The shutdown showdown isn’t about keeping the government open—it’s about cashing in the earmarked placements they already sold to their donors during campaign season.
Tore Maras
The Framing of Public Media Funding
The dispute over restoring roughly $500 million annually for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) and its affiliates, such as PBS, NPR, and locally controlled stations, is presented as a cultural battle. Democrats present the appropriation as a defense of civic infrastructure, a modest investment to guarantee rural families, children, and underserved communities access to non-partisan news and educational programming. They invoke “Sesame Street” as shorthand for innocence, fairness, and educational equity. Republicans counter by framing CPB as a wasteful subsidy in an era where private media, streaming services, and digital platforms already saturate the information landscape. They argue public broadcasters have become ideological instruments, not neutral arbiters, and that taxpayers should not bankroll bias.
On the surface, this appears to be a fight about values: free access to information versus fiscal restraint. However, like the Affordable Care Act subsidy dispute, the CPB fight operates less as a clean cultural debate and more as a proxy war over influence, leverage, and the flow of federal funds. The real stakes are not children’s programming but institutional power.
Public broadcasters have long been embedded in the political economy of Washington. Their reach gives politicians a channel of legitimacy: programs framed as “for the people” often serve as vehicles for shaping narratives that align with the interests of elite donors. This isn’t theory—it is visible in how they operate. For example, the very first videos that saturated American households in early 2020, showing terrifying images of overwhelmed hospitals, panic in foreign streets, and apocalyptic warnings, did not originate from a foreign propaganda outlet but from Voice of America, an entity within the U.S. Agency for Global Media. What was presented as neutral reporting amplified fear and panic, legitimizing lockdowns and emergency policies. Four years later, as COVID is increasingly viewed by many in the medical community as endemic and comparable to severe flu strains at best, those early broadcasts can be re-read as government-backed psychological operations aimed at shaping public behavior.
The deeper dynamic: so-called “public media” is not insulated from politics. It is, in fact, one of the most direct conduits through which political and corporate interests reach households under the comforting veil of non-partisanship. Lawmakers know this. Democrats defend CPB as a civic good not just because it appeals to their base, but also because it sustains media outlets that can carry messaging favorable to their legislative agendas and the priorities of their donors. Republicans attack CPB as liberal propaganda during campaign season, but many quietly shield parts of it because affiliates funnel grants, contracts, and jobs into their districts.
The $500 million annual line item is not simply about keeping rural radio towers running. It supports an institutional ecosystem: studios, content producers, contractors, lobbyists, and corporate sponsors who rely on CPB’s federal anchor funding to secure private contributions. Politicians on both sides benefit from this arrangement. The donors funding their campaigns—from pharmaceutical giants that sponsor NPR health segments to tech and telecom firms underwriting PBS educational programming—know their messaging reaches the public cloaked as “public service.” The elected officials who keep CPB funded can then posture as defenders of democracy while protecting the economic interests of the corporations that help sustain their campaigns.
This is the hidden symmetry: Democrats rally around CPB as if defending truth itself, Republicans decry it as waste while quietly preserving their local slice, and both sides rely on the system as a legitimizing tool. It is less about whether a child in Nebraska can watch Sesame Street and more about whether a political class can maintain an apparatus that stabilizes friendly narratives while keeping a pipeline of donor-aligned influence intact.
They wave Sesame Street in your face, but behind the curtain, it’s Wall Street and K Street writing the script.
Tore Maras
Public Broadcasting as a Campaign Tool
What makes the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and its affiliates so politically charged isn’t simply the $500 million annual appropriation. The real value is in the institutional legitimacy and amplification power it gives politicians and the corporate donors behind them.
PBS, NPR, and local affiliates project themselves as “non-commercial, public service broadcasters.” But behind the curtain, their funding model relies on a hybrid system: a guaranteed federal anchor through CPB appropriations and a vast network of “corporate underwriting”—essentially sponsorships from major corporations, foundations, and lobbying groups. When PBS introduces a program as “brought to you by” a pharmaceutical company, or NPR announces a financial giant supports it, the message is wrapped in the credibility of public service media. For donors, this is cheaper and more effective than buying thirty-second ads; for lawmakers, it is a way to curry favor with industries that know CPB’s structure protects their access to households.
Consider how this dynamic played out during COVID-19. In March and April of 2020, Voice of America—the federally funded broadcaster under the same umbrella of “public media”—was one of the first to saturate the American airwaves with images and clips designed to terrify. These were not foreign agitprop pieces but U.S. government-sanctioned media products showing bodies being carried out of homes in Wuhan, footage of overwhelmed Italian hospitals, and empty streets portrayed as symbols of imminent collapse. The narrative was one of absolute emergency. Federal policymakers could then point to the panic circulating on VOA or NPR as evidence of urgency for lockdowns, restrictions, and stimulus packages. The line between independent journalism and state-sanctioned agenda blurred, but the authority of “public broadcasting” made the panic stick.
