Media, Trump & Budgeting: Whose Line-Item Is It Anyway?

President Trump first impacted the media during cathode ray tube days—before TV technology, and his career plans, changed. But the celebrity who loved to say, “you’re fired!” now can choose to use flatter screens and a grander stage to push for changes in American communications.

It’s a new season for that sector (and many others), with the White House sparking ideas for efficiency and efficacy through budgetary bottom lines.

One reality-show plot line emerged recently; performer Sheryl Crow announced that she had sold her Tesla and donated money to National Public Radio (NPR) as a protest against DOGE chief Elon Musk.

Prompted by one line-item in the federal budget, the president seems likely to withdraw funding from the field of public broadcasting. On the other hand, an optimist could envision him encouraging public-service innovations which span mass media, government, business, and education.

Can a little budgetary tweak yield big, beneficial results? The ensuing debate may prove to be a microcosm of such policy surprises.

Setting the Stage: Communication Everywhere and Nowhere

We should keep the vast communications field in mind as Washington pundits take us on a roller coaster ride through issues of respecting rights, educating people, and forming a more perfect union. The power of human interactions is at the heart of many goals which steered the November elections.

Vice President J.D. Vance told European officials in Munich on Feb. 14 the Trump administration wants to discuss bolstering international freedoms of speech and religion for the sake of robust democracy.

Meanwhile, our executive branch team of knights-errant reports to someone who The New York Times has said conducts “seat of the pants” negotiations. Trump’s Cabinet and stalwart supporters embrace outside-the-box thinking, an urgent pursuit of American greatness, and CEO-style deadlines and deals to solve problems.

Because of the forces clashing over the budget, citizens will be wise to analyze one microcosm at a time, garnering tips to inject smart stakeholders and strategies, as well as deep-seated values, into any transformations we see coming.

Shall we stand by our hallowed positions and allies, or pursue “big, beautiful” successes that will bring the country together, as candidate Trump promised?

The Don Quixote mind frame is both a super-power and weakness for our president. We should respond by freeing our minds for a panorama of opportunities while insisting on the importance of undeniable details.

Budget-line details are excellent tools to coalesce deals and assess outcomes—a truth we’ve forgotten as spending exploded and Congress simply passed huge omnibus bills, barely dissected or discussed

The 2024 Democratic campaign sometimes seemed like it had given up on trimming budgets or redesigning processes. Perhaps they expected World Economic Forum globalists to step in, applying Klaus Schwab’s Covid 19: The Great Reset to remake policies and public tastes.

Today’s Republican preference for a populist change-agent who will “land the plane” and stabilize American uniqueness prompts us to undertake a thought experiment. We will zero-in on one possible turning point in communications policy.

How will our democracy hold tight to overriding principles such as fairness, accountability, human dignity, and the common good while leaders demand new “efficiencies”? These ultimately require effective collaborations, not merely throwing passengers out the emergency exits.

Let the experiment begin, more or less apolitically.

It is only a matter of time before Trump administration auditors officially aim their disruptor devices at the budget for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB).

Given the CPB’s relatively minuscule annual slice of federal spending—about half a billion dollars—we can expect a quick White House proposal for Congress to eliminate the entire amount. Elon Musk has already complained that NPR, a notable part of public media, is biased against conservatives and should get its funding elsewhere.

Even though rapid budget-slashing has great appeal, we should pause to consider the many value judgments which complicate this and other line-items. Regarding the CPB, there are two motivations for moving more carefully.

First Motivation: The Need to Look Back

In our management of change, we should always apply the wisdom of “Chesterton’s Fence.” British author G.K. Chesterton (1874-1936) famously posited this general rule: Don’t hastily tear down something—like a fence—if you don’t understand why it was erected in the first place.

Understanding the CPB’s backstory will alert conservative cost-cutters to the longtime feud they are rekindling.

The CPB is a private, nonprofit corporation that Congress authorized in 1967 to be “the steward of the federal government’s investment in public broadcasting.”

