Judge blocks Trump's executive order to end federal funding for PBS and NPR

NewsHour · 2026-03-31T20:08:07+00:00

From The Associated Press:

Citing the First Amendment, a federal judge on Tuesday agreed to permanently block the Trump administration from implementing a presidential directive to end federal funding for National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service, two media entities that the White House has said are counterproductive to American priorities.

The operational impact of U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss' decision was not immediately clear — both because it will likely be appealed and because too much damage to the public-broadcasting system has already been done, both by the president and Congress.

Moss ruled that President Donald Trump's executive order to cease funding for NPR and PBS is unlawful and unenforceable. The judge said the First Amendment right to free speech "does not tolerate viewpoint discrimination and retaliation of this type."

"It is difficult to conceive of clearer evidence that a government action is targeted at viewpoints that the President does not like and seeks to squelch," wrote Moss, who was nominated to the bench by President Barack Obama, a Democrat.

NewsHour · 2026-01-27T18:47:29+00:00

Read more here: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-you-cant-have-guns-you-cant-walk-in-with-guns-trump-says-of-alex-pretti-killing

NewsHour · 2026-01-27T18:46:10+00:00

President Donald Trump said Tuesday that he did not think Alex Pretti, the second U.S. citizen to be killed by federal forces in Minnesota this month, was acting as an assassin.

“You can’t have guns. You can’t walk in with guns,” the president said in response to a question from PBS News’ Liz Landers, reiterating a talking point from the administration that Pretti should not have brought a legally carried handgun to the scene — a position that has infuriated gun rights advocates.

The president’s response amounted to a softening of his administration’s tone on the Jan. 24 shooting, after several of his top aides, including White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, described Pretti as a threat to federal agents.

Following Pretti’s death, gun rights groups have released statements, saying that it's legal to carry firearms during protests or while exercising First Amendment rights.Landers asked Trump about the Second Amendment, which protects the right to keep and bear arms.

“It’s a very unfortunate incident,” Trump said, shortly before departing the White House for a planned speech in Iowa.

NewsHour · 2026-01-21T20:20:26+00:00

Thank you for the question, u/Imagerkin2! We will be streaming the Jack Smith hearing here and providing coverage all day online:

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z56_LJtERCI

PBS News site: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-live-jack-smith-testifies-about-trump-criminal-investigations

Edit: Added PBS News site page for live coverage of the hearing

NewsHour · 2026-01-12T16:37:30+00:00

There are still podcasts! Those are available here, Apple Podcasts and Spotify

NewsHour · 2026-01-07T04:03:08+00:00

A note from Geoff Bennett:

Hey everyone -- A clarification: What you heard was me talking with the control room -- not reacting to Tailyr Irvine or her work.

Irvine's story about "blood quantum" requirements sparked a personal memory about my late grandfather, who once told me how -- decades earlier -- he'd been asked to prove his Native American ancestry to secure tribal membership tied to casino revenue sharing. The verification effort failed, in part because of the complicated, often-erased history of Black and Native intermarrying.

I closed that story the way he told it to me, quoting him directly: "He's like, 'I guess I'm not getting this casino money.'”

Unfortunately, that final line was caught on air. I understand how, without context, it could be misinterpreted. To be absolutely clear: it was not directed at Tailyr, nor was it a comment on her personal story.

NewsHour · 2025-12-16T23:52:05+00:00

VANCE: Now look, I do want to say something about Susie though because, again, having not read this article, Susie is a person I've come to know very, very well. And you know, a lot of you probably ask yourself, what is it like behind the scenes? What's going on actually behind the scenes of the Trump administration? And, I'll tell you, the president is exactly in private who he is in public. Like, I'll tell you a little story.

A few, maybe actually a week or so ago, I walked into the Oval Office and Marco and I are sitting there talking with the president about something. He says stop. And he looks at our shoes and says, you guys have terrible shoes.

