SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
President Donald Trump, joined by Secretary of the Treasury Steven Mnuchin, speaks during a briefing on the coronavirus pandemic on March 25, 2020 in Washington, D.C. (Photo: Drew Angerer/Getty Images)
As the White House scrambles to contain the political backlash sparked by President Donald Trump's latest threat to defund Social Security if reelected in November, one progressive advocacy group said Thursday that Trump's long history of attacking the New Deal program means he should be taken at his word--and diligently opposed--when he openly states his intention to "terminate" the system's revenue stream.
"The White House is telling us not to believe our own eyes and ears," Social Security Works president Nancy Altman said in response to attempts this week by Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany and one anonymous administration official to walk back Trump's overt threat last weekend to unilaterally and permanently end the payroll tax, which funds Social Security and Medicare.
"Earlier this year, Trump told a room filled with Davos elites that he would look into cutting entitlements--code for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid--if he is reelected."
--Nancy Altman, Social Security Works
During a press briefing Wednesday, Trump repeated his threat without equivocating. "On the assumption I win," the president said, "we are going to be terminating the payroll tax after the beginning of the new year."
By attempting to massage and downplay Trump's comments, Altman said, White House officials "insist that Trump did not mean what he said, and 'has no plans' to defund Social Security. So, let's review the evidence."
Altman went on to offer several examples of Trump's hostility to Social Security from both before he took office--in his 2000 book "The America We Deserve," Trump called for the privatization of Social Security--and during his presidency, despite his 2016 campaign vows to protect the popular safety net program from cuts.
"Once in office, Trump's proposed budgets included cuts to Social Security," Altman wrote. "Earlier this year, Trump told a room filled with Davos elites that he would look into cutting entitlements--code for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid--if he is reelected. Last week, Trump showed us how he would defund Social Security, when he unilaterally ordered the IRS to stop collecting Social Security contributions temporarily."
Altman said that whether one believes the president's own words or his advisers' attempted walkbacks, "the only prudent course for people who care about their earned Social Security is to defeat Trump this November."
\u201cSo do you believe Trump, or do you believe the frantic walkbacks of his advisors, who have realized defunding Social Security is political arsenic?\n\nThe only prudent course for people who care about their earned Social Security is to defeat Trump this November.\u201d— Social Security Works (@Social Security Works) 1597359186
Last Saturday, as Common Dreams reported, Trump signed an executive order instructing the Treasury Department to defer collection of the employee-side payroll tax from September 1 through the end of the year. The order has been met with widespread confusion as well as condemnation from experts and progressive observers who say the deferral is an unconstitutional assault on Social Security and Medicare.
"Employers don't know whether the order is mandatory, what the process will be for eventually paying back the deferred taxes, or even which employees are actually eligible," Bloomberg Lawreported this week. "Those questions make it extremely difficult for employers to carry out the changes and adjust their payroll systems."
In an op-ed for Common Dreams on Friday, Max Richtman, president and CEO of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, marked the 85th anniversary of the enactment of the Social Security Act of 1935 by warning that Trump "has been enlisted in the effort to dismantle" the program.
"The most glaring example is the president's unilateral (and possibly unconstitutional) action to defer the payroll taxes that fund Social Security through the end of the year," Richtman wrote. "Upon announcing this executive order, the president promised to 'terminate' payroll taxes if re-elected. That would either bankrupt Social Security or force depend on general revenue, which would destroy the program's worker-funded nature and open it up to benefit cuts in the name of deficit reduction."
"On this anniversary, we must renew our commitment to preserving and expanding Social Security in the face of these relentless efforts to undermine it," Richtman added. "Fortunately, the broader public--those who paid for, depend on, and cherish their earned benefits--have an opportunity to elect new leaders who will protect seniors, the disabled, and their loved ones against the 'hazards and vicissitudes' of life that President Roosevelt understood so well."
Trump and Musk are on an unconstitutional rampage, aiming for virtually every corner of the federal government. These two right-wing billionaires are targeting nurses, scientists, teachers, daycare providers, judges, veterans, air traffic controllers, and nuclear safety inspectors. No one is safe. The food stamps program, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are next. It’s an unprecedented disaster and a five-alarm fire, but there will be a reckoning. The people did not vote for this. The American people do not want this dystopian hellscape that hides behind claims of “efficiency.” Still, in reality, it is all a giveaway to corporate interests and the libertarian dreams of far-right oligarchs like Musk. Common Dreams is playing a vital role by reporting day and night on this orgy of corruption and greed, as well as what everyday people can do to organize and fight back. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover issues the corporate media never will, but we can only continue with our readers’ support. |
As the White House scrambles to contain the political backlash sparked by President Donald Trump's latest threat to defund Social Security if reelected in November, one progressive advocacy group said Thursday that Trump's long history of attacking the New Deal program means he should be taken at his word--and diligently opposed--when he openly states his intention to "terminate" the system's revenue stream.
