SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
");background-position:center;background-size:19px 19px;background-repeat:no-repeat;background-color:var(--button-bg-color);padding:0;width:var(--form-elem-height);height:var(--form-elem-height);font-size:0;}:is(.js-newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter_bar.newsletter-wrapper) .widget__body:has(.response:not(:empty)) :is(.widget__headline, .widget__subheadline, #mc_embed_signup .mc-field-group, #mc_embed_signup input[type="submit"]){display:none;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) #mce-responses:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-row:1 / -1;grid-column:1 / -1;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget__body > .snark-line:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-column:1 / -1;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) :is(.newsletter-campaign:has(.response:not(:empty)), .newsletter-and-social:has(.response:not(:empty))){width:100%;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col{display:flex;flex-wrap:wrap;justify-content:center;align-items:center;gap:8px 20px;margin:0 auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .text-element{display:flex;color:var(--shares-color);margin:0 !important;font-weight:400 !important;font-size:16px !important;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .whitebar_social{display:flex;gap:12px;width:auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col a{margin:0;background-color:#0000;padding:0;width:32px;height:32px;}.newsletter-wrapper .social_icon:after{display:none;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget article:before, .newsletter-wrapper .widget article:after{display:none;}#sFollow_Block_0_0_2_0_0_0_1{margin:0;}#sSHARED_-_Social_Desktop_0_0_11_0_0_1.row-wrapper{margin:40px auto;}#sBoost_post_0_0_0_0_0_0_1_0{background-color:#000;color:#fff;}.boost-post{--article-direction:column;--min-height:none;--height:auto;--padding:24px;--titles-width:calc(100% - 84px);--image-fit:cover;--image-pos:right;--photo-caption-size:12px;--photo-caption-space:20px;--headline-size:23px;--headline-space:18px;--subheadline-size:13px;--text-size:12px;--oswald-font:"Oswald", Impact, "Franklin Gothic Bold", sans-serif;--cta-position:center;overflow:hidden;margin-bottom:0;--lora-font:"Lora", sans-serif !important;}.boost-post:not(:empty):has(.boost-post-article:not(:empty)){min-height:var(--min-height);}.boost-post *{box-sizing:border-box;float:none;}.boost-post .posts-custom .posts-wrapper:after{display:none !important;}.boost-post article:before, .boost-post article:after{display:none !important;}.boost-post article .row:before, .boost-post article .row:after{display:none !important;}.boost-post article .row .col:before, .boost-post article .row .col:after{display:none !important;}.boost-post .widget__body:before, .boost-post .widget__body:after{display:none !important;}.boost-post .photo-caption:after{content:"";width:100%;height:1px;background-color:#fff;}.boost-post .body:before, .boost-post .body:after{display:none !important;}.boost-post .body :before, .boost-post .body :after{display:none !important;}.boost-post__bottom{--article-direction:row;--titles-width:350px;--min-height:346px;--height:315px;--padding:24px 86px 24px 24px;--image-fit:contain;--image-pos:right;--headline-size:36px;--subheadline-size:15px;--text-size:12px;--cta-position:left;}.boost-post__sidebar:not(:empty):has(.boost-post-article:not(:empty)){margin-bottom:10px;}.boost-post__in-content:not(:empty):has(.boost-post-article:not(:empty)){margin-bottom:40px;}.boost-post__bottom:not(:empty):has(.boost-post-article:not(:empty)){margin-bottom:20px;}@media (min-width: 1024px){#sSHARED_-_Social_Desktop_0_0_11_0_0_1_1{padding-left:40px;}}.donation_banner{position:relative;background:#000;}.donation_banner .posts-custom *, .donation_banner .posts-custom :after, .donation_banner .posts-custom :before{margin:0;}.donation_banner .posts-custom .widget{position:absolute;inset:0;}.donation_banner__wrapper{position:relative;z-index:2;pointer-events:none;}.donation_banner .donate_btn{position:relative;z-index:2;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_14_0_0_3_1_0{color:#fff;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_14_0_0_3_1_1{font-weight:normal;}#sElement_Post_Layout_Press_Release__0_0_1_0_0_11{margin:100px 0;}.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper.sidebar{background:linear-gradient(91deg, #005dc7 28%, #1d63b2 65%, #0353ae 85%);}.black_newsletter{background:linear-gradient(91deg, #005dc7 28%, #1d63b2 65%, #0353ae 85%);}.black_newsletter .newsletter_bar.newsletter-wrapper{background:none;}
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.