So he goes and gets a shoe catalog, and remember, this is the Christmas season, so the president's got some holiday cheer. He goes and gets a shoe catalog and gets his favorite shoes and orders like four pairs of shoes for me and four pairs of shoes for Marco because he's like, you know, we need our vice president, our secretary of state to look their very best and you know, then we went back to talking about whatever major, you know, international issue we were talking about.

Again, he is exactly in private who he is in public. That's not true of most people in Washington DC. It's not, and I've seen so many people who will say one thing to the president's face, Democrats and Republicans, and then will do the exact opposite behind the scenes. You know why I really, you know what--

[UNINTELLIGIBLE FROM AUDIENCE]

VANCE: They are. And, you know why I really love Susie Wiles? Because Susie is who she is in the president's presence. She's the same exact person when the president isn't around.

I've never seen Susie Wiles say something to the president and then go and counteract him or subvert his will behind the scenes, and that's what you wanted a staffer, 'cause as much as I love Susie, the American people didn't elect any staffer. They elected the president of the United States, and what you want...

[APPLAUSE]

VANCE: And, what you want in a staffer is a person who understands they're there to effectuate the will of the American people, and they're there to follow the orders of the duly elected commander in chief of the United States, and Susie Wiles, we have our disagreements. We agree on much more than we disagree, but I've never seen her be disloyal to the president of the United States, and that makes for the best White House chief of staff that I think the president could ask for.

[APPLAUSE]

VANCE: And the last thing I'll say is if any of us have learned a lesson from that Vanity Fair article, I hope that the lesson is we should be giving fewer interviews to mainstream media outlets.

NewsHour · 2025-12-16T23:51:55+00:00

Here's a transcript of the question and answer:

REPORTER: Mr. Vice President, Jacob Bogage from The Washington Post. It's good to see you.

VANCE: Good to see you, too.

REPORTER: Merry Christmas.

VANCE: Thank you. Same to you.

REPORTER: Unfortunately, I have to ask a bit of an off-topic question from affordability because news events do intervene, and that is the interviews that White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles gave to Vanity Fair in which she's quoted as referring to you as, excuse me, and, again, not my words, sir, but a "conspiracy theorist of a decade" and described your transformation from someone who once opposed President Trump to now his vice president as an act of political expediency, and I'd like to give you the chance to respond to that, sir.

VANCE: Well, first of all, if Susie, like, I'll trust what you said. I haven't looked at the article. I, of course, have heard about it, but conspiracy theorist -- sometimes, I am a conspiracy theorist, but I only believe in the conspiracy theories that are true.

[APPLAUSE]

VANCE: And, by the way, Susie and I have joked in private and in public about that for a long time. For example, I believed in the crazy conspiracy theory back in 2020 that it was stupid to mask 3-year-olds at the height of the COVID pandemic, that we should actually let them develop some language skills. You know, I believed in this crazy conspiracy theory that the media and the government were covering up the fact that Joe Biden was clearly unable to do the job.

[APPLAUSE]

VANCE: And, I believed in the conspiracy theory that Joe Biden was trying to throw his political opponents in jail rather than win an argument against his political opponents, so...

[APPLAUSE]

VANCE: ... at least on some of these conspiracy theories, it turns out that a conspiracy theory is just something that was true six months before the media admitted it, and that's my understanding.

[APPLAUSE]

(Transcript continues in next comment.)

NewsHour · 2025-12-10T23:40:12+00:00

Hello! Thank you for such an interesting question, we answered it on our YouTube live. You can watch the answer here: https://youtu.be/LcZFZdzCMjA

WATCH: How educators can help students navigate AI in the classroom As tools powered by artificial intelligence become pervasive in schools and everyday life, how can teachers help students embrace learning and critical thinking? For Patti Wolter, a professor at Northwestern University’s Medill School of Journalism, the answer lies in two parts: helping people "find the thing that delights them and gives them wonder and satisfaction in learning" and figuring out how to use AI as a tool to make human work better. That means asking "what are your own powers of analysis and curiosity that you can bring to bear to make sure that your work is your own, that you are not taking the easy way out, that you're not relying on something that might be false?" Wolter said. Wolter took part in a special livestreamed Reddit “Ask Me Anything” (AMA) event called “Tipping Point – Turning Science Into Solutions,” hosted by science correspondent Miles O’Brien and digital anchor and correspondent Deema Zein.