"The White House is telling us not to believe our own eyes and ears," Social Security Works president Nancy Altman said in response to attempts this week by Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany and one anonymous administration official to walk back Trump's overt threat last weekend to unilaterally and permanently end the payroll tax, which funds Social Security and Medicare.
"Earlier this year, Trump told a room filled with Davos elites that he would look into cutting entitlements--code for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid--if he is reelected."
--Nancy Altman, Social Security Works
During a press briefing Wednesday, Trump repeated his threat without equivocating. "On the assumption I win," the president said, "we are going to be terminating the payroll tax after the beginning of the new year."
By attempting to massage and downplay Trump's comments, Altman said, White House officials "insist that Trump did not mean what he said, and 'has no plans' to defund Social Security. So, let's review the evidence."
Altman went on to offer several examples of Trump's hostility to Social Security from both before he took office--in his 2000 book "The America We Deserve," Trump called for the privatization of Social Security--and during his presidency, despite his 2016 campaign vows to protect the popular safety net program from cuts.
"Once in office, Trump's proposed budgets included cuts to Social Security," Altman wrote. "Earlier this year, Trump told a room filled with Davos elites that he would look into cutting entitlements--code for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid--if he is reelected. Last week, Trump showed us how he would defund Social Security, when he unilaterally ordered the IRS to stop collecting Social Security contributions temporarily."
Altman said that whether one believes the president's own words or his advisers' attempted walkbacks, "the only prudent course for people who care about their earned Social Security is to defeat Trump this November."
\u201cSo do you believe Trump, or do you believe the frantic walkbacks of his advisors, who have realized defunding Social Security is political arsenic?\n\nThe only prudent course for people who care about their earned Social Security is to defeat Trump this November.\u201d— Social Security Works (@Social Security Works) 1597359186
Last Saturday, as Common Dreams reported, Trump signed an executive order instructing the Treasury Department to defer collection of the employee-side payroll tax from September 1 through the end of the year. The order has been met with widespread confusion as well as condemnation from experts and progressive observers who say the deferral is an unconstitutional assault on Social Security and Medicare.
"Employers don't know whether the order is mandatory, what the process will be for eventually paying back the deferred taxes, or even which employees are actually eligible," Bloomberg Lawreported this week. "Those questions make it extremely difficult for employers to carry out the changes and adjust their payroll systems."
In an op-ed for Common Dreams on Friday, Max Richtman, president and CEO of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, marked the 85th anniversary of the enactment of the Social Security Act of 1935 by warning that Trump "has been enlisted in the effort to dismantle" the program.
"The most glaring example is the president's unilateral (and possibly unconstitutional) action to defer the payroll taxes that fund Social Security through the end of the year," Richtman wrote. "Upon announcing this executive order, the president promised to 'terminate' payroll taxes if re-elected. That would either bankrupt Social Security or force depend on general revenue, which would destroy the program's worker-funded nature and open it up to benefit cuts in the name of deficit reduction."
"On this anniversary, we must renew our commitment to preserving and expanding Social Security in the face of these relentless efforts to undermine it," Richtman added. "Fortunately, the broader public--those who paid for, depend on, and cherish their earned benefits--have an opportunity to elect new leaders who will protect seniors, the disabled, and their loved ones against the 'hazards and vicissitudes' of life that President Roosevelt understood so well."
As the White House scrambles to contain the political backlash sparked by President Donald Trump's latest threat to defund Social Security if reelected in November, one progressive advocacy group said Thursday that Trump's long history of attacking the New Deal program means he should be taken at his word--and diligently opposed--when he openly states his intention to "terminate" the system's revenue stream.
"The White House is telling us not to believe our own eyes and ears," Social Security Works president Nancy Altman said in response to attempts this week by Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany and one anonymous administration official to walk back Trump's overt threat last weekend to unilaterally and permanently end the payroll tax, which funds Social Security and Medicare.
"Earlier this year, Trump told a room filled with Davos elites that he would look into cutting entitlements--code for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid--if he is reelected."