Turkey's flawed family violence protection system leaves women and girls across the country unprotected against domestic abuse, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. Life-saving protections, including court-issued protection orders and emergency shelters, are not available for many abuse victims because of gaps in the law and enforcement failures.
The 58-page report, "'He Loves You, He Beats You': Family Violence in Turkey and Access to Protection," documents brutal and long-lasting violence against women and girls by husbands, partners, and family members and the survivors' struggle to seek protection. Turkey has strong protection laws, setting out requirements for shelters for abused women and protection orders. However, gaps in the law and implementation failures by police, prosecutors, judges, and other officials make the protection system unpredictable at best, and at times downright dangerous.
"With strong laws in place, it is inexcusable that Turkish authorities are depriving family violence victims of basic protections," said Gauri van Gulik, women's rights advocate and researcher at Human Rights Watch and author of the report. "Turkey has gone through exemplary reform on women's human rights, but police, prosecutors, judges, and social workers need to make the system exemplary in practice, not just on paper."
Human Rights Watch interviewed women and girls as young as 14 and as old as 65 who described being raped; stabbed; kicked in the abdomen when pregnant; beaten with hammers, sticks, branches, and hoses to the point of broken bones and fractured skulls; locked up with dogs or other animals; starved; shot with a stun gun; injected with poison; pushed off a roof; and subjected to severe psychological violence. The violence occurred in all areas where researchers conducted interviews, and across income and education levels.
This report comes as the Council of Europe is about to adopt a regional convention on violence against women and domestic violence. Turkey played an important role in drafting the convention as the current Chair of the Committee of Ministers, and the convention is scheduled to be signed at a summit in Istanbul on May 11, 2011.
Some 42 percent of women over age 15 in Turkey and 47 percent of rural women have experienced physical or sexual violence at the hands of a husband or partner at some point in their lives, according to a 2009 survey conducted by a leading Turkish university.
The report is based on interviews with, and the case files of, 40 women in Van, Istanbul, Trabzon, Ankara, Izmir, and Diyarbakir, and dozens of interviews with lawyers, women's organizations, social workers, government officials, and other experts.
"That first time, he hit me,he kicked the baby in my belly, and he threw me off the roof.,"said Selvi T., not her real name, forced to marry at age 12, whose husband has abused her for years.
Turkey entered the vanguard of countries offering civil mechanisms to protect against domestic violence with its 1998 adoption of Law 4320 on the Protection of the Family. This law, as amended in 2007, established a protection order system under which a person abused by a family member under the same roof, male or female, can apply directly or through a prosecutor for an order from a family court.
The orders can, among other things, require the offender to vacate the home, stay away from the victim and their children, surrender weapons, and refrain from violence, threats, damaging property, or contacting the victim. The system is designed to bring about quick action, within days at most, since people who apply for them are often in extremely dangerous situations.
The report documents serious shortcomings with Law 4320, though. The law excludes certain groups of women altogether, such as divorced and unmarried women. Police, prosecutors, and judges in many cases neglect their duties. Many women said that police officers mocked them and sent them home to their abusers, rather than helping them get protection orders, and that prosecutors and judges were slow to act on protection order requests or improperly demanded evidence not required by the law.
"The extreme brutality that family members inflict on women and girls is bad enough, but it is even worse to know that a woman who finds the courage to escape and ask for protection might be insulted and sent right back to her abuser," van Gulik said.