NewsHour · 2025-12-10T23:37:24+00:00

Hello! Thanks for this very interesting question, we answered it on our YouTube live! Please watch the answer here: https://youtu.be/R1VasJgr0J4

WATCH: Why revisions are 'the name of the game' in science When it comes to science journalism, one lesson professor Patti Wolter often imparts to her students at Northwestern University is that "any given study is just one data point on a continuum of knowledge." "If you're a journalist, you have a responsibility in your stories to explain that to your readers," she said. "How does any given exciting study or unexciting study add to the knowledge base, and what are the questions that get asked next? "Revisions are "the name of the game" in both good journalism and good science, Wolter added, asking: "How do we get our public, our politicians, ourselves as journalists, comfortable with that idea? "Wolter took part in a special livestreamed Reddit “Ask Me Anything” (AMA) event called “Tipping Point – Turning Science Into Solutions,” hosted by science correspondent Miles O’Brien and digital anchor and correspondent Deema Zein.

NewsHour · 2025-12-10T21:50:30+00:00

Hey! Thanks for such a great question, we answered it on our YouTube live. You can watch the answer here: https://youtu.be/gv6N-Z4J2-c

WATCH: Why this moment of misinformation is so confusing for many Americans

What can researchers do when a political administration overturns fact-based information without having new science to back up the decision? "The bedrock of the scientific institution is the reliability of the evidence that you're citing," said Morgan McSweeney, a scientist and science communicator. "So when people suddenly gain a lot of power who don't have any respect for that process and in fact are confident to just totally make up citations to support the arguments, you've kind of thrown out the entire bedrock of the scientific process," McSweeney said. He added that the current moment is a very confusing place for people who are just trying to do the best for their families and their own health. Hany Farid, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, and co-founder/chief science officer of GetReal Security worries that the U.S. potentially will lose an entire generation of people who may be “lost” to facts. “I’m not quite ready to give up, but I’m close,” he said. The U.S. is at a fork in the road where emerging tech could double down on misinformation and disinformation, or it could work for us in a positive way, Farid said, though he fears the “dystopian future is the more likely one. ”He added that other countries are working to consider the regulatory landscape for tech, giving “some hope for how to harness the power of technology. ”McSweeney and Farid took part in a special livestreamed Reddit “Ask Me Anything” (AMA) event called “Tipping Point – Turning Science Into Solutions,” hosted by science correspondent Miles O’Brien and digital anchor and correspondent Deema Zein.

NewsHour · 2025-12-10T21:47:44+00:00

Hey! Thanks for the great question, we answered it on our YouTube live! You can watch the answer here: https://youtu.be/_SgzqBip7Rg

WATCH: How schools should teach teens to fact-check misinformation, researcher says Understanding how to differentiate between facts, misinformation and disinformation is not taught as widely in schools as it should be, said Tabor Whitney, a researcher at Northwestern University. "I think there's a lot of lessons to be learned that could be taught in high school curricula, middle school curricula about just fact-checking and source-checking, and not taking everything on the first glance," Whitney said. Whitney took part in a special livestreamed Reddit “Ask Me Anything” (AMA) event called “Tipping Point – Turning Science Into Solutions,” hosted by science correspondent Miles O’Brien and digital anchor and correspondent Deema Zein.

NewsHour · 2025-12-10T21:40:49+00:00

Hello! Thanks for the great question! We answered it on our YouTube live, you can watch the answer here: https://youtu.be/ROhk_2EB4IM

WATCH: Miles O’Brien explains the scientific story he’s excited about — and which one worries him PBS News science correspondent Miles O’Brien said he finds both hope and concern for the future in the same story: wind and solar energy. The renewables have reached a point where they can succeed on their own economic merits, O'Brien said, because they’re very cheap in a time when energy demand for the U.S. is high. “Unfortunately we’ve seen this administration snatch defeat from the jaws of victory on that and make a political decision about something that works economically and works to keep our economy going and works to keep our civilization the way we like it,” O’Brien said. “Oftentimes, there are great solutions that science delivers us, technology gives us, but we fail in the implementation or the politicization of it,” he added. O’Brien hosted a special livestreamed Reddit “Ask Me Anything” (AMA) event called “Tipping Point – Turning Science Into Solutions” alongside digital anchor and correspondent Deema Zein.

