President Donald Trump took direct action against the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB). He ordered the removal of three of its five board members. This move shocked media and legal circles. The firings came without warning or explanation. The White House sent short emails to each member, declaring their positions terminated “effective immediately”.
The board members were Laura Ross, Diane Kaplan, and Thomas Rothman. All three had years of experience in public service and media oversight. Two were appointed by President Joe Biden. One—Laura Ross—was originally appointed by Trump himself and later reappointed by Biden. Their removal threatened the CPB’s ability to operate. The board was left without a quorum.
CPB did not stay silent. The organization filed a federal lawsuit the next morning. Its legal team claimed the president had no authority to remove board members. CPB is not a government agency. It is a private nonprofit, created by Congress in 1967 to shield public media from political pressure.
The lawsuit triggered a fast-moving legal dispute. The outcome could decide who controls public broadcasting in the United States. At the heart of the case is a simple question. Can a president fire directors from a congressionally chartered nonprofit that was built to remain independent?
The legal battle now involves the White House, the Department of Justice, and federal courts. It has drawn national attention. The stakes are high—not just for the CPB, but for the future of NPR, PBS, and hundreds of local stations that depend on public funding.
Trump Removes Board Members
On April 28, 2025, three CPB board members received sudden termination emails. The message came from Trent Morse, a deputy in the White House. He said the firings were on Trump’s orders. The message gave no legal basis.
The removed members were Laura Ross, Diane Kaplan, and Thomas Rothman. CPB responded quickly. They filed a lawsuit the next day. The legal team argued that CPB is not a federal agency. The president, they said, has no authority to remove directors.
Judge Refuses Emergency Block
U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss heard the case. He denied the request for an emergency block. The judge said the board members did not prove immediate harm.
Still, the ruling included a key point. The judge noted CPB’s bylaws. These rules now prevent any board removal without a two-thirds vote. This part favored CPB’s claim of independence.
Patricia Harrison, the CPB CEO, welcomed this part of the ruling. She said the board still considers the three members active.
DOJ Hits Back With Its Own Lawsuit
On July 15, the Department of Justice filed a separate lawsuit. It asked the court to declare the three board members unlawfully seated. It also demanded an order to stop them from serving. The DOJ wants them to return all payments received since April.
The department claimed the president has Article II authority. According to their argument, Trump had the right to act.
Trump Seeks to Cut Funding
Trump took broader steps. He signed Executive Order 14290. This order aimed to end funding for NPR and PBS. Both networks launched lawsuits in response. They said the order violated their independence.
Trump also pushed Congress to pull back $1.1 billion already approved for CPB. Congress had passed that funding to support public media through 2027.
Republicans control both chambers. Some support the funding cut. Others remain undecided. No formal request has reached Congress yet.
CPB Faces Shutdown
CPB warned about the damage. The loss of funding would cripple local stations. Many rely on CPB support to stay on air. Some would shut down entirely.
The board announced plans to wind down operations. CPB expects to close by September 2025. A small team will stay on into early 2026 to wrap up final duties.
What This Means for Public Media
This legal fight affects more than a few board seats. It challenges the limits of presidential power. It also puts the future of public media at risk.
Public stations, especially in rural areas, depend on CPB. These stations serve millions. They provide education, news, and emergency alerts.
The FCC, under Chair Brendan Carr, launched an investigation. He said NPR and PBS may have violated rules on sponsorships. The FCC could restrict their broadcasting rights.
Bigger Picture
Legal experts say the CPB case could set a major precedent. It may define how much control a president has over independent nonprofits.
Georgetown law professor Stephen Vladeck believes the case has strong legal ground. He also warned that Trump may use legal action as a tool to pressure opponents. The lawsuit could chill other institutions under threat.
Trump’s critics say he wants to silence media he cannot control. They call the attack on public broadcasting part of a larger plan.
What Comes Next
CPB asked the court to decide the case without a full trial. The legal team filed a motion for summary judgment. They believe the law clearly blocks the president from removing board members. The court will review the arguments and issue a ruling.
This case could reshape public oversight. The outcome may define how nonprofit institutions protect their independence. A ruling against Trump would confirm that boards like CPB do not answer to the White House. A decision in his favor would give future presidents more power over independent entities.
The stakes go beyond legal rules. This case touches the core of public trust. CPB supports hundreds of media outlets. These include NPR, PBS, and local stations that reach millions. Many of them rely on federal support to operate.
Trump’s actions raised fears among station leaders. Some believe the real goal is to silence media that challenge his views. Others see it as a test of how far executive power can go. The lawsuit now becomes a line in the sand.
Public media faces pressure from all sides. Congress already voted to cut CPB’s future funding. The FCC opened new investigations. Local stations may shut down. Staff cuts have already started in smaller markets.
The court’s ruling will send a clear signal. It will show whether U.S. laws still protect public media from political interference. It will also shape how other nonprofits defend their missions in hostile climates.
This case is not just about three board seats. It is about control, survival, and the role of independent media in a divided country.