Shelters for women and children are another important element of Turkey's response to domestic abuse. The Law on Municipalities requires every municipality with 50,000 or more residents to provide a shelter, but the government has fallen far short of meeting this requirement. Moreover, women reported to Human Rights Watch that some existing shelters have dismal conditions and inadequate security procedures. In fact, staff in some shelters have allowed abusers to enter and have urged women to reconcile with their batterers.
Selvi T.'s experience reflects many of these problems.Her husband has beaten and raped her repeatedly for years, inflicting grave injuries, yet police sent her home multiple times when she sought protection. When she finally fled to a shelter, police told her husband the location, and shelter staff let him in and encouraged her to reconcile with him.
On March 7, Fatma Sahin, a Justice and Development Party member of parliament for Gaziantep, in southeastern Turkey, announced a proposal to revise the Law on the Protection of the Family, following consultations with women's groups. The proposed amendments are before parliament.
The amendments would widen the scope of protection to include women who are in a relationship but not married. They would direct the Interior Ministry to provide financial support to protection order recipients. The draft law would require improved measures to protect information about victims, including their addresses if they have moved. It provides for dedicated police and prosecutor units staffed by officers with training and expertise in family violence.It also would allow prosecutors to grant protection orders outside court hours, to be presented later for a judge's approval.
Turkey should close the gaps in its family protection law by explicitly providing that protection orders may be issued to unmarried and divorced women, including women in unregistered religious marriages, Human Rights Watch said.
The Justice and Interior Ministries should create dedicated units at police stations and family courts with specialized staff who can refer women to social services and deal with their protection claims, Human Rights Watch said. The Interior Ministry should also develop a complaint mechanism to identify police officers, prosecutors, and judges who do not uphold the law or who mistreat domestic violence survivors.
Overall monitoring of the protection order system is also needed, with more specific, publicly available data on the use of the system.More shelters are needed, and both the Interior and Justice Ministries should continue and improve training for police officers, and to trainprosecutors and judges aboutthe practical requirements of Law 4320, and each official's role in the process.
"At a time when Turkey is about to host governments from all over Europe to make a binding commitment to end violence against women, Turkey's government should take an honest look at its own shortcomings," van Gulik said. "Turkey needs to make changes so that its family violence protection system will live up to the new treaty both in design and implementation."
Accounts From Victims:
Selvi T.
In southeast Turkey (exact location withheld), Selvi T., a 22-year-old pregnant with her fifth child, represents everything that can go wrong when domestic violence is not taken seriously. She was married at age 12, and her husbandstarted his attacks when she was pregnant with their first child.
"That first time, he hit me,he kicked the baby in my belly, and he threw me off the roof," she told Human Rights Watch. Since then, the violence has increased in frequency and severity, and now even includes their children. Selvi's husband controls every aspect of her life and is extremely jealous. She told us: "He rapes me all the time, and he checks my fluids 'down there' to check I didn't have sex [with another man]." Selvi managed to escape four times to go to the police for help, but was sent back to abuse every time. She made it to a shelter once, but the police told her husband where the shelter was and he forced her to leave.Selvi receives assistance from a local women's group, but has given up on escaping the violence.
"I just cannot go to the police anymore," she said.
Zelal K.
In Istanbul, Zelal K. was denied a protection order because she was divorced. Zelal lives in Istanbul with her three children, and divorced eight years ago. Her former husband lives across the street, and one day in January 2008, he grabbed her when she walked out of her house. She told Human Rights Watch:
He held me, I screamed, "Let me go," and he started beating me. There were a lot of people around us, but nobody did anything. He pulled my hair and covered my mouth, and he dragged me to my house. There he kicked me and I fell to the ground [...]. He broke every possession I have in the house, every chair, every picture, everything. Then he took off my clothes and he raped me.
Zelal managed to escape, almost naked, and went to several police stations, where she was turned away for different reasons ranging from "wrong police office" to "Why are you bothering us with this?"She eventually managed to speak with a prosecutor. He refused to accept her application for a protection order because she was divorced.
Asli I.