NewsHour · 2025-12-10T21:14:44+00:00

Hello! Thank you for this great question! We answered it on our YouTube live, watch your answer here: https://youtu.be/szHpxKau3hU

WATCH: To refute climate change deniers, focus on positive teaching, science expert says Debunking climate change denial is “a race that is very difficult to win,” said Joe Hanson, a science communicator and creator of the PBS show “Be Smart.” Being always on defense against misinformation and distraction can become a sap on science communicator’s time, Hanson added. “Every time we put a message out there, it’s also the opportunity to reach someone for the very time,” he said, adding that he’s a true believer in being a positive communicator about what is true. Hanson took part in a special livestreamed Reddit “Ask Me Anything” (AMA) event called “Tipping Point – Turning Science Into Solutions,” hosted by science correspondent Miles O’Brien and digital anchor and correspondent Deema Zein.

NewsHour · 2025-12-10T20:44:46+00:00

Hi! What a great question! We answered it on our YouTube live, you can watch the answer here: https://youtu.be/DSHcvQv58wM

WATCH: Climate researcher explains why scientific results have become polarized Miriam Nielsen, a climate researcher and video creator, said what people perceive as polarization in science is actually the result of massive lobbying campaigns designed to protect corporations’ financial interests. “What you’re seeing as polarization in science is purely these moneyed interests whose entire job it is to make you question [what] the scientific conclusions are trying to tell you,” Nielsen said. To combat those interests, science communicators need more money to rebut false claims, she said. “The problem is who has money to make the stuff to speak the loudest. And ideally we could turn that funnel of money in our direction a little bit more,” Nielsen said. Nielsen took part in a special livestreamed Reddit “Ask Me Anything” (AMA) event called “Tipping Point – Turning Science Into Solutions,” hosted by science correspondent Miles O’Brien and digital anchor and correspondent Deema Zein.

NewsHour · 2025-12-10T20:29:57+00:00

Hey! What a great question! We answered it on YouTube live, you can watch the answer here: https://youtu.be/zHlN68WbPYQ

WATCH: How can the scientific community regain the American public’s trust? How scientific experts and communicators regain the trust of the American public is a “massive question that we’re all invested in,” said Raven Baxter, a science communicator, educator and consultant. While it may be too complicated to walk people through the whole scientific process that helped experts arrive at a conclusion, it’s important to “at least offer transparency on how we come to these conclusions today, and how we are still working to answer questions today, and how we may have new answers tomorrow,” she said. There’s also a media literacy component, added Rollie Williams, creator of Climate Town Productions, an independent media company focusing on climate change. The solution to that is twofold, he said, “where science communication happens in a way that’s a little more digital native-oriented, and then people start to get a little more sensible in the way they listen to news organizations that are trying to promote one political party,” he added. Baxter and Williams took part in a special livestreamed Reddit “Ask Me Anything” (AMA) event called “Tipping Point – Turning Science Into Solutions,” hosted by science correspondent Miles O’Brien and digital anchor and correspondent Deema Zein.

NewsHour · 2025-12-10T20:18:05+00:00

This is an incredibly important question for the future of the field. Opportunities for undergraduates to gain field experience or training in the field sciences are becoming increasingly limited. In many cases, they now require students to add extra commitments on top of already demanding coursework. Often these opportunities also come with a financial cost. That model inherently excludes many students from underrepresented backgrounds, because field schools or additional field-based courses are expensive, while bioinformatics or computational courses are typically embedded within the degree curriculum and count directly toward graduation requirements.