--Nancy Altman, Social Security Works
During a press briefing Wednesday, Trump repeated his threat without equivocating. "On the assumption I win," the president said, "we are going to be terminating the payroll tax after the beginning of the new year."
By attempting to massage and downplay Trump's comments, Altman said, White House officials "insist that Trump did not mean what he said, and 'has no plans' to defund Social Security. So, let's review the evidence."
Altman went on to offer several examples of Trump's hostility to Social Security from both before he took office--in his 2000 book "The America We Deserve," Trump called for the privatization of Social Security--and during his presidency, despite his 2016 campaign vows to protect the popular safety net program from cuts.
"Once in office, Trump's proposed budgets included cuts to Social Security," Altman wrote. "Earlier this year, Trump told a room filled with Davos elites that he would look into cutting entitlements--code for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid--if he is reelected. Last week, Trump showed us how he would defund Social Security, when he unilaterally ordered the IRS to stop collecting Social Security contributions temporarily."
Altman said that whether one believes the president's own words or his advisers' attempted walkbacks, "the only prudent course for people who care about their earned Social Security is to defeat Trump this November."
\u201cSo do you believe Trump, or do you believe the frantic walkbacks of his advisors, who have realized defunding Social Security is political arsenic?\n\nThe only prudent course for people who care about their earned Social Security is to defeat Trump this November.\u201d— Social Security Works (@Social Security Works) 1597359186
Last Saturday, as Common Dreams reported, Trump signed an executive order instructing the Treasury Department to defer collection of the employee-side payroll tax from September 1 through the end of the year. The order has been met with widespread confusion as well as condemnation from experts and progressive observers who say the deferral is an unconstitutional assault on Social Security and Medicare.
"Employers don't know whether the order is mandatory, what the process will be for eventually paying back the deferred taxes, or even which employees are actually eligible," Bloomberg Lawreported this week. "Those questions make it extremely difficult for employers to carry out the changes and adjust their payroll systems."
In an op-ed for Common Dreams on Friday, Max Richtman, president and CEO of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, marked the 85th anniversary of the enactment of the Social Security Act of 1935 by warning that Trump "has been enlisted in the effort to dismantle" the program.
"The most glaring example is the president's unilateral (and possibly unconstitutional) action to defer the payroll taxes that fund Social Security through the end of the year," Richtman wrote. "Upon announcing this executive order, the president promised to 'terminate' payroll taxes if re-elected. That would either bankrupt Social Security or force depend on general revenue, which would destroy the program's worker-funded nature and open it up to benefit cuts in the name of deficit reduction."
"On this anniversary, we must renew our commitment to preserving and expanding Social Security in the face of these relentless efforts to undermine it," Richtman added. "Fortunately, the broader public--those who paid for, depend on, and cherish their earned benefits--have an opportunity to elect new leaders who will protect seniors, the disabled, and their loved ones against the 'hazards and vicissitudes' of life that President Roosevelt understood so well."
"The Delaware lawmakers that enacted S.B. 21 are lapdogs for corporations and Musk," said one expert at the Open Markets Institute.
While Democratic Gov. Matt Meyer declared that "Delaware is the best place in the world to incorporate your business, and Senate Bill 21 will help keep it that way," critics reiterated concerns about the corporate-friendly state legislation he signed this week.
The Delaware House of Representatives sent the Senate-approved S.B. 21 to Meyer's desk on Tuesday in a 32-7 vote, with two members absent. The Delaware Business Times reported that the governor "arrived in Dover to sign the measure into law less than two hours after it passed," and "the bill signing was closed to the press."
The bill sailed through the Delaware General Assembly despite anti-monopoly, economic, and legal experts blasting it as a "corporate insider power grab" and accusing state legislators of choosing "billionaire insiders—like Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg—over pension funds, retirement savers, and other investors."
Delaware Working Families Party (WFP) political director Karl Stomberg said in a Wednesday statement that "at a time when rank-and-file Democrats across the country are begging their leaders to stand up to" President Donald Trump and Musk, his billionaire adviser, Democratic lawmakers in the state "just gave Musk a $56 billion handout."
That's a reference to Musk's 2018 compensation package for his electric vehicle maker, Tesla, which a Delaware judge ruled against, prompting the richest billionaire on Earth to ditch the state and encourage other business leaders to do the same. Fears of a potential "Dexit" led to lawmakers' frantic effort to pass S.B. 21.