Asli I. is a 21-year-old Kurdish woman from a village close to Van. Asli confronted violence from the moment she married and moved in with her in-laws in 2009. All 10 people in the household abused her in some way. When she had severe stomach pains, the family kept her captive and her father-in-law injected something into her arm that severely damaged her health. The family also forced her to carry stones and wood all day for a house they were building. Asli's father-in-law hit her "all the time" with a water pipe, a hose, and a hammer.He broke Asli's nose and arm, and barred her from going to a nearby hospital. He regularly locked her up in the animal house and finally told her, "I didn't just get you here for my son, but also for my pleasure." He then raped her.
She cannot read or write and speaks little Turkish, but she got help from a women's group once she was finally out of the house. The police told the father-in-law to stay away from her, but did not arrest him. They advised Asli to seek a protection order from the prosecutor, which she did in May 2010. However, as Asli told us: "I went to the prosecutor, but never heard back from them, and he [the father-in-law] keeps coming to our house. Will he kill me or one of my brothers before I can get help?"
Zeynep B.
In Izmir, Zeynep B. had a protection order against her husband, who regularly beat and psychologically abused her. At the end of 2009, while the order was in force, her husband barged into her house, cut off her electricity, and threatened her with a knife. She fled and he chased her, but she managed to get to the police. They told her, "Go home, we will deal with it." On her way home she was stabbed six times by her husband. She barely survived.
Human Rights Watch is one of the world's leading independent organizations dedicated to defending and protecting human rights. By focusing international attention where human rights are violated, we give voice to the oppressed and hold oppressors accountable for their crimes. Our rigorous, objective investigations and strategic, targeted advocacy build intense pressure for action and raise the cost of human rights abuse. For 30 years, Human Rights Watch has worked tenaciously to lay the legal and moral groundwork for deep-rooted change and has fought to bring greater justice and security to people around the world.
"Congress famously has the power of the purse," wrote one expert. "But it looks like DOGE is trying to snatch it."
Reporting Friday that aides to Elon Musk—the billionaire backer of Republican President Donald Trump who runs the Department of Government Efficiency—locked career civil servants out of computer systems containing the personal data of millions of federal employees raised alarms among observers who said the move is consistent with the administration's efforts to assert authoritarian control over the federal government.
An unnamed official at the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) toldReuters that "we have no visibility" into what Musk aides "are doing with the computer and data systems," and "that is creating great concern."
"There is no oversight," the official said, adding that "it creates real cybersecurity and hacking implications."
No one elected Musk and he holds no official position—and yet: “Aides to Elon Musk charged with running the US government human resources agency have locked career civil servants out of computer systems that contain the personal data of millions of federal employees” www.reuters.com/world/us/mus...
[image or embed]
— Leah McElrath (@leahmcelrath.bsky.social) January 31, 2025 at 12:50 PM
The Reuters report came on the same day that The Washington Post reported that David Lebryk, who has worked in nonpolitical positions at the U.S. Treasury Department since the George H.W. Bush administration, will retire following "a clash with allies of billionaire Elon Musk over access to sensitive payment systems."
As the Post noted:
Run by the Bureau of the Fiscal Service, the sensitive systems control the flow of more than $6 trillion annually to households, businesses, and more nationwide. Tens, if not hundreds, of millions of people across the country rely on the systems, which are responsible for distributing Social Security and Medicare benefits, salaries for federal personnel, payments to government contractors and grant recipients, and tax refunds, among tens of thousands of other functions.
The clash reflects an intensifying battle between Musk and the federal bureaucracy as the Trump administration nears the conclusion of its second week. Musk has sought to exert sweeping control over the inner workings of the U.S. government, installing longtime surrogates at several agencies, including the Office of Personnel Management, which essentially handles federal human resources, and the General Services Administration, which manages real estate.
On Friday, the Trump administration ordered the General Services Administration to create a plan to slash 50% from the independent agency's budget, according to journalist Ken Klippenstein, who reported senior officials were left looking "shell-shocked'" by the directive.
Lebryk's announcement underscored what critics have warned is an aggressive push by Musk and other unelected Trump acolytes to sideline civil servants as part of an agenda in which MAGA sycophants are empowered to weaken government checks and balances and ensure total loyalty to the president, who has repeatedly flirted with authoritarianism.