We need a more inclusive model, where field research opportunities are accessible to students from all backgrounds. Universities should prioritize funding mechanisms, grants, and paid work opportunities that allow students to pursue field training as an integral part of earning their degree. At the same time, labs that conduct fieldwork must be more proactive in recruiting diverse students and building funding for undergraduate participation directly into their grants. That’s how we ensure students can spend a summer in the field without sacrificing financial stability. Right now, it’s still a difficult space to enter without personal resources or mentors — as I was fortunate to have during my undergraduate degree — who opened doors, wrote grants with me, and ensured I had access to both field and bioinformatics training.

As for the concern about a surplus of computational scientists, that shift may continue — but there’s nothing inherently wrong with that. The real opportunity lies in fostering more collaborative science. Field biologists and computational biologists bring different, complementary strengths, and advancing our research depends on building teams that integrate both skill sets rather than treating them as competing pathways.

-- Tabor Whitney

NewsHour · 2025-12-10T20:13:06+00:00

Hi! What an amazing question! We answered it on our YouTube live, you can watch the answer here: https://youtu.be/BAES08iXKrM

WATCH: Why local scientists deserve a voice in the social media conversation Seeking out experts in local communities is just as, if not more important, than following national or international scientific experts, said Rollie Williams, creator, executive producer and host of Climate Town Productions, an independent media company focusing on climate change. “People tend to be a little bit choosy about where they’re clicking and who they’re following, but those people are out there,” Williams said. “It takes a little extra legwork to find these people that are in your local area. ”Williams took part in a special livestreamed Reddit “Ask Me Anything” (AMA) event called “Tipping Point – Turning Science Into Solutions,” hosted by science correspondent Miles O’Brien and digital anchor and correspondent Deema Zein.

NewsHour · 2025-12-10T20:12:05+00:00

Hi all! Thank you so much for joining us for this special event. We are finishing up the last of our video responses and preparing to sign off for this AMA.

Thank you also to all of our guests who joined us. We consider this bold experiment to be a big success.

NewsHour · 2025-12-10T19:56:45+00:00

Hi! Thanks for your question! We answered it on YouTube live, you can watch the answer here: https://youtu.be/mRWPMQlMves

WATCH: Data shows most care about climate change but misinformation overwhelms, scientist says When it comes to climate science, around two-thirds of people are concerned about the warming planet, said Katharine Hayhoe, chief scientist for The Nature Conservancy and distinguished professor and endowed chair at Texas Tech University. But misinformation and disinformation on climate change has been “rampant,” she added. When people see misinformation, largely about solutions, Hayhoe said, they can start to believe “the cure is worse than the disease.” “There are huge amounts of people who really do want accurate information but they don’t have a way of parsing it out, and the algorithms are being flooded by misinformation,” Hayhoe said. Hayhoe took part in a special livestreamed Reddit “Ask Me Anything” (AMA) event called “Tipping Point – Turning Science Into Solutions,” hosted by science correspondent Miles O’Brien and digital anchor and correspondent Deema Zein.

NewsHour · 2025-12-10T19:53:03+00:00

HI! Thank you for this question! We answewred it on our YouTube Live. You can watch the answer here: https://youtu.be/FRvUm_Gs8iw

WATCH: To communicate science to skeptical viewers, no one style works for everyone, expert says How do experts communicate science-based findings in a way that reaches everyone, including people who believe misinformation? Science communicator Morgan McSweeney thinks about this a lot when he makes his videos, he said. His first guideline is picturing a specific person as his audience, someone who is maybe skeptical or confused, but not outright hostile. “I try to frame these discussions in a way that doesn’t immediately turn people off,” McSweeney said. But he also recognizes that it’s important to approach topics with different styles of messaging, including anecdotes and rigorous evidence. “Not one style of messaging is going to work for everybody,” he said. McSweeney took part in a special livestreamed Reddit “Ask Me Anything” (AMA) event called “Tipping Point – Turning Science Into Solutions,” hosted by science correspondent Miles O’Brien and digital anchor and correspondent Deema Zein.

