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

In the wee hours of Thursday morning, groups of three and four people headed out from the El Toro Public Library in Lake Forest for the last day of Orange County’s biennial count of unhoused people. The survey helps officials decide what services are needed and keep track of changing demographics and trends.

The last point in time count in Orange County saw a spike of around 28% in the number of unhoused people, with around 7,300 people experiencing homelessness. Results for the point in time count usually come out in May.

What volunteers observed

Rocio Palafox and Cameron Pastrano from Orange County’s Office of Care Coordination together with volunteer Mike Kimball went out to survey Irvine Thursday morning. All the unhoused people they encountered were living in their cars parked at places like Irvine’s Metrolink station and long term parking lots.

They were just waking up as they answered the anonymous survey.

Rocio Palafox and Cameron Pastrano navigate to a canvassing area during Orange County's biennial count of unhoused people.

(

Yusra Farzan

/

LAist

)

One of the people surveyed — who asked that LAist not identify her as she is in the process of applying for jobs — was 59 years old and said she has been sleeping in her car for over a year.

“ Lost my job and lost my place to live because of it,” she said. “ Rent is crazy, can't afford it. You need more than one job.”

Another person, 61, also said she’s living in her car because she has trouble finding work. She also asked that LAist not use her name as she is hoping to land a job soon.

“ I got laid off from two jobs at the same time right before Christmas, which was really hard,” she said.

Becks Heyhoe-Khalil, executive director of United to End Homelessness, tallied people experiencing homelessness in Costa Mesa, where all the people she encountered were sleeping on the streets.

“ Over and over again, what we heard was financial, loss of a job and the challenge to be able to continue paying rent and it sort of began this spiraling effect,” she said.

When wages are stagnant and do not increase with the rising cost of living, Heyhoe-Khalil said, it’s “ a really dangerous recipe for people to fall through the cracks and end up experiencing homelessness.”

Challenges with the count

Heyhoe-Khalil said she’s been part of the counts for many years. This year, for the first time, she noticed “ there was a little bit more hesitancy around responding and participating in the survey itself.”

Many people declined to take part in the survey, she said, worried about entering some of their information into the system.

Even in Irvine, Palafox and Pastrano encountered a handful of people who declined to answer the survey, but they still entered the data as observational.

Doug Becht, director of Orange County’s Office of Care Coordination, which leads homelessness efforts, said in south Orange County cities, most unhoused people live in their cars, which can make it challenging to engage with them.

 ”Vehicles move quite often, so that care can sometimes be choppy,” he said.

South O.C. also has the least amount of shelter beds, he said, so finding supportive housing can be a challenge. And those cities have long resisted plans to build temporary shelters.

Instead, the county has tried to engage South O.C. cities to develop other forms of support, Becht said. In San Juan Capistrano, the city hall is now only located on the bottom floor, the rest has been converted to supportive housing.

Why the point in time count matters

The point in time count — required to take place during the last 10 days of January — helps the federal government allocate funds toward addressing homelessness. State and county officials use those funds to assess what programs and services are needed on the ground.

Becht said the count also helps the county engage with people experiencing homelessness. Once they have a person on the radar, it will allow outreach teams to go back out and try to get them off the streets and into temporary housing.

 The biggest takeaway from the last count in 2024, he said, “was that we have a bottleneck in our shelters.”

“We just don't have places to put them. And the longer they are in the shelter, that means the longer I have to wait to help people on the street move into the shelter,” he added.

L.A. County is considering plans to remove potentially thousands of unhoused people from areas around sports venues ahead of the Olympic Games in 2028.

County officials issued a strategy report last week advising local governments on how to clear people from encampments near major events and move them into temporary housing. However, the same report notes that there are concerns there won't be enough beds and there's no new funding for such an effort.

Sarah Mahin, L.A. County's director of Homelessness Services and Housing, submitted the report at the direction of the Board of Supervisors. It’s one of the first indications of how homelessness in the region might be approached ahead of and during the Olympic Games.

Shayla Myers with the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles said the plan is aimed at eliminating visible signs of homelessness for the Olympics, rather than addressing the root causes of the housing crisis.

