The Brief

NPR asked a federal judge to block the Corporation for Public Broadcasting from awarding a $57.9 million grant to a new consortium of public media institutions to operate the satellite that connects the public radio system for the next five years.

NPR's submission, filed Friday afternoon, gives insight into the behind-the-scenes tensions within public media this year as congressional Republicans successfully moved, at President Donald Trump's insistence, to strip public broadcasting of all funding they already had approved for the next two years.

NPR has run the satellite-based system for more than four decades. It enables hundreds of public radio stations and other outside producers to air and share programming, including many shows and stations with no affiliation with NPR itself. CPB is the congressionally funded private corporation through which federal money is funneled to public radio and TV stations, PBS and, to a lesser extent, NPR.

The money at issue is not part of the money NPR receives toward its own annual operations, which has typically represented 1% to 2% of its operating budget. PBS and its member stations have, on average, received 15% of their budgets from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting; for public radio stations, that figure has been roughly 10%, though the figure has varied widely.

That subsidy for all public media evaporates starting Wednesday with the new federal fiscal year.

The federal funding for the public radio satellite distribution system is calculated separately from the money set aside for NPR and its member stations.

According to NPR's court submissions, NPR had been told by CPB in early April that it would soon receive more than $30 million to cover the next three years for running the service, plus the balance on the current year. CPB then swiftly reversed course, with an executive citing a decision at the CPB board level saying NPR could not be involved, the court filing alleges.

Earlier Friday, CPB had announced it was giving the contract to the new consortium, called Public Media Infrastructure. Its members include New York Public Radio, PRX, the Minnesota-based American Public Media — of which LAist is a part — and Station Resource Group, a consulting firm. The National Federation of Community Broadcasters, an association of smaller stations that are not part of the NPR network, also is participating.

"By awarding this grant to PMI, CPB is placing trust in stations to drive the future of radio content distribution, ensuring that interconnection is not only reliable but also innovative, representative and sustainable," CPB President and CEO Patricia Harrison said in a statement. "This decision reflects CPB's commitment to support the entire public media system, especially rural and community stations, and to prepare the system for the future."

NPR and three of its Colorado member stations already are suing the White House over Trump's May order banning CPB from spending any federal money on NPR, saying it is a violation of its Constitutional protections. Trump has called NPR and PBS "monsters" and accused them of bias. NPR says that demonstrates an unlawful retaliation for its exercise of free speech.

"We seek a clear judgment that finds the illegality and unconstitutionality of this executive order, and, in doing so, establishes definitively that public media enjoys the same protections from viewpoint discrimination as any other entity of the free press," NPR Chief Executive Katherine Maher wrote to member station officials Friday evening.

"We enter into this motion with great reluctance," she continued. "This decision has undercut the bonds between our two organizations forged over many decades of service to the American people and stands as a regretful coda to CPB's prior history of support for the First Amendment."

In the motion Friday for a temporary restraining order, its executives attest to their shock at learning of the CPB's decision, saying it reflects the corporation bending to the Trump administration's will.

"CPB is now poised to do the Order's bidding, in contravention of both the First Amendment and the express mandates of the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967," states NPR's legal team, led by Miguel A. Estrada and Theodore J. Boutros Jr.

While CPB, NPR and PBS maintained a seemingly united front during an intensely pitched campaign to hold off the elimination of taxpayer subsidies, privately, executives for CPB and PBS distanced themselves from NPR and Maher.

Three people with knowledge of events say CPB and PBS officials told some lawmakers they would be content if subsidies could be preserved for public media, especially the stations, even if NPR were not to receive further federal funding. They spoke on the condition of anonymity, saying they did not have authorization to speak publicly on the highly politically charged matter.

Trump has publicly attacked NPR and PBS, but it is the radio network that has drawn greater scrutiny for ideological bias, sparked in part by an accusatory essay in 2024 from a senior business editor who later left the network.

During House hearings in late March, Republicans cast a severe light on Maher's years-old social media posts prior to her joining NPR early last year that reflected a liberal sensibility and support for Joe Biden's 2020 presidential bid.