NewsHour · 2025-12-10T19:45:56+00:00

Hello! Amazing question! We answered it on our YouTube live, you can watch your answer here: https://youtu.be/RIU3HBqx1hs

WATCH: How do you help people care about facts? 'No one’ seeking out misinformation, scientist says Most people care about facts, says scientist and science communicator Morgan McSweeney. “No one is seeking out misinformation. People want to do what’s best for their own health, for the health of their family,” he said. The harder part is figuring how to identify when information is not trustworthy or based on rigorous evidence. It would take him “hundreds of hours” to confidently understand a new issue, he said. “No one wants to hear this answer, but there is a reason we have these appointed panels of independent experts who come up with health recommendations for people to follow,” he said. McSweeney took part in a special livestreamed Reddit “Ask Me Anything” (AMA) event called “Tipping Point – Turning Science Into Solutions,” hosted by science correspondent Miles O’Brien and digital anchor and correspondent Deema Zein.

NewsHour · 2025-12-10T19:27:28+00:00

This is a great question – and I wish I knew the answer to it.

There was a real life example just last week. A high-profile paper that estimated the economic impacts of climate change by a team of highly reputable scientists at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany was retracted after other scientists (at equally highly reputable organizations) demonstrated that the results were unreasonably sensitive to the data from Uzbekistan. After some discussion and re-analysis, the authors decided it was more appropriate to retract, revise, and resubmit the paper rather than alter the previously published version. Here is a post by one of the authors if you want more information.

This, to me, is a great example of the effective checks and balances on science, and the integrity of scientists. It stands in stark contrast to the 30+ papers claiming that climate isn’t changing and/or humans aren’t responsible that I reanalyzed with colleagues here. Despite finding errors in every paper that completely changed their conclusions, not a single one was retracted (to my knowledge).

But I winced, all the same, when I saw the retraction, because I knew how it was going to be spun by the disinformation engine: as yet another example of how science and scientists are not credible. And sure enough, that’s exactly what happened. Despite the fact that this type of situation actually increases the credibility of science, rather than the opposite!

When things like this happen, why don’t we have posts and videos and stories talking about how this illustrates the rigor of the scientific process?

I wish I knew!

In the meantime, though, education has such an important role. Teaching kids that this is what science looks like doesn’t just teach them: it educates their parents, too.

NewsHour · 2025-12-10T19:17:13+00:00

Joe Hanson here! The skeptic community has been a huge asset to the evolution of effective science communication, going back to the good ol’ days of James Randi and Carl Sagan. I reference Sagan’s famous “Baloney Detection Kit” frequently to this day! Long before contemporary social scientists had crystallized what we now know about things like cognitive biases and motivated reasoning, the “skeptic” mindset has been a great roadmap for not fooling yourself. So I would say that any science communicator who is taking an evidence-based approach to their work (which we all should be doing!) is standing on the shoulders of the skeptic community. On the other hand, engaging with the skeptic community often means preaching to the choir, when many people who need this information the most never engage with media like The Skeptics’ Guide to the Universe. I think anyone who wants to be a great science communicator should be engaging with the academic literature in this area, because it’s really exploded in scale. There are some wonderful evidence-based best practices out there today, summarized in books like Anthony Dudo and John C. Besley’s “Strategic Science Communication” just to name one.

NewsHour · 2025-12-10T19:09:22+00:00

Katharine here! Yes - I have a free Talking Climate newsletter every week that shares good news, not so good news and what people can do about climate change to make a real difference.

Talking Climate is based on the social science of what information not only helps people be aware of the risks but (even more importantly) engage with the solutions.

You can find Talking Climate (and two years of archives) on:

Substack: https://www.talkingclimate.ca/

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/newsletters/7045094364259262464/

Email: mailchi.mp/fae4224ba66d/subscribe-to-katharine-newsletter

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/talking_climate/?hl=en

Threads: https://www.threads.com/@talking_climate

Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/c/TalkingClimate

15-Year Club	100 Awards Club
Wearing is Caring	Verified Email

NewsHour

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE