The Brief

The Trump administration has drafted a memo to Congress outlining its intent to end nearly all federal funding for public media, which includes NPR and PBS, according to a White House official who spoke to NPR.

The memo, which the administration plans to send to Congress when it reconvenes from recess on April 28, will open a 45-day window in which the House and Senate can either approve the rescission or allow the money to be restored.

The official, who spoke to NPR on condition of anonymity, confirmed the existence of the draft.

In a statement on Monday that did not refer to the memo, the White House said: "For years, American taxpayers have been on the hook for subsidizing National Public Radio (NPR) and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), which spread radical, woke propaganda disguised as 'news.'" The statement includes examples of what the White House said is "trash that passes as 'news'" and "intolerance of non-leftist viewpoints."

NPR produces the award-winning news programs Morning Edition and All Things Considered, while PBS is best known for its nightly PBS News Hour and high-quality children's programming, such as Daniel Tiger's Neighborhood.

Earlier this month, on social media platforms, President Donald Trump blasted the two primary public broadcasting networks, posting in all caps: "REPUBLICANS MUST DEFUND AND TOTALLY DISASSOCIATE THEMSELVES FROM NPR & PBS, THE RADICAL LEFT 'MONSTERS' THAT SO BADLY HURT OUR COUNTRY!"

Trump is expected to propose rescinding $1.1 billion — two years of funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, or CPB, a congressionally chartered independent nonprofit organization that in turn partially funds NPR and PBS.

In making the move, the president appears to be drawing impetus from a House Oversight subcommittee hearing in late March. The panel called the NPR and PBS chiefs to testify, alleging the networks' news coverage is biased against conservatives.

In a statement, NPR said: "Eliminating funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting would have a devastating impact on American communities across the nation that rely on public radio for trusted local and national news, culture, lifesaving emergency alerts and public safety information."

"We serve the public interest. It's not just in our name — it's our mission. Across the country, locally owned public media stations represent a proud American tradition of public-private partnership for our shared common good," it said.

Paula Kerger, PBS CEO and president, said the Trump administration's effort to rescind funding for public media would "disrupt the essential service PBS and local member stations provide to the American people."

"There's nothing more American than PBS, and our work is only possible because of the bipartisan support we have always received from Congress," she 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."

Accusations of political bias

At the hearing, the public broadcasting heads spoke of their mission to provide free, non-partisan news and programming to all Americans.

Some Republican lawmakers, however, vented about what they saw as biased reporting. "You can hate us all on your own dime," said Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, the chair of the subcommittee that held the hearing. House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer, R-Ky., complained about NPR's coverage of how he structured his investments with a shell company.

Republicans assailed NPR chief Katherine Maher for political messages she'd posted to social media long before she became the network's CEO and president in March 2024. Their questioning also focused largely on stories published before her arrival at NPR.

They queried PBS CEO and President Paula Kerger about a video involving a performer in drag singing a variation on a children's song for a young audience. (Kerger testified that the video was posted on the website of PBS's New York City member station and never aired on television.)

Both PBS and NPR provide locally grounded content and reach more than 99% of the population, at no cost to viewers and listeners. In many states and communities, the stations serve as a key component of emergency and disaster response systems.

Congress allocated $535 million for the CPB for the current fiscal year — an amount affirmed in a recent stop-gap bill passed by the Republican-controlled U.S. House and Senate. The CPB's budgets are approved by Congress on a two-year cycle in large part to insulate it from political pressures; Congress has appropriated funds through Sept 30, 2027.

Where public broadcasting's money comes from

NPR receives about 1% of its funding directly from the federal government, and a bit more indirectly; its 246 member institutions, operating more than 1,300 stations, receive on average 8% to 10% of their funds from CPB. In turn, they pay NPR to air its national shows. By contrast, PBS and its stations receive about 15% of their revenues from CPB.

The bulk of CPB funding goes to local stations — mostly to subsidize television, which is more expensive than radio.

Stripping away such financial support would wipe out smaller stations, the public broadcasting chiefs testified, especially in rural regions and other areas ill-served by corporate-owned media. It would also weaken the broader public media system. Alaska Public Media's chief executive testified that the funding was vital to his state network and to ensuring his reporters' stories found a broader audience.

"Without PBS, without NPR, you wouldn't hear stories — news stories, public affairs stories, community stories — from Alaska," Alaska Public Media CEO and President Ed Ulman said. "You wouldn't see them on the PBS NewsHour. This is vital. It's vital for Alaskans to know that they're connected to their nation, and that what we do in Alaska matters to our nation."

A recent Pew Research Center poll found that 43% of U.S. adults surveyed favored continued federal support for NPR and PBS, with 24% saying it should be cut. However, by political affiliation, the results were more stark, with 44% of Republicans favoring an end to federal funding of the public broadcasters, while 69% of Democrats said it should continue.