Fast forward to 2024–2025, when many medical experts now compare COVID’s enduring impact to influenza in severity. The retrospective view makes those early broadcasts appear not as objective journalism but as government-backed psychological conditioning. The lesson is that CPB-backed networks do not merely inform; they set the boundaries of acceptable political discourse in ways that align with elite interests.
For lawmakers, the payoff is enormous.
On the Democrat side, by defending CPB funding, they curry favor with cultural institutions and corporate sponsors that rely on its legitimacy. The narrative of “protecting Sesame Street” disguises the fact that CPB funding stabilizes a media system where health, tech, and financial giants can launder their messaging as public service.
On the Republican side, by attacking CPB as liberal propaganda, they energize their base. However, many in the GOP still protect CPB dollars because local affiliates provide jobs, grants, and contract dollars in their communities. They can rail against NPR in Washington and quietly boast about CPB-supported local programming in their districts.
Either way, CPB functions as a campaign tool disguised as civic infrastructure. Politicians defend or attack it to energize their bases while simultaneously keeping donors satisfied that their messaging vehicles remain funded and influential.
What Could President Trump do to Expose It
If President Trump wanted to end the facade of public broadcasting as a civic good while it functions in reality as a donor-driven machine, the answer would not simply be to cut off funding. It would be to reveal, in detail, how the money actually works. That begins with transparency. The Office of Management and Budget and the Government Accountability Office could be directed to publish a full accounting of CPB disbursements, broken down by station, program, and underwriter. Americans would see how many millions disappear into administrative overhead and executive salaries, and how little of it actually funds the children’s programming often used as the shield for appropriations. When the numbers show that Sesame Street receives pennies while corporate underwriters purchase six-figure influence slots, the illusion of “public service” would collapse.
Exposure would also require connecting the dots between donors and the politicians who defend the system. Inspectors general could be tasked with mapping contributions from CPB-affiliated corporate sponsors to campaign committees. If a pharmaceutical company funds NPR while also writing massive checks to lawmakers who oversee CPB appropriations, the public deserves to see that map. It would demonstrate how tax dollars subsidize a media outlet, which in turn takes corporate money, which then cycles back into the campaigns of the very politicians who claim to be defending civic education.
Another step would be to declassify the moments when public broadcasting has been weaponized as propaganda. Voice of America’s terrifying pandemic videos in early 2020, NPR’s lockstep coverage of government policies during crises like Afghanistan or Ukraine, and other instances where dissent was marginalized, should be laid out plainly for Americans to examine. These episodes would illustrate how taxpayer dollars were used not to inform, but to instill fear or reinforce official narratives.
Rather than eliminating funding outright, Trump could propose restructuring it entirely. Instead of writing a half-billion-dollar check to CPB every year, those dollars could be redirected into vouchers distributed directly to households or schools, who could then choose what educational programming to fund. Such a model would shift power away from entrenched institutions and place it directly into the hands of parents and educators. If CPB programming has actual value, it would survive on its own merit without a federal scaffold.
Finally, shutdown negotiations could themselves become a weapon of exposure. Instead of trading CPB funding behind closed doors, Trump could demand open hearings on how CPB operates and who really benefits from it. Executives from PBS and NPR could be called to testify publicly about their donor relationships, political pressures, and coverage during critical national events, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. By forcing these conversations into the light, the public would no longer view CPB as an untouchable institution of civic virtue, but as what it has become: a protected megaphone for elite interests, wrapped in the language of public good.
Shutdown politics thrives on optics: Democrats waving Sesame Street puppets, Republicans crying “fake news.” But the more profound truth is that public broadcasting serves as a protected messaging arm for the same corporate and political interests that dominate campaign finance. Half a billion dollars a year isn’t about children’s shows; it’s about keeping alive a legitimized platform where donor messaging can masquerade as neutral news.
If PresidentTrump wants to cut through the facade, the answer isn’t just to veto funding. It’s to drag the numbers, the sponsors, and the narratives into daylight—to show Americans that what’s being sold as civic service is, in fact, a taxpayer-funded campaign tool dressed in the language of public good.
If you like my work, you can tip or support me via TIP ME or subscribe to me on Subscribestar! I am 100% people-funded, I have NO SPONSORS. You can also follow and subscribe to me on Rumble and Locals or subscribe to my Substack. I am 100% people-funded. www.toresays.com
Digital Dominion Series is now on Amazon: VOLUME I, VOLUME II, and Volume III – and Pre-order for Digital Dominion Volume V is on presale now.