In a Friday article highlighting Lebryk's announcement, Gizmodo's Matt Novak reported that "while it's not clear why [Department of Government Efficiency] wants access, experts are alarmed because there's basically no plausible explanation that doesn't involve tinkering with critical government functions by sidestepping Congress."
"Lebryk's departure is apparently related to the interference by DOGE-affiliated goons to access these payment systems," Novak asserted.
Common Dreamsreported earlier this week that Trump loyalists in the OPM and Office of Management and Budget associated with Project 2025—the Heritage Foundation-led blueprint for a far-right takeover of the federal government—are leading a sweeping effort to purge career civil servants and replace them with officials who will do the president's bidding without question.
Don Moynihan, a professor at the University of Michigan's Ford School of Public Policy, toldReuters Friday that "this makes it much harder for anyone outside Musk's inner circle at OPM to know what's going on."
Despite its name, DOGE is a presidential advisory committee, not a federal department—and critics including Novak have accused the billionaire Trump supporter of reaching "his tentacles into virtually every agency."
"Congress famously has the power of the purse," he wrote. "But it looks like DOGE is trying to snatch it."
Earlier this week, Congressman Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), the ranking member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, warned that Trump "is trying every trick he and his Project 2025 cronies can think of to circumvent established civil service protections so they can purge the civil service of experts and replace them with political loyalists."
"The victims here, as is always the case with Donald Trump, are the American people who will see government services and benefits allocated not by nonpartisan civil servants, but by partisan hacks," Connolly added.
Mark Mazur, who served in senior Treasury Department roles during the Obama and Biden administrations, told the Post Friday that the prospect of government officials using the federal payments system in service of personal political motives is without precedent.
"It's never been used in a way to execute a partisan agenda," Mazur stressed. "You have to really put bad intentions in place for that to be the case."
"This administration's reckless plan to block federal funding has already caused chaos, confusion, and conflict throughout our country," said New York's attorney general, who is leading the legal challenge.
A federal judge in Rhode Island on Friday delivered another blow to U.S. President Donald Trump's effort to dramatically overhaul the government, temporarily blocking the Republican's funding freeze that sparked chaos and confusion this week.
U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell Jr. granted a temporary restraining order in response to a lawsuit filed by the attorneys general of the District of Columbia and 22 states. His move came after Washington, D.C.-based District Judge Loren AliKhan issued an administrative stay that blocked Trump's funding freeze until a Monday hearing, in a case launched by nonprofits.
After AliKhan's Tuesday decision, the Trump administration rescinded the relevant memo from Matthew Vaeth, acting director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). However, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said on social media Wednseday: "This is NOT a rescission of the federal funding freeze. It is simply a rescission of the OMB memo."
"Why? To end any confusion created by the court's injunction," Leavitt wrote, stressing the president's executive orders "on federal funding remain in full force and effect, and will be rigorously implemented."
Citing Leavitt's post in a 13-page order, McConnell explained that the administration tried to claim "that this matter is moot because it rescinded the OMB directive. But the evidence shows that the alleged rescission of the OMB directive was in name only and may have been issued simply to defeat the jurisdiction of the courts. The substantive effect of the directive carries on."
The temporary restraining order is in effect until further action from McConnell, an appointee of former Democratic President Barack Obama. Although the Trump administration can move forward with its review of federal funds, it cannot "pause, freeze, impede, block, cancel, or terminate" funding to the states or D.C. The judge also prohibited "reissuing, adopting, implementing, or otherwise giving effect to the OMB directive under any other name or title or through any other defendants."
"McConnell's order was expected, as he had signaled following a hearing Wednesday that he was inclined to issue the temporary pause of the Trump administration's directive," CBS Newsnoted Friday.
Still, the Democrats behind the legal challenge celebrated their win. New York Attorney General Letitia James said in a statement that "this administration's reckless plan to block federal funding has already caused chaos, confusion, and conflict throughout our country. In the short time since this policy was announced, families have been cut off from childcare services, essential Medicaid funds were disrupted, and critical law enforcement efforts were put in jeopardy."