Trump administration launches attacks on media outlets

Over its five and a half decades of existence, public broadcasting has mostly enjoyed bipartisan support, allowing it to survive periodic conservative pushes to strip the system of taxpayer dollars.

But recently, Brendan Carr, Trump's pick to lead the Federal Communications Commission, launched an investigation of NPR and PBS, saying it appears that their corporate underwriting spots violate laws banning commercial advertisements.

The networks say the agency and Congress have encouraged them repeatedly to develop a greater share of private financial support. They have worked assiduously for years with the FCC to ensure that their spots fall within FCC guidelines. Other news organizations supported by the U.S. government have also moved into the crosshairs in the early months of the Trump administration.

In New York, a judge has placed a temporary restraining order on presidential adviser Kari Lake's attempt to shut down the federally owned Voice of America. In Washington, D.C., another judge ruled the government had to keep sending funds that Congress already had committed to Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.

Those lawsuits — and others — argue that Trump has far exceeded the expansive powers of the presidency, usurping Congressional prerogatives, trampling on due process and eroding free speech rights.

Even so, the White House has succeeded in previously unimaginable ways; representatives of Trump's budget-slashing DOGE initiative, aided by Washington, D.C., police officers, forced their way into the U.S. Institute of Peace so that the administration could take it over. The institute, while funded by Congress, is an independent nonprofit like CPB.

Fired institute employees are now suing the Trump administration. U.S. Justice Department attorney Brian Hudak has said in court that plans already are underway to lease the U.S. Institute of Peace headquarters to the U.S. Labor Department. The judge overseeing the case has, to date, declined to issue a temporary restraining order to stop the transfer of assets to the government, although she said the administration has adopted a "bull in a china shop" approach.

Lake, who is also overseeing the effort to dismantle other federally funded international broadcasters, echoed Trump's remarks on NPR and PBS. "Defund ALL Fake News and Turn them Off," she tweeted, pointing to the hearing in late March as more grist.

Disclosure: This story was reported and written by NPR Correspondents David Folkenflik and Scott Neuman. It was edited by Deputy Business Editor Emily Kopp and 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.

Copyright 2025 NPR

A federal judge on Thursday ordered major changes to reported conditions at the Adelanto ICE Processing Center in San Bernardino County, granting a preliminary injunction that requires federal immigration officials provide people with clean drinking water and adequate medical care.

U.S. District Judge Sunshine Suzanne Sykes ruled that the detainees who brought the lawsuit “demonstrated they are likely to prevail” on their claims that conditions at the facility violate Fifth Amendment protections against inhumane conditions of confinement. While the case will continue to work its way through the courts, the judge issued the ruling now, finding that people being detained could suffer irreparable harm without court intervention.

The suit came after two deaths at the facility within weeks of each other last fall: Ismael Ayala-Uribe, a 39-year-old former DACA recipient, and 56-year-old Gabriel Garcia-Aviles. Both deaths are still under federal investigation as scrutiny over the conditions inside immigrant detention centers in the Trump administration continues to mount.

In their lawsuit, lawyers for the detainees said Adelanto violated ICE detention guidelines by failing to provide clean drinking water, nutritious meals, sanitation, access to medical care and medicine, as well as medical intake screening upon arrival at the facility. They also alleged violations of rules around recreation time outside, visitation time for family, daily headcount to ensure detainees are alive, and accommodations for people with disabilities.

In response, Sykes ordered 24-hour access to clean drinking water, meals with a sufficient number of calories, and access to soap and hygiene products free of charge. The injunction also requires the facility to be cleansed daily and for mold to be identified and removed. Detainees are to be provided blankets and temperature-appropriate clothing, as well as access to recreational yard time outside for at least four hours every day.

The order prevents Adelanto, which is located about 90 miles northeast of Los Angeles, from limiting family visitation during regular business hours, including removing time restrictions and physical contact, such as hugging or holding hands, with family members. It also says the facility can not cancel a visitation if a family member needs to use the restroom during the visit.

The majority of people being held in immigration detention centers in California have not been accused of committing crimes, only of civil immigration violations.

The court ordered Adelanto to perform at least two headcounts every day, once overnight and once during the day, to ensure detainees are present and not incapacitated. The court also ordered restrictions on sending detainees to isolation, barring a life safety risk to staff or if the detainee requests it.

The ruling requires Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other named defendants to immediately provide detainees with the condition upgrades the judge ordered.

The Department of Homeland Security declined to comment on the ruling. DHS attorney Pushkal Mishra argued in court last week the federal government couldn’t be held liable for the actions of its contractor, GEO Group, which runs Adelanto and 18 other immigration facilities around the country.

In a motion to dismiss the case, DHS argued that it should not have “to take over the daily management of a federal contract from a private contractor.”

