- Senate Republicans may oppose President Donald Trump's cuts to PBS and NPR funding.
- Senators express concerns over impacts on rural emergency alerts and global health.
- Amendments could remove cuts; Senate vote expected before July 18 deadline.
WASHINGTON — Public broadcasting could be saved from drastic cuts being proposed by the Trump administration as some Senate Republicans warn about the effects of withdrawing funds from smaller, rural outlets.
The Senate is poised to vote on President Donald Trump's rescissions package requesting roughly $9.4 billion in cuts targeting foreign aid as well as federal funding for organizations the White House has accused of being anti-conservative. Tucked in that package is a $1.1 billion cut in spending for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which oversees networks such as PBS and NPR.
But some GOP senators have expressed opposition to that provision, with others suggesting they may introduce amendments to strip it from the package altogether.
"I don't support the rescissions package as it's currently drafted," Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski told reporters on Wednesday, specifically citing PBS and NPR cuts.
Sen. Mike Rounds, R-S.D., said he would negotiate with the White House Office of Management and Budget to tinker with the cuts, arguing the current language could negatively impact emergency alerts that rural towns and Native American communities rely on.
"It's not our goal to come back in and totally eliminate a number of the rescissions, but specifically to take care of those that were in some of these rural areas," Rounds said. "This is their way of getting emergency messages out to people. That's the way in which they communicate in a very rural area."
The spending cuts would specifically target the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which Congress appropriates funds to each year to be distributed to more than 1,500 public media stations through community service grants.
Both PBS and NPR are partially funded through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which was authorized by Congress in 1967. Less than 1% of NPR's total funding comes from the federal government, but local stations that receive those grants pay fees to NPR.
Trump and other Republicans, including Utah Sen. Mike Lee, have pushed to strip that federal funding, accusing the stations of using taxpayer dollars to amplify misinformation about conservatives. Lee has introduced separate legislation pushing to defund the broadcasters.
"I completely disagree with those who want to take (the spending cuts) out," Lee told the Deseret News. "I know this is important to the president, and I think it's important to a lot of voters. So, yeah, I would definitely push back on that."
Lee's comments come as some senators have said they may propose amendments to remove the PBS and NPR cuts from the final package, which would only require a simple majority vote to approve.
Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, told reporters she is considering several amendments, although she is waiting to see what the official process will look like before making them public. Senate Majority John Thune, R-S.D., told reporters this week the package would have an "open amendments process," meaning senators can file unlimited amendments.
To remove the provision, Republicans would only need four of their party members to approve the amendment, assuming all Democrats vote to preserve the broadcast funding.
Sen. John Curtis, R-Utah, told the Deseret News he was undecided on whether to support such an amendment as he has not seen any specific language. However, he noted that "as I'm learning more and more about just what a small percentage of their funding it is, I have fewer concerns."
Instead, Curtis' concerns mainly focus on the millions of dollars in cuts to the U.S. President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, a program started under the George W. Bush administration focusing on the prevention and treatment of HIV/AIDS. The rescissions package would cut more than $8 million dedicated to the program.
"I've got to get comfortable with it, and right now I'm not comfortable with it," Curtis told the Deseret News. "But I'm not the only one, and I think there's a broad consensus that we'll deal with it in a way that works for us."
Other senators, such as Collins, have expressed similar concerns.
"I've made very, very clear what my position is on the rescissions bill, that there are some cuts that I can support, but I'm not going to vote to cut global health programs," Collins said on Thursday.
The Senate is likely to vote on the package sometime next week ahead of the July 18 deadline. If any part of the bill is changed, such as removed language, it must be passed by the House a second time before it can be enacted.
If the bill is not passed and signed by Trump before the deadline, all halted funding must be continued.