"I led a coalition of attorneys general in suing to stop this cruel policy, and today we won a court order to stop it," she continued.
"The president cannot unilaterally halt congressional spending commitments. I will continue to fight against these illegal cuts and protect essential services that New Yorkers and millions of Americans across the country depend on."
Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha said that "I am grateful for Judge McConnell's careful consideration of this matter and for seeing the irreparable harm that this directive would cause, and frankly has already caused, Americans across the country."
"As we allege in our complaint, the executive branch does not have the authority to intercept crucially important federal funding that the Congress has already allocated to the states, and on which Americans rely," he emphasized. "This directive targets public safety, healthcare, veterans' services, childcare, disaster relief, and countless other cornerstones of American life."
"Make no mistake: This federal funding pause was implemented to inspire fear and chaos, and it was successful in that respect," he added. "These tactics are intended to wear us down, but with each legal victory we reaffirm that these significant and unlawful disruptions won't be tolerated, and will certainly be met with swift and immediate action now and in the future."
As The New York Timesreported:
Judge McConnell's Friday order does not block the Trump administration from continuing its review, only from defunding those programs that fail its tests in the states that sued—New York, California, Illinois, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, North Carolina, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin, along with the District of Columbia.
In that sense, it may create a divide between Democratic states that will continue to have funds flowing and Republican states that will still face uncertainty.
The judge's decision came as Trump and billionaire Elon Musk—the richest person on Earth and chair of the president's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)—attack the federal government in various ways, including by trying to purge the federal workforce.
As
The Washington Post reported Friday that the U.S. Treasury Department's highest-ranking career official, David Lebryk, is leaving his post after clashing with Musk allies over access to payment systems that the agency uses to distribute over $6 trillion, Reuters revealed the DOGE leader's said have "locked career civil servants out of computer systems that contain the personal data of millions of federal employees."
"The FCC chair is clearly undertaking an effort to bully and intimidate independent journalism, which is a hallmark of authoritarian regimes where democracy is under siege," said one critic.
U.S. press freedom advocates this week forcefully condemned Republican Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr's investigation into National Public Radio and Public Broadcasting Service that could lead to stripping them of government funding.
"If they weren't ringing already, alarm bells should be going off loudly," said Tim Richardson, program director for journalism and disinformation at PEN America, in a Thursday statement. "By using its investigatory powers, the FCC chair is clearly undertaking an effort to bully and intimidate independent journalism, which is a hallmark of authoritarian regimes where democracy is under siege."
"The Trump administration is clearly embracing such tactics and putting independent media at risk by undermining accountability of elected leaders and risking a less informed public," Richardson added. "We call on the FCC to dispense with such politically motivated investigations."
Jenna Leventoff, senior policy counsel at the ACLU, was similarly critical, saying that "the commission should not bring frivolous investigations into media outlets simply because they do not like their coverage. Investigations like this can chill coverage and threaten the independence of the press, making it harder to hold the government accountable and keep us all informed."
I told @nytimes.com that Carr's claim that NPR and PBS broke sponsorship disclosure rules is an obvious pretext to attack their funding and independence. Carr was appointed to do Trump's censorial bidding. All his moves should be viewed through that lens.This “investigation” is a sham and meant to terrorize NPR and PBS. They have *rigorous* oversight on vetting the “this program brought to you by” statements and literally pages of documentation about it that they give to filmmakers like me. Support your local stations, they’re going to need it.
[image or embed]
— Ariel Waldman (@arielwaldman.com) January 30, 2025 at 2:39 PM
Free Press co-CEO Craig Aaron declared that "his seat as FCC chairman is barely warm, but Brendan Carr is already abusing his power and harassing public broadcasters with a sham investigation designed to scare journalists into silence. This is all part of Carr's far-right, Project 2025-inspired agenda."