GEO Group did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Disability access in ICE facilities has been a recurring issue since the Trump administration took office for a second term. According to the complaint, one person described being placed in handcuffs and ankle chains for court appearances despite using a cane. Others alleged people with mobility issues were routinely assigned top bunks. The new court order requires the government to provide people with disabilities with reasonable accommodations.

The court has given the federal government 14 days to create a plan to address medical care and disability needs for detainees. The order requires all detainees to be given an intake screening upon arriving for physical or mental illnesses, ensure ongoing treatment and medication, and treat and segregate detainees to prevent the spread of communicable diseases. The order also mandates that every detainee must have access to primary, secondary, and tertiary medical care and be advised of their patient rights.

Sykes ordered that the government must provide two independent monitors for the duration of the lawsuit to ensure compliance with the court orders. Detainees must also be given the opportunity to submit grievances to the monitors in English or Spanish that are contained in a lockbox only accessible to the monitors.

A report by the California attorney general this year found that six people have died in detention facilities in the state since the start of the Trump administration’s mass deportation campaign. Nationwide, 22 people have died this year in immigration detention.

This week, the Mexican federal government called on state attorneys general to criminally investigate cases where Mexican nationals have died in ICE custody.

The White House has released a series of documents that President Donald Trump said in a primetime address reveals "shocking vulnerabilities in our election infrastructure."

Yet Trump, who for years has baselessly claimed the 2020 election was stolen from him, did not detail allegations of widespread illegal votes in that election. Numerous reviews have debunked his claims about that election.

Instead, he focused on allegations that China had accessed voter data and that noncitizens are found on certain states' voter rolls, among his claims.

Yet Trump has often spoken of issues with elections that fall apart under scrutiny. His administration's system for identifying noncitizens on voter rolls has incorrectly flagged citizens, for example.

The remarks came as his war in Iran approaches the five-month mark, some Republican lawmakers want him to focus on the economy, and as his approval rating remains near second-term lows.

This is a breaking news story and will be updated.
Copyright 2026 NPR

The state is often knocked by the rest of the country as being "slow" to count votes. But here's the deal: that's a feature, not a bug, of the election system.

The backstory

Things take a while here largely because California works so hard to expand the ways people can vote. For example:

• Californians in recent years overwhelmingly vote by mail — nearly 90% of votes cast in the 2024 presidential election were mail-in ballots. In that same year's primary the percentage was just as high. Those ballots can be postmarked up to and including Election Day. They're counted as long as the ballot arrives within seven days (for the June primary, that was June 9).
• California offers same-day voter registration at any voting center. These new voters must cast a provisional ballot, which is counted once election officials confirm their eligibility (they are overwhelmingly accepted — for example, Los Angeles County reports that historically between 85% to 90% have been counted.)
• Voters also have the right to cast provisional ballots if there's any problem on Election Day — like if poll workers aren't able to void an outstanding mail-in ballot, or if there’s any issue calling up voter information from e-pollbooks. Again (see above), provisionals take longer to process because eligibility has to be confirmed.
• Vote-by-mail ballots require signature matching. When the one received doesn't match the one on file, county registrars must contact that voter to let them know — and give them the chance to correct it.
• And, with more than 23 million registered voters, we're really, really big. In the 2024 general election more than 16 million Californians voted (down from nearly 18 million in the 2020 presidential election). Either way, that’s more people than the total populations of all but three other states.

Why things have sped up, some

But things have sped up considerably in the 30 counties that have adopted a 2016 law called the Voter's Choice Act, including L.A., Orange and Riverside counties. In recent elections, the changes associated with that law — like voters not being locked into a designated polling location — drastically cut down the number of provisional ballots cast, which helped move things along faster than they had before.

A closer look at ballot counting times in California where an increasing number of vote-by-mail ballots has slowed ballot counts.

(

Courtesy California Voter Foundation

)

Still, accuracy and a commitment to "expanding the franchise" — translation: allowing more people to vote — means the process is not designed to produce instantaneous results.

L.A. County Office of Education’s letter to Los Angeles Unified School District earlier this month, warning it was at risk of running out of money, has escalated tensions between county overseers and the state’s biggest school district.

LACOE has told the district it must revise its $21 billion budget by mid-August — or risk the appointment of an external advisor with the power to override the LAUSD board and superintendent’s decisions.

The district has already announced the elimination of hundreds of jobs, primarily in its administrative offices, and approved another plan to cut an estimated $3.6 billion over the next three years through furloughs, layoffs and school consolidations.

But LACOE says it wants a more specific plan with more details, and has assigned a fiscal expert to help.

What does it all mean — for teachers, staff and most importantly, the almost 400,000 students in LAUSD schools? We break it down.

What’s in the letter?