"The Working Families Party has been standing up against this proposed bill for weeks now, and we recognize the need to fight back against corporate overreach in our government," said Stomberg. "WFP electeds proposed serious amendments to address our concerns with the bill that would protect the people of Delaware, but the Democrats chose to side with Musk and vote them down."
"This bill is an indictment of the failed Delaware Way, which continues to allow big corporations and the ultrawealthy like Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg to enrich themselves at the expense of working people," added Stomberg.
Zuckerberg is the CEO of Meta, Facebook and Instagram's parent company. CNBC recently revealed that "a day after The Wall Street Journal published its story on Meta considering a Delaware departure, Meyer, who was brand new to the job, convened an online meeting with attorneys from law firms that have represented Meta, Musk, Tesla, and others in shareholder disputes in the state, according to public records obtained by CNBC. Other attendees included members of the Delaware Legislature."
"The following day, records show, Meyer invited a second group to meet with him and new Secretary of State Charuni Patibanda-Sanchez. That invitation went to Kate Kelly, Meta's corporate secretary, and to Dan Sachs, the company's senior national director of state and local policy," according to CNBC. "The invite also went to James Honaker, an attorney with Morris Nichols, a firm that's represented Meta in federal court in Delaware, and to William Chandler, former chancellor of the Delaware Court of Chancery, who is now part of Wilson Sonsini's Delaware litigation practice."
Just weeks after those meetings, the governor urged state lawmakers to swiftly pass S.B. 21. The Lever's Luke Goldstein wrote Wednesday that "the timing of the emails obtained by CNBC reveals clear motivations driving the current law which was rushed before the Legislature last month by the new governor: to let top executives off the hook for legal liabilities."
In earlier reporting, Goldstein highlighted that "Delaware, which has long been perceived as a billionaire playground and corporate tax haven, is the incorporation home to more than 60% of all Fortune 500 companies. That means, if enacted, the wide-ranging regulatory handouts in the bill will have sweeping consequences for corporate behavior across the country."
The Lever's founder, David Sirota, on Wednesday lamented the limited attention the Delaware law is receiving, compared with a major national security breach involving several top Trump officials' unsecure group chat about war plans. As he put it, "Cannot overstate how significant this is—while the national media is focused on the D.C. drama, a group of Democrats off the radar in a tiny state just radically shifted more power to the planet's largest corporations via world-changing legislation."
Daniel Hanley, senior legal analyst at the Open Markets Institute, said Wednesday that "the Delaware lawmakers that enacted S.B. 21 are lapdogs for corporations and Musk. How this one state came to control practically all of American corporate law is a long story, but regardless, Congress can and should take the power away."
"These are not people who want to make America healthy," said one advocate for people with disabilities. "They want to make the sick disappear."
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services canceled more than $12 billion in federal funding for state health departments across the nation, money that is used to track infectious diseases and provide mental health services, addiction treatment, and other critical care.
NBC News reported Wednesday that $11.4 billion of the canceled grants were earmarked by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for state and community health departments, nongovernmental organizations, and international recipients following the Covid-19 pandemic. Around $1 billion worth of grants are being pulled from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.
"The Covid-19 pandemic is over, and HHS will no longer waste billions of taxpayer dollars responding to a nonexistent pandemic that Americans moved on from years ago," Andrew Nixon, a spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services said in a statement. "HHS is prioritizing funding projects that will deliver on President [Donald] Trump's mandate to address our chronic disease epidemic and Make America Healthy Again."
This is just stunning. HHS has abruptly canceled more than $12 billion in federal grants to states that were being used for tracking infectious diseases, mental health services, addiction treatment and other urgent health issues.
[image or embed]
— Charles Ornstein ( @charlesornstein.bsky.social) March 26, 2025 at 1:36 PM
However, experts point to the certainty of future pandemics—like an avian flu strain that mutates to pass between humans—in urging public health policy planners to maintain or even increase preparedness and response funding.
NBC News reported that the 13 agencies overseen by HHS were sent notices starting Monday, which informed them that they have 30 days to reconcile their expenditures.
For some state and community healthcare providers, the effects of the cuts were immediate.
There was an abrupt $11B cut to local/state public health (PH) infrastructure yesterday. I don't think people realize what this means: -Want an updated system to check your immunizations instead of digging through docs? PH no longer able to carry out upgrades to immunization information systems
— Katelyn Jetelina ( @kkjetelina.bsky.social) March 26, 2025 at 11:34 AM
As The New York Times reported:
In Lubbock, Texas, public health officials have received orders to stop work supported by three grants that helped fund the response to the widening measles outbreak there, according to Katherine Wells, the city's director of public health.
