U.S. District Judge Randolph D. Moss heard oral arguments last week in National Public Radio, Inc. v. Trump, a First Amendment lawsuit seeking to block President Trump’s May 1, 2025 executive order that immediately halts all federal funding to National Public Radio (NPR) and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS).
The order directs the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) – the primary conduit for federal dollars to public media – to cease all direct and indirect funding to both organizations. The White House justified the move by accusing NPR and PBS of delivering “biased and partisan news coverage” and disseminating “radical, woke propaganda disguised as news.”
NPR attorneys argued that the president’s action constitutes unlawful viewpoint discrimination and retaliation against protected speech. Lead trial counsel Theodore J. Boutrous Jr. told the court:
“The executive order flagrantly violates NPR and its member stations’ First Amendment rights. The president is not making any secret of his views – the order and its accompanying materials explicitly target NPR because of displeasure with its editorial content and news coverage.”
Steve Zansberg, a First Amendment attorney representing Colorado Public Radio, Aspen Public Radio, and KSUT Tribal Radio alongside NPR, said after the hearing:
“I think our side argued very persuasively that this is retaliatory discrimination against NPR as a result of the president’s dissatisfaction with its speech. The government offered no legitimate, non-viewpoint-based justification for cutting off all funding.”
The Trump administration defended the order by asserting that the president has broad authority over discretionary spending and that taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize media outlets the administration deems biased.
Judge Moss, an Obama appointee who has previously ruled against Trump-era policies, pressed both sides on the scope of presidential power over congressionally authorized appropriations and whether the executive order amounts to impermissible censorship. He gave no indication of when he will rule but described the case as presenting “serious constitutional questions” that require prompt resolution.
The lawsuit, filed shortly after the May 1 order, asks the court to declare the directive unconstitutional and permanently enjoin its enforcement. A decision is expected in the coming weeks, though no specific timeline was provided.
Hundreds of public radio and television stations across the country rely on CPB grants that flow through NPR and PBS. A sustained funding cut could force layoffs, reduced programming, and the closure of some rural and minority-serving stations, according to affidavits filed by the plaintiffs.