The letter outlines a list of why the County has determined the district will become insolvent.

These include:

• Running out of money: The district's own projection has shown that its operating cash will be $231 million in the red by November 2027. “A district that cannot maintain a positive cash balance is unable to meet payroll and other obligations as they come due,” wrote Debra Duardo, the L.A. County superintendent. 

• New labor agreements with teachers, principals, school support staff and other employees: Recently approved contracts, which the unions say are essential to helping employees weather the region’s increasingly high cost of living, will cost an additional $1 billion in the next school year. These increases outpace the state’s  cost of living increases. 
  
• Declining enrollment and attendance: About 40% fewer students attend LAUSD schools than two decades ago, in part because of lower birthrates and families leaving because of the region’s high cost of living. Over time, this can reduce revenue because state funding is calculated based on how many students show up for class each day. 
  
• Leadership stability: The LAUSD Board appointed Andrés Chait, a longtime district administrator, as superintendent in June, just days after his predecessor resigned amid an ongoing federal investigation. ”This transition occurs at the moment the district must execute substantial corrective actions,” Duardo wrote.

It also includes next steps. We’ll discuss those below.

Why did LACOE send the letter July 2?

The letter is part of a process outlined in California law meant to prevent districts from going bankrupt.

Specifically, LACOE is required to intervene anytime it determines the district may be unable to meet its financial obligations in the current or subsequent two years (California requires districts to budget in three-year blocks.)

Has this happened to LAUSD before?

The requirement to issue this letter is fairly new and tied to a 2021 change in state law.

However, LACOE has intervened in LAUSD’s finances in the past. The agency assigned a fiscal expert team to the district from January 2019 to December 2021 after determining the district was at risk of not meeting its financial obligations.

The team helped analyze staffing, enrollment and make adjustments to the budget, according to a statement provided by Elizabeth Graswich, executive director of LACOE’s public affairs and communications department.

How did LAUSD get to this point?

The shortest explanation is that LAUSD is spending more money than it brings in.

The last three budgets relied on billions of dollars in reserves to offset the deficit.

Some of those reserves were built up when the district was receiving federal pandemic relief money and that funding ended in 2024.

LAUSD, like other districts in the state, also faces increased costs on everything from employee salaries and benefits to providing services for students with disabilities and settlements for decades-old sexual assault claims.

The district’s unions, parents, and several board members have also called for increased scrutiny on how much money the district spends on third-party contracts, including with tech companies.

Is LAUSD making cuts? How will they affect students?

LAUSD has already eliminated hundreds of jobs, primarily in its administrative offices, earlier this year.

This summer the board approved another plan to cut an estimated $3.6 billion over the next three years.

That plan includes furlough days for all employees, the elimination of thousands more jobs and cuts to the trust that funds retiree health benefits.

Among the cuts is the elimination of $900 million that helps high-needs schools pay for counselors, tutors and other student supports.

Most of these cuts aren’t scheduled to go into effect until the 2027-28 and 2028-29 school years.

The county said in its letter that the district plan needs to be more specific and include how each proposed change will be implemented, when the change will happen and how the outcomes will be measured.

Has there been any push back to the letter’s findings?

The district did not appeal the letter’s findings to the state, according to a district spokesperson.

However, when LAist asked if the district disputed any of the findings, a spokesperson wrote that the district is quote “continuing conversations” with the County, and that a revision to the budget may not be required.

“We will remain in conversation with LACOE to ensure our financial plan remains responsible, transparent, and aligned with our long-term commitments,” the spokesperson wrote.

The teachers union has said the letter unfairly targets the union’s new contracts.

“To me it feels as though the message is, ‘We warned you not to approve these contracts, and yet you did, and now we're going to overstep,’” said Gloria Martinez, president of United Teachers Los Angeles.

Martinez said the overall problem is that California doesn’t adequately fund public education.

We’re about a month away from the start of the next school year. What happens next?

The county has appointed a fiscal expert to help the district revise its budget by mid-August. Otherwise, the county says this advisor could be given the power to override decisions by the board and superintendent.

What happens if the district runs out of money?

Districts that become insolvent can lose the power to govern themselves in an arrangement called receivership. Instead of the elected school board and appointed superintendent making decisions about everything from curriculum to the budget, that power is transferred to an external administrator.

Receivership is a condition of accepting an emergency loan from the state. Only 10 school districts, out of nearly 1,000 statewide, have entered receivership since 1990, including Inglewood Unified.

The impact on students varies from district to district. The process was designed to protect students from sudden school shutdowns, but it comes at a cost. Districts must pay back the emergency loan and community-members lose the ability to elect or recall decision-makers during the receivership.

Contact your school board member

The LAUSD's Board's next meeting is a closed session scheduled for 10 a.m. Tuesday, Aug.11.