On April 2, according to statements from NPR executives filed along with its legal petition, a top CPB executive, Kathy Merritt, affirmed that the corporation had approved NPR's contract extension. The CPB agreed to transfer more than $35 million to fulfill the rest of the current contract and the new one, court papers say.

On April 14, the same day published reports reflected Trump's renewed effort to shear away all federal taxpayer subsidies for public media, CPB's Merritt "called NPR's Chief Operating Officer to inform him that CPB now wanted to provide PRSS funding to a separate entity, with the principal criterion for eligibility being that the entity lack any ties to NPR," according to the network's legal filings.

Trump issued his formal rescission request to Congress on May 1. Shortly before the rescission vote in the summer, Trump publicly told Republicans in Congress that he would not campaign for anyone who failed to support the measure.

Two weeks later, NPR announced a new initiative designed to provide what it called "best-in-class terrestrial distribution platform for live broadcast that is expected to transform how public radio stations receive programming across America." CPB continued to put the contract out for bidding nonetheless.

In the Friday court documents, NPR contends CPB's move to sever its contract to run the system "threatens NPR's contractual relationships with the Interconnected Stations and undermines the hard-earned trust that NPR has built with those stations over decades of service."

NPR says without a restraining order, it will be unable to win back the contract in court, as CPB will be all but extinct. A skeleton crew will continue on to wind down CPB's operations.

Through its chief spokesperson, CPB said late Friday it was "confident that our actions serve the best interests of the future of public radio."

"We are disappointed that, at a time of tremendous challenge for all public media with substantially diminished resources, NPR is forcing CPB to expend scarce funds that would otherwise support the public media system in defending a lawsuit that has no merits and ultimately does not benefit the system," CPB stated.

In her note to station officials, Maher said that NPR's paramount concern involved "the integrity and stability of the public radio system." Maher said she had promised the new Public Media Infrastructure coalition that NPR would work with it to ensure that the system remained "vital and robust."

The federal judge overseeing the case, Randolph D. Moss, has ordered a hearing on NPR's motion for Tuesday morning — the day before the federal funding of public media goes away.

Disclosure: This story was reported and written by NPR media correspondent David Folkenflik. It was edited by Managing Editors Gerry Holmes and Vickie Walton-James. Under NPR's protocol for reporting on itself, no NPR corporate official or news executive reviewed this story before it was posted publicly.

Jury selection began Monday for the trial of the man accused of igniting a fire that led to the deadly and destructive Palisades Fire, which killed 12 people and destroyed thousands of structures.

Jonathan Rinderknecht is charged with one count of destruction of property by means of fire, one count of arson affecting property used in interstate commerce and one count of setting timber afire. He could face up to 45 years in federal prison.

How we got here

Prosecutors allege Rinderknecht set brush alight near a popular hiking trail in the Santa Monica Mountains on New Year’s Day, starting the Lachman Fire. Firefighters initially thought they put out the fire, but it remained smouldering underground for several days. High winds then brought the embers to the surface, sparking the Palisades Fire, which burned more than 23,000 acres.

What prosecutors say

In a court filing in April, prosecutors allege Rinderknecht displayed “extreme anger, indignation, and frustration” because he had to spend New Year's Eve alone. After driving around for Uber, Rinderknecht hiked up a popular trail and set chaparral alight in a clearing, according to prosecutors.

“He then started calling 911 multiple times, hiked down the hill, and fled the area in his car before firefighters arrived. Defendant returned to the area after he saw fire trucks arriving and then took videos of the firefighting efforts,” prosecutors wrote.

The filing also states that Rinderknecht threatened to burn down his sister’s home.

Prosecutors are expected to argue that Rinderknecht started the smaller blaze knowing it could turn into a bigger inferno.

U.S. District Court Judge Anne Hwang has previously expressed the government’s position could confuse jurors.

What the defense says

Defense attorney Steve Haney previously told reporters that prosecutors were trying to blame Rinderknecht for a fire that started days before the Palisades Fire.