" You're not actually getting people off the streets. You're simply attempting to make specific locations clear," she said of the county's approach. "It is about taking resources to clear encampments in the most visible locations when you have cameras and tourists all putting their focus on Los Angeles."

L.A. County's Homeless Services and Housing Department did not immediately return requests for comment.

Efforts to remove unhoused people will focus on the security perimeters of Olympic venues, according to the county's report.

"The County will use any established security perimeters…to identify and coordinate with host jurisdictions to prioritize encampments that may be affected," Mahin wrote.

LA28, the private nonprofit planning the Olympics, also told the county that those security perimeters would be its focus, according to the report.

“In the event that LA28 is advised that relocating unhoused individuals may be necessary for their own safety, we will ensure that the appropriate local government stakeholders have sufficient time to plan for the necessary services and housing support,” LA28 wrote in a statement to LAist. 

A spokesperson for L.A. Mayor Karen Bass said her office was in touch with the report's authors to "discuss next steps in continuing efforts to address this humanitarian crisis."

As part of the regional strategy, the county has developed a tool to estimate costs for cities looking at removing encampments around venues. That tool allows local jurisdictions to enter the expected number of people, the percentage of individuals who will go into shelters, and how many people will need long-term housing support.

Myers with the Legal Aid Foundation said she appreciated the county's focus on moving people into shelters, but that the plan would open up unhoused people to possible criminalization.

"The first round is to offer shelter, and the second round is often to bring in cops or to put up fences or to invest in citations," she said.

The report includes the latest "point in time" count of people living outside in the council districts of Los Angeles hosting Olympic events, as well as other host cities like Long Beach and Pasadena. In total, that number is more than 5,300 people.

"However, the number of unsheltered individuals in the areas immediately surrounding event venues should be reassessed closer to event dates to ensure an accurate estimate," the report states.

County supervisors Hilda Solis and Janice Hahn introduced a motion asking for the report in 2024, referencing concerns about public perception of local government's approach to homelessness ahead of many major events coming to Los Angeles.

"Efforts to address homelessness in advance of international sporting events in other jurisdictions have had uneven results, leading to accusations that governments are busing unhoused individuals to the outskirts of host cities without addressing the underlying lack of shelter capacity," the motion states.

The county's guidance points out that additional resources for plans to clear encampments at this point don't exist.

Representatives for Long Beach, for example, told the county that it could be challenging to secure motel rooms for interim housing at typical rates around the Olympics. The city also expressed concern about unsheltered people and at-risk tenants being displaced. 

Clearing encampments without enough housing resources could lead to displacing more unhoused people and those at risk of homelessness, Mahin wrote.

About 4,000 California Department of Public Health employees have been told they must use a federal verification system to prove they’re U.S. citizens.

Leaders of the agency said in a memo obtained by CalMatters that the verification is necessary to receive federal funding, but employees and unions are resisting the directive.

In the memo, a department human resources deputy director asked employees to comply with a series of deadlines that culminate on April 10. A separate document distributed by the department said that failing to complete the verification may result in the state losing a contract with the Centers for Disease Control for the national death index, which collects death certificate data from authorities nationwide.

The department is also making the move to address incomplete employment eligibility records identified in a recent audit, according to the Service Employees Union International Local 1000, which represents roughly 3,000 department employees.

As at other U.S. employers, all new California health department employees complete a federal I-9 form to prove their citizenship. The department is now asking them to enroll in E-Verify, a program administered by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and the Social Security Administration. That system compares information provided by an employee on the I-9 to records in federal databases, including at Social Security and the Department of Homeland Security. In some cases it also prompts employers to compare each applicant’s identification document photo with the one they provided during the E-Verify process. The memo said employees will specifically use E-Verify+, which combines filling out an I-9 with verification. Employees hired before November can opt out of using that specific version of E-Verify.

SEIU Local 1000 President Anica Walls told CalMatters in an email that forcing all employees to use E-Verify “raised serious concerns for our members about privacy, data security, and the unnecessary re-verification of workers who are already legally employed.”