On Tuesday, some state health departments were preparing to lay off dozens of epidemiologists and data scientists. Others, including Texas, Maine, and Rhode Island, were still scrambling to understand the impact of the cuts before taking any action.
In interviews, state health officials predicted that thousands of health department employees and contract workers could lose their jobs nationwide. Some predicted the loss of as much as 90% of staff from some infectious disease teams.
"We learned yesterday that the federal government has unilaterally terminated approximately $226 million in grants to Minnesota Department of Health related to the Covid-19 pandemic," Minnesota Commissioner of Health Dr. Brooke Cunningham said in a statement. "This termination is effective immediately and impacts ongoing work and contracts. This action was sudden and unexpected."
Lori Freeman, CEO of the National Association of County and City Health Officials, told CBS News that much of the funding would have expired soon anyway.
"It's ending in the next six months," she said. "There's no reason—why rescind it now? It's just cruel and unusual behavior."
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment communications director Kristina Iodice told NBC News, "We are concerned that this sudden loss of federal funding threatens Colorado's ability to track Covid-19 trends and other emerging diseases, modernize disease data systems, respond to outbreaks, and provide critical immunization access, outreach, and education—leaving communities more vulnerable to future public health crises."
The first Trump administration was widely criticized for shortcomings in these fields. A congressional panel issued a 2022 report accusing top administration officials of "failed stewardship" and a "persistent pattern of political interference" that undermined the nation's response to Covid-19, which to date has killed more than 1.2 million people in the United States and is still claiming hundreds of lives each week, according to CDC figures.
Wednesday's reportingd came as HHS, CDC, and other critical agencies braced for more cuts and layoffs ordered by Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE. HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and his aides are also "nearing their final decisions on a sweeping restructuring of the department," CBS News reported last week.
Last month, Senate Democrats demanded answers from Kennedy regarding the purge of more than 5,000 HHS workers after the agency "blindly followed" a "baseless directive" by Trump and DOGE that the lawmakers said is "blatantly undermining Americans' health and safety."
As Common Dreams reported Wednesday, public health experts have also condemned the administration's decision to terminate funding for Gavi, the global vaccine alliance—a move critics warned could result in the deaths of over 1 million children in the Global South.
"Investing in Gavi brings other benefits for our world and the American people," the alliance said. "Here's why: By maintaining global stockpiles of vaccines against deadly diseases like Ebola, mpox, and yellow fever, we help keep America safe. These diseases do not respect borders, they can cross continents in hours and cost billions of dollars."
"Elon Musk and Marjorie Taylor Greene are trying to defund Sesame Street and dismantle PBS and NPR," said one Democratic congressman. "Not on our watch. Fire Elon Musk, and save Elmo."
Progressives roundly ridiculed U.S. Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene on Wednesday after the serial conspiracy theorist made baseless claims that National Public Radio and Public Broadcasting Service are "radical left-wing echo chambers" with a "communist agenda" and called for their defunding.
"Is Elmo now, or has he ever been, a member of the Communist Party?"
Greene (R-Ga.)—who chairs the House Oversight Committee's Subcommittee on Delivering Government Efficiency (DOGE, but not part of Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency)—convened the hearing, titled "Anti-American Airwaves: Holding the Heads of NPR and PBS Accountable," to examine alleged "biased news" and whether American taxpayers "will continue funding these leftist media outlets."
"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," the congresswoman told
NPR CEO Katherine Maher and the PBS CEO Paula Kerger during her closing remarks, referring to the nonprofit that helps fund PBS and NPR.
"Here's how it works: In America, every single day—every single day—private businesses operate on their own, without government funding," she added. "We believe you all can hate us on your own dime."
PBS gets about 16% of its funding from federal sources. For NPR, the figure is around just 1%.
Greene—who has amplified conspiracy theories including QAnon, Pizzagate, the 9/11 "hoax," government involvement in mass shootings, "Jewish space lasers" causing wildfires, the U.S. government controlling the weather, and the "stolen" 2020 presidential election—made more blatantly false claims during Wednesday's hearing, including that PBS used "taxpayer funds to push some of the most radical left positions like featuring a drag queen" on one of its children's programs. This never happened.
Nevertheless, Greene used props including a blown-up photo of drag queen Lil' Miss Hot Mess, a children's book author and Drag Queen Story Hour board member, whom the congresswoman called a "monster," while baselessly accusing Maher and Kerger of "grooming and sexualizing" children.