"Well what about what happened between Jan. 1 and Jan. 7?" he asked. "Jonathan wasn't out there with a fire hose putting that fire out at the Lachman location, the Fire Department was. So why are they blaming him for whatever the Fire Department didn't do?"

It's here, folks: The FIFA World Cup kicks off this week, and the U.S. men's national soccer team is ready for its Friday opener in Los Angeles, the players say.

A pair of international friendlies over the past two weekends has given the Americans and their fans plenty of reasons to dream big. Star forward Christian Pulisic broke his monthslong goal drought against Senegal, and defender Antonee Robinson wowed with his offensive playmaking. And above all, the U.S. showed they are unwilling to be intimidated by quality opponents with their own serious aspirations for the World Cup.

"We're really starting to hit our stride," said midfielder Tyler Adams after Saturday's game against Germany.

Gone are the anxieties about scoring chances

In the 2022 World Cup, the Americans only managed to score three goals in their four games. That was enough for a win and two draws in the group stage, but their road ended in the Round of 16 when the Netherlands easily outscored them 3-1.

Now, any anxiety over the U.S. scoring capability feels like a distant memory. The team is flush with options on the attack, and not only Pulisic, who has scored 33 goals for the U.S. in his career. Forwards Folarin Balogun, who found the net against Senegal, and Ricardo Pepi, who was instrumental in two goals against Senegal, have looked excellent these past two weeks.

In other words, the team is consistently creating chances and converting enough to compete. "It's definitely encouraging," said Pulisic Saturday. "We have a lot of talent on the team, a lot of guys that can create and be dangerous to score goals."

But defense is still a liability…

Both Germany and Senegal picked up easy goals on defensive lapses. Great World Cup teams, like the kind the U.S. hopes to face in the Round of 16 and beyond, will do that.

Compared to a relatively deep bench of forwards and midfielders, the U.S. have fewer full-package defenders. On one hand, there's Tim Ream, whose soccer IQ and positioning are excellent, but who is 38 and can no longer win a footrace. Next to him is the promising 21-year-old Alex Freeman, the son of a former NFL wide receiver whose athleticism is off the charts but feel for the game is still a work in progress. Backups Miles Robinson, Mark McKenzie and Auston Trusty have their moments but are prone to mistakes.

"There's been a lot of combinations worked on in training and, there were moments when we can be better connected as a group on the defensive side," Ream said after the game.

… so getting defender Chris Richards back from injury will be key

The U.S. badly needs the return of defender Chris Richards, who hurt his ankle in a game with his club Crystal Palace in May. He sat out both friendlies. His status for Friday's game against Paraguay is still in limbo.

"If this was the final of the World Cup, maybe he can play. But the advice of the medical [team] is not to play," coach Mauricio Pochettino said the day before the Germany game. He added that they would assess Richards' health in the days that followed.

"He's an important piece of the group [with] his energy, his leadership on and off the field. So obviously we're just all behind him and can't wait to have him back," midfielder Weston McKennie said Friday.

These guys aren't afraid of adversity

A meeker U.S. team might have folded when Germany scored in the second minute of Saturday's game. But this version of the USMNT righted the ship within minutes and began pressing Germany hard, producing chance after chance before finally connecting on Robinson's extraordinary goal before the halftime break.

After the game, Pochettino told reporters he came to see Germany's early goal as "lucky" for his squad. "[It was] an amazing challenge for us to see how we react, how is your character, how we show togetherness, how we start to play under pressure," he said.

And the toughness showed up in the physicality, too. Players didn't back down from challenges. When Germany fouled hard, an American delivered a hard foul right back. The message, Adams said, was "have each other's backs."

"We can tune up passing, final plays, finishing, all those kinds of things. But to see that mentality, I think from everyone, and it's not just the guys that started, everyone that came off the bench as well — that's what you need," he said.
Copyright 2026 NPR

This story first appeared on The LA Local.

Drive down Manchester Boulevard in Inglewood, and you’re likely to see WOW Media digital billboards — from slender, curved signs planted in medians to massive LED screens that stretch across streets — that some residents have called eyesores.

