” the brief goes on. “Their authorities would lose access to significant infrastructure they rely on to communicate immediate and life-saving emergency alerts to the public. Because this infrastructure cannot be quickly, easily, or inexpensively replaced, Americans throughout the country, and particularly those in rural and remote areas, would experience real harm.”
The Trump administration, for their part, has yet to file any substantial motions in the case – only moving procedurally so far in a patchwork of pro forma filings including a joint motion for an expedited briefing schedule.
The states make the importance of public broadcasting a central feature of their efforts to shore up the plaintiffs’ lawsuit.
From the amicus brief, again, at length:
Public media stations do not only provide geographic reach, they also provide locally relevant content to rural and Tribal audiences. Public broadcasters are often the only centralized source for regionally specific election information; school or road closures; spotlighting of rural school athletics; and regional specific ecological updates. Farming communities benefit from agriculturally-specific weather, political, and economic updates aimed at their needs. Additionally, Native American and Indigenous communities benefit from programs which reflect and preserve their language and culture (including, for example: California’s FNX network (entirely Native American and World Indigenous content); Colorado’s KSUT Tribal Radio (including the Native Braids interview project that connects Indigenous youth with impactful elders); New York’s on-demand classroom content through its Native Americans in Upstate New York initiative; Arizona’s array of stations including KUYI, KTNN (“The Voice of the Navajo Nation”); and KOHN (operated by the Tonoho O’odham Nation); and Minnesota Public Radio’s Native News Project.
“Public media connects millions of Americans,” the brief concludes. “It touches life’s ordinary and extraordinary moments, from school lessons in the living room to life-saving emergency alerts in the midst of a storm. It links remote communities to the happenings of the country and world at the same time that it carries those communities’ vibrant perspectives to a wider audience. These services, and more, combined with the public funding structure, foster an increasingly rare asset for American institutions: public trust. Losing public media would erode that trust and leave many American communities in the dark.”