Another Republican member of the panel, House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer of Kentucky, appeared to not understand the difference between an editorial—an opinion article—and the the work and standards of media editors:
oh my god -- Comer thinks "editorial standards" literally refers to standards for editorials and is corrected by the NPR head
[image or embed]
— Aaron Rupar ( @atrupar.com) March 26, 2025 at 8:12 AM
Democrats on the DOGE subcommittee pushed back against the attacks by Greene and other Republicans on the panel. Mocking Greene's assertion that PBS and NPR have a "communist agenda" and referring to one of the most beloved characters on the long-running children's show Sesame Street, Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) asked Kerger a McCarthyesque question: "Is Elmo now, or has he ever been, a member of the Communist Party? A yes or no."
Kerger answered "no," prompting Garcia to retort: "Now, are you sure, Ms. Kerger? Because he's obviously red... He also has a very dangerous message about sharing. And helping each other; he's indoctrinating our kids that sharing is caring. Now maybe he's part of a major socialist plot and maybe that's why the chairwoman is having this hearing today."
Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) responded to a false assertion by hearing guest Mike Gonzalez, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation—the main force behind Project 2025, the plan for a far-right overhaul of the federal government that includes defunding public broadcasters—as well Musk's glaring conflicts of interest by referring to a popular porcine protagonist of Muppets fame.
"To your knowledge, has Miss Piggy ever been caught trying to funnel billions of dollars in government contracts to herself and to her companies?" Casar said.
At the end of his remarks, the progressive lawmaker implored Greene to "leave Elmo alone" and instead bring in Musk, the de facto head of the other DOGE, for questioning. Musk, the world's richest person, and President Donald Trump support defunding public broadcasters.
In typically fiery fashion, Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) told Greene and Republicans that "free speech is not about what y'all want somebody to say, and the idea that you want to shut down everybody that is not Fox News is bullshit!"
Tim Karr, the senior director of strategy and communications at the media reform group Free Press, told Common Dreams after the hearing that Greene's "bogus attack against public media is a blatant attempt to further weaken the sort of journalism that questions the corruption and cruelty of the Trump administration."
"This is not about saving taxpayer dollars or based on any genuine concern about whether there's too much bias on public media. It's a blatant attempt to undermine independent, rigorous reporting on the Trump administration," Karr argued.
"Greene may not like public media—and that's no surprise given that she's no fan of journalism that holds public officials and billionaires accountable," he continued. "But she and her Republican colleagues are far out of step with the American people and their needs. Communities all across the country rely on their local public radio and TV stations to provide trustworthy news reporting and a diversity of opinions."
"In every survey, the American public indicates it wants more support for public and community media, not less," Karr added. "Unfortunately, President Trump and his cronies in Congress have instead tried to zero out funding for public media. They have repeatedly failed because millions of viewers and listeners oppose them and instead believe that support for public media is taxpayer money well spent."
On Tuesday, the Committee to Protect Journalists, Freedom of the Press Foundation, and Reporters Without Borders sent a joint letter urging Greene's committee "to approach its examination of public broadcasting with the understanding that press freedom is not a partisan issue, rather a vital part of American democracy."
The attack on @pbs.org and @npr.org is an attack on journalism. The administration is just going after them first because public funding makes them the low-hanging fruit. We're proud to partner on this letter with CPJ and @rsf.org. cpj.org/2025/03/cpj-...
[image or embed]
— Freedom of the Press Foundation ( @freedom.press) March 25, 2025 at 9:07 AM
"The tone and conduct of the proceedings matter," the groups' letter asserts. "The American public deserves access to quality, independent journalism, regardless of geography, income, creed, or political views. Public broadcasting delivers on this vital need by providing high-quality, fact-based reporting to the American public, including underserved communities across the nation."
"Congressional scrutiny of public broadcasting must not undermine the ability of journalists to report the news safely and without fear of reprisal," the groups stressed. "Otherwise, a dangerous precedent will be set that could further erode trust in the media and undermine press freedom more broadly."
The Communications Workers of America (CWA) union is sharing a petition telling Congress to protect public broadcasting.
"Republican leaders in Congress and the Trump administration are following the Project 2025 playbook and trying to shut down funding for independent public television and radio stations," the petition states. "Many CWA members work at these locally owned stations and play a crucial role in keeping our communities informed. Without public television and radio stations, we will lose access to critical local news and programming."