What’s less visible is that those billboards are at the center of a corporate power struggle that may be headed to the ballot this November.

On one side: WOW Media, which has a financial partnership with the City of Inglewood that could be worth tens of millions of dollars as an aggressive expansion of its billboard network comes online. The city has not publicly endorsed or opposed the ballot proposals backed by WOW, and Mayor James Butts declined to comment on those initiatives.

On the other: the operators of SoFi Stadium, the Intuit Dome and the Kia Forum — who want the billboard network gone and have their own advertising interests in the stadium district.

Both the billboard company and stadium operators have turned to the same weapon: Petitions to put initiatives on voters’ ballots.

WOW is bankrolling proposals to cap stadium parking fees and raise taxes on event tickets. The stadium operators are pushing a measure to gut the city’s billboard program and the deal with WOW. Each side frames its campaigns as protecting Inglewood residents.

But none of these measures appear to be financed by community members. The money needed to persuade voters is coming from business interests who have major stakes in the upcoming World Cup, Super Bowl and Olympics.

This fight goes back to lawsuits between the city and stadium-linked businesses, including those tied to Stan Kroenke’s SoFi Stadium as well as Steve Ballmer’s Intuit Dome and Kia Forum. Last year, those businesses sued after the Inglewood City Council approved an exclusive contract with WOW Media to build and operate more than 100 digital billboards along some of the city’s busiest streets.

Shortly after that, Mayor James Butts wrote directly to Stan Kroenke seeking to ease tensions with Hollywood Park, where SoFi Stadium is located, and questioned whether a prior development agreement was still valid.

Now, as the city gears up for these major sporting events, the dispute has expanded from a fight over advertising control into a broader debate over public space and city revenue.

WOW Media is the main funder of the Inglewood Residents for Stadium Accountability committee. It is backing two proposals: a cap on stadium parking rates and a tax on event tickets.

Stadium-linked businesses are backing a proposal that would roll back or eliminate the city’s billboard program and end its exclusive agreement with WOW.

Those same stadium-linked businesses backing the billboard blight initiative are also behind some of the city’s most visible and controversial digital advertising displays on stadium properties, which have changed Inglewood’s streetscape in recent years.

A person walks past a digital billboard on Prairie Ave. in Inglewood on Saturday, April 18, in Los Angeles, Calif.

(

Dania Maxwell

/

The LA Local

)

Outside these campaigns, WOW already operates large digital billboards across the city, including its “Spectaculars” and twisting digital kiosks along major corridors.

The company promotes them as advertising space for audiences drawn to major sporting events. It has built its brand around aggressive marketing ahead of the city’s upcoming global sports calendar.

In a February Instagram post, WOW wrote: “You need Digital Spectaculars that match the energy. You need massive real estate. You need WOW,” alongside a video clip of a soccer ball bouncing through Inglewood streets.

Taken together, campaign filings, interviews and reporting by The LA Local suggest both sides are fighting not only over policy measures, but over control of high-value advertising space in Inglewood.

When asked why WOW was backing initiatives apparently unrelated to its billboard network, CEO Scott Krantz said the company is pushing for stadium operators to contribute more to the city.

“Our commitment has always been to invest in Inglewood, and that commitment goes far beyond our network,” Krantz wrote, adding that WOW wants Inglewood to remain a strong and financially stable “City of Champions.”

Inside the stadium admissions tax initiative

At the center of one of the competing measures is a proposal to change how Inglewood taxes stadium tickets.

Inglewood has long relied on ticket taxes for revenue. But when the Staples Center opened in 1999 and the Lakers and Kings left the Forum, collections fell from about $700,000 to $225,000. By 2009-10, they were down to $20,000.

That changed with the stadium boom, including SoFi Stadium and the Intuit Dome.

A digital billboard is seen on Manchester Avenue at Spruce Avenue in Inglewood on Saturday, April 18, 2026, in Los Angeles, Calif.

(

Dania Maxwell

/

For The LA Local

)

By 2022–23, the city collected $23 million in admissions tax revenue, boosted by major events including the NCAA football national championship game and WrestleMania. Admissions taxes from all ticketed events accounted for nearly 9% of the city’s general fund, according to budget documents.

