This column was originally published on Mark Trahant’s Substack on April 20, 2026.
Mark Trahant
Funding public media after Trump
How should we fund public media? (My definition includes any nonprofit radio, television or digital operation.)
The Trump administration last year convinced Congress to eliminate the Corporation for Public Broadcast and an executive order on May 1st said government funding of news media was “outdated and unnecessary but corrosive to the appearance of journalistic independence.”
We don’t have to guess what media would look like in the ideal Trump world? Just look at the favorites in the White House press room from Breitbart to Zero Hedge. The role of the media is conservative and congratulatory.
But we are also witnessing change. Media in Hungary fit that bill and was largely funded by the government. The new government led by Péter Magyar and the Tisza Party will take office in early May. Magyar has already called out state-controlled media as a “factory of lies.”
The irony here is that Hungary’s media was funded by the government and its mission was to promote “illiberal” or authoritarian governments. (Hungary even directed government funds to the Conservative Action Political Committee in the U.S. to push those illiberal positions.)
But Hungary is not the best example of state-funded media. A better example is an election last month in Switzerland. Voters rejected a conservative plan to eliminate the funding stream for media.
Swiss voters decisively rejected proposed changes to the fees that households in the country must pay to finance the public broadcast system. It was not close: The proposition was shot down in a 38 percent to 62 percent referendum in March. Swiss citizens pay a license fee that funds public media at a cost of about $430 per year.
This is a solid way forward, a plan that opens up a funding stream that preserves journalistic independence. The European Federation of Journalists said: “Swiss citizens voted by a clear majority to support independent, high-quality journalism and a strong public broadcasting system.”
That’s what we need in the United States and among tribal nations. So back to my opening question, how should we fund public media?
The Congress — at least while under Republican management — is not inclined to fund national media. But there is some support for another round of funding for tribal media.
A story written by NOTUS published in the broadcasting publication, Current, says that tribal radio has been able to survive with one time support from the Interior budget:
Loris Taylor, CEO of Native Public Media, says she reached out to the lawmakers who sponsored that fund last year, as about 36 stations in Native Public Media’s network have been “heavily impacted” by funding cuts. Native Public Media has been working with stations to secure other funding in case they lose their federal subsidy.
The majority of these stations have said they will close within six months to a year without continued federal funding, according to a survey conducted by Native Public Media. Some stations said they would shutter immediately. About a third of the stations relied on CPB funding for 80% to 100% of their operations, and the vast majority of the stations said they were considering layoffs, the survey said.
One alternative is another round of funding for tribal stations via the Interior Department — and that’s better than nothing. But after Trump there ought to be a national strategy for investing in the broader public media. My ideal scenario would be a steady revenue stream (such as the license fees that Europe uses) plus philanthropy (which increased its support after the Trump pulled federal funding). I’d also like to see significant support from states, communities and tribes. That local buy-in is crucial.
The American Academy of Arts and Sciences says there is a need to rebuild the civic “infrastructure” of media.
The report is Our Common Purpose: Reinventing American Democracy for the 21st Century.
A key point media on media funding:
Through state and/or federal legislation, subsidize innovation to reinvent the public functions that social media have displaced: for instance, with a tax on digital advertising that could be deployed in a public media fund that would support experimental approaches to public social media platforms as well as local and regional investigative journalism.
Today, only 27 percent of Americans get their news from a local print newspaper, while 64 percent of Americans get it online. About 21 percent of the nation’s local papers closed between 2004 and 2018. Newsrooms are not the only organizations struggling to rework their business models in response to digital platforms. The nation’s local public libraries, for example, are increasingly being asked to address digital literacy, to provide local digital content, and to provide free access to computers, the Internet, Wi-Fi, and technology training. Our civic information architecture has been disrupted by social media, and in the case of local journalism, an important public function has been displaced.
Tribal media is both a special case and an example of why this is so important. The issues we face in Indian Country are critical. And information helps folks figure out a strategy and a counter to policy nonsense. Yet many news rooms at a tribal radio station or newspaper are deeply underfunded and too few journalists work long hours in service to a community. That’s worth applauding. And coming up with a better funding stream.