"This bogus investigation is an attack on the freedom of the press and a bungling attempt to bash public broadcasters and further weaken their resolve to question the extremism, corruption, and cruelty of the Trump administration," Aaron warned. "This unjustified investigation isn't based on any genuine concern about whether there's too much advertising on public media. It's a blatant attempt to undermine independent, rigorous reporting on the Trump administration."
"Carr may not like public media—and that's no surprise given that he isn't a fan of journalism that holds public officials and billionaires accountable. In this, as in so many other areas under his purview, Chairman Carr is far out of step with the American public and their needs," he continued. "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."
Aaron added that "in a healthy democracy, we would be investing enough in our public-media system that it wouldn't need to seek any corporate underwriting. Unfortunately, Carr's cronies in Congress and the Big Media barons they serve have instead for decades tried to zero out funding for public media. They have repeatedly failed because millions of viewers and listeners opposed them."
Carr—whom President Donald Trump first appointed to the FCC in 2017 and recently elevated to chair after he contributed to the Heritage Foundation-led Project 2025—announced the probe in a Wednesday letter to NPR president and CEO Katherine Maher and PBS president and CEO Paula Kerger.
"I am concerned that NPR and PBS broadcasts could be violating federal law by airing commercials," Carr wrote. "I have asked the FCC's Enforcement Bureau, with assistance from the FCC's Media Bureau, to initiate an investigation into the underwriting announcements and related policies of NPR, PBS, and their broadcast member stations."
The chair added:
I will be providing a copy of this letter to relevant members of Congress because I believe this FCC investigation may prove relevant to an ongoing legislative debate. In particular, Congress is actively considering whether to stop requiring taxpayers to subsidize NPR and PBS programming. For my own part, I do not see a reason why Congress should continue sending taxpayer dollars to NPR and PBS given the changes in the media marketplace since the passage of the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967.
To the extent that these taxpayer dollars are being used to support a for-profit endeavor or an entity that is airing commercial advertisements, then that would further undermine any case for continuing to fund NPR and PBS with taxpayer dollars.
Some federal lawmakers have already responded on social media. Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said that "the letter from Chairman Carr announcing a new FCC investigation into NPR and PBS member stations is baseless. He cites no evidence at all. Instead, this investigation is a dangerous attack on public media and local journalism."
Rep. Doris Matsui (D-Calif.) said that "public television and radio are essential for their local communities. The FCC must not be weaponized to intimidate and silence broadcast media. We should be supporting, not undermining, their contributions to journalism and the marketplace of ideas."
I told @nytimes.com that Carr's claim that NPR and PBS broke sponsorship disclosure rules is an obvious pretext to attack their funding and independence. Carr was appointed to do Trump's censorial bidding. All his moves should be viewed through that lens. www.nytimes.com/2025/01/30/b...
[image or embed]
— Seth Stern (@seth-stern.bsky.social) January 30, 2025 at 5:27 PM
The two Democratic members of the FCC have also responded critically to Carr's move. Commissioner Anna Gomez said that "this appears to be yet another administration effort to weaponize the power of the FCC. The FCC has no business intimidating and silencing broadcast media."
Commissioner Geoffrey Starks said that "public television and radio stations play a significant role in our media ecosystem.
Any attempt to intimidate these local media outlets is a threat to the free flow of information and the marketplace of ideas. The announcement of this investigation gives me serious concern."
Maher said in statement that "NPR programming and underwriting messaging complies with federal regulations, including the FCC guidelines on underwriting messages for noncommercial educational broadcasters, and member stations are expected to be in compliance as well."
"We are confident any review of our programming and underwriting practices will confirm NPR's adherence to these rules," she added. "We have worked for decades with the FCC in support of noncommercial educational broadcasters who provide essential information, educational programming, and emergency alerts to local communities across the United States."
In a statement to NPR media correspondent David Folkenflik, who reported on the probe, Kerger said that "PBS is proud of the noncommercial educational programming we provide to all Americans through our member stations... We work diligently to comply with the FCC's underwriting regulations and welcome the opportunity to demonstrate that to the commission."