A cap limits how much the city can collect. Under current rules, each venue pays up to $15 million annually.

The proposed Inglewood Fair Share Admissions Tax Tier Reform and Cap Removal Initiative, funded by WOW media, would eliminate those caps and restructure how venues are taxed.

If approved, it would set a 2.5% ticket charge for mid-sized venues, while larger venues like SoFi Stadium would continue paying 10% per ticket, but without the $15 million cap.

What the parking fee initiative would mean on game days

Above Mel Garcia’s neighborhood, the Intuit Dome looms over the rooftops like an alien spacecraft. On game days, streets are crowded with vehicles.

“The parking is wild, a lot more traffic,” Garcia said. Sometimes he sees residents renting out driveway spots, other times he sees visitors trying to sneak into street parking spaces.

Another proposal, the Parking Price Transparency and Anti-Price-Gouging Initiative, would cap parking near stadiums at $20 per vehicle. It is also funded by WOW Media.

The initiative claims the cap would bring more stability to game days and push drivers toward commercial lots instead of residential streets.

Tens of thousands of vehicles can enter the city during NFL games and concerts, and the city issues an average of 41 parking tickets per major event, according to city documents.

Most city parking fines range between $50 and $70, about the same as the cheapest listed parking around the stadium for some Rams games.

Stadium parking prices can climb into the hundreds of dollars, as they have for the FIFA World Cup this summer.

The city has continued to adjust. On May 12, the City Council approved an ordinance allowing churches and some businesses with large lots to sell parking spots during events.

A signature battle to the ballot

Signature gathering — and signature removal — have also become part of the broader fight.

WOW-backed canvassers appear to have been collecting signatures for initiatives that would cap stadium parking rates and raise taxes on event tickets while also asking voters to withdraw support from the rival campaign seeking to curb WOW’s billboard network.

The LA Local obtained photos of a petition asking voters to remove their names from the Billboard Blight Elimination and Neighborhood Preservation Initiative.

The LA Local obtained photos of a petition asking voters to remove their names.

(

Courtesy of the Blight Elimination and Neighborhood Preservation Initiative

)

The Inglewood City Clerk confirmed the petition had been filed but did not respond to questions about when it was submitted, who filed it or how many signatures it sought to remove from the rival campaign.

When asked about the effort, Krantz, the WOW CEO, did not directly confirm involvement but also did not deny it. Instead, he argued the city’s stadium businesses have created an “uneven playing field” that benefits themselves at the expense of others.

“The initiatives we support are designed to protect Inglewood from another attempt by stadium owners to take more from residents, small businesses and the city services that support critical infrastructure,” Krantz wrote.

John Shallman, a spokesperson for the billboard blight campaign who used to work with the LA Clippers, said WOW used its stadium-related petitions to target the roughly 13,000 signatures his group had collected.

“While WOW was publicly promoting separate stadium-related initiatives, it was also funding and organizing efforts designed to reduce support for ours by asking voters who had already signed to withdraw their names,” Shallman told The LA Local.

Shallman said canvassers were carrying multiple clipboards and asking some voters who had already signed the billboard initiative to remove their support. The LA Local could not independently verify those claims beyond confirming the petition had been filed with the city.

Krantz previously wrote to The LA Local that the billboard blight initiative was a “private interest power grab” by stadium owners designed to funnel advertising dollars to the billboards on stadium property.

“Their own massive signs — including future signs — are conveniently exempt from this initiative,” Krantz wrote. “The stadiums share none of their advertising revenue with Inglewood residents.”

The WOW-funded campaign directly discloses that they oppose the billboard blight ballot initiative in financial filings with the California Secretary of State. The stadium businesses did not similarly list their opposition to the parking and event tax initiatives.

The lawsuits remain unresolved, and the initiatives are being processed by the city to see if they’ve met the standards for inclusion on the fall ballot.

The Ballmer Group is a funder of The LA Local, but their support doesn’t influence our coverage. To learn more about our funders and commitment to editorial independence, click here.