The union sent a petition to executives in charge of the state agency last month to express concern about the verification and underline that employees submitted documents to prove their citizenship when they were hired. Walls told CalMatters the health agency is currently the only California state department the union is aware of that has asked their employees to recertify their citizenship status. The union represents about 100,000 state employees at 140 state agencies, boards, commissions and departments.

“When federal systems and funding conditions are used to justify expanded data collection from workers, it raises red flags — especially when those workers have already met employment eligibility requirements,” she wrote. “Our members are concerned about their personal data being sent to federal systems with known accuracy and security issues. And this is coming at a time when both U.S. citizens and immigrant workers are understandably concerned about how employment data could be accessed or used by federal agencies.”

The E-Verify+ requirement is creating fear and uncertainty among employees and may affect employee recruitment and retention in the future, said Jacqueline Tkac, president of the California Association of Professional Scientists-UAW Local 1115, a union that represents roughly 800 health department employees. Amid reports of ICE activity at workplaces and people being taken off the street, the timing could not be worse.

“E-verify+ is not a neutral administrative tool. It’s deeply integrated with DHS databases, including systems used by ICE, and relies on biometrics and cross-agency data sharing,” she said in a statement shared with CalMatters. “Introducing this at a time when immigrant communities and public health scientists are being openly targeted by the current federal administration is extremely chilling.”

The California Department of Public Health did not respond to multiple requests to answer questions. State information officer Nicole Skow told CalMatters that the California Department of Human Resources does not monitor how state agencies verify employment eligibility and that use of E-Verify is determined at a department level.

Since it became available in the 1990s, E-Verify has been, by default, a voluntary program for employers, but it has become mandatory for more and more of them over time. The federal government has required E-Verify for certain contracts since 2009 and more than 20 states now require E-Verify for their own contracts or to issue business licenses. Earlier this month, Florida lawmakers passed a bill that requires employers of all sizes to use the federal program.

Critics of E-Verify say the program needs reforms to address instances in which it makes mistakes, including cases where people commit identity fraud to get jobs they shouldn’t have and false positives leading people to lose jobs that they were lawfully allowed to have. Based on Bureau of Labor Statistics data and the E-Verify error rate, if Congress passed an E-Verify mandate today, the citizenship status of more than 120,000 people would get inaccurately labeled, allowing ineligible immigrants to work and labeling some U.S. citizens ineligible to work, which could lead to loss of wages or jobs, said Rep. Jamie Raskin, a Democrat from Maryland, during a hearing last month where members of Congress debated a bill that would require E-Verify use for all federal contracts.

The health department’s push to prove citizenship comes at a time when the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency is ramping up I-9 audits that may precede raids. It also comes on the heels of ICE agents shooting and killing two people in Minnesota, the deaths of multiple people in ICE detention facilities, and multiple news reports that the Department of Homeland Security wants to bring similar tactics to California and New York.

It’s possible the department wants to prepare for or forestall an audit from ICE. I-9 audits increased in Minnesota in recent weeks, Minneapolis-based immigration attorney Matthew Webster told CalMatters. Webster said some appear indiscriminate, with audit notices “basically just being dropped off door to door,” and some seeming to be retaliatory, like a hospital where staff protested ICE’s treatment of a patient shortly before the hospital was audited, and a St. Paul toy store that gave away whistles that protesters use to alert their neighbors to ICE activity, also shortly before it was audited. Webster expects such audits to become more commonplace as tens of billions of dollars continue to pour into the law enforcement agency from the federal budget.

A set of “Frequently Asked Questions” drafted by the California Department of Public Health and distributed to employees describes E-Verify+ as intended to “reduce errors, streamline onboarding, and improve the overall employee experience.”

But one employee, who asked to remain anonymous to avoid retaliation, told CalMatters that in light of recent events, they’re concerned about the department providing employee photos to the Department of Homeland Security under E-Verify. They also said the health department should have made it clearer that employees could opt out of the “plus” version of E-Verify and should extend this option to people hired since November, who must always use E-Verify+, according to the questions document.

“Nowhere in the memo does it tell us we can opt out,” they said. “That information only came after employees raised concerns to the director.”

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.