Congress created the CPB at a time when it needed to ensure that all citizens, especially in rural areas, would have “universal access” to a public good—namely, broadcasters carrying high-quality, non-commercial information and education. This was obvious back when alternative technology and content were much more limited.

The CPB, according to its website, is now “the largest single source of funding for public radio, television, and related online and mobile services.”

At least 70 percent of CPB funding is distributed directly to more than 1,500 locally owned radio and television stations. These stations then pay for and transmit content produced mostly by the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) and NPR, both beloved by their fans.

Revenue to create shows also comes from underwriting by corporations and foundations, as well as CPB grants. As PBS repeats often during its program day, additional support comes from “viewers like you.”

Conservatives have argued against taxpayer support for the CPB since the Nixon administration, according to the Mandate for Leadership policy prescriptions published by the Heritage Foundation. Here, we are digging into arguments posed by the controversial but cogent “Project 2025.”

The document’s proposal recalls, “All Republican presidents have recognized that public funding of domestic broadcasts is a mistake.” Yet, the law was written to privilege “non-commercial educational” stations (NCEs) with distinct property on the left side of the FM dial, as well as comfortable insulation from tight government oversight.

Moreover, the Heritage Foundation book argues, as does Musk, that America’s public broadcasting networks have become “a liberal forum for public affairs and journalism.”

Pew Research found in 2014 that 60 percent of PBS’s audience described themselves as mostly or consistently liberal, while 15 percent identified as mostly or consistently conservative, according to the Heritage contributor, Mike Gonzalez. He said the liberal dominance was even more lopsided among NPR listeners.

His critique went on to note that much of the material aired—accompanied by mentions of gratitude to corporations, endowments, and other underwriters—fails to meet the original non-commercial/educational standards.

The document also could have pointed out that all sorts of stations now fill the AM and FM dials, that even rural areas have access to a much wider variety of content, and that radio and TV programs are now distributed online, not to mention cable and streaming services for video.

Indeed, younger generations choose to receive their news and information digitally—sadly, relying too much on social media and their confirmation bias.

Meanwhile, “defunding the CPB would by no means cause NPR or PBS … to file for bankruptcy” because the array of membership and funding models used in public broadcasting will allow the stations and program producers to survive, Gonzalez predicted.

He expects various sponsors will pick up the costs of presenting popular educational and entertainment shows on other platforms. For example, the streaming service Max is one of the places, along with PBS Kids, where viewers have tapped into decades-old archives of “Sesame Street” episodes.

Second Motivation: The Need to Look Ahead

Proponents of budget-slashing must plan to encounter again all the noble, reasonable arguments for the CPB dating back nearly 60 years.

America needs high-quality preK-12 education, programs designed and distributed for the common good, and a diverse, inclusive marketplace of ideas to energize American democracy.

What’s more, we should be wary of sudden policy reversals placing at risk many high-value assets: those hundreds of radio and television stations; the infrastructure of human collaboration and institutional partnerships built up around the stations; and the treasure trove of content and creative talent now in the orbits of networks like PBS and NPR.

However, there is a second reason for budget-slashers to marshal detailed judgments—and lively imaginations—in advance of the showdown.

Public broadcasting has updated itself by diversifying into other media, but 2025 may be the time to consider re-inventing, even expanding, how this institution comports with the world of 21^st century communications.

It’s possible that a critical mass of budget protagonists will agree there is room for prudent updates in the law. In this case, innovative minds from various fields will need time to modify industry standards and practices and to fine-tune supply and demand. They must satisfy both the “Antiques Roadshow” enthusiasts and the advocates for needy and underrepresented groups in the population.

A stubborn pilot landing America’s budgetary jumbo jet might set a tight deadline for decisions. The achievement of saving millions would take priority over contemplating a completely new flight plan.

This is where President Trump’s inclination to float big trial-balloons, for the sake of America’s greatness (and his own), might work its magic. If fresh thinkers can step forward to help change the conversation, we may discover more people, with fatter wallets, who want to “get in” on a new public-service adventure. They do have talents and aspirations to contribute.

Communicators could envision a universe, indeed a metaverse, of platforms, technologies, and applications promising to improve education and society. Of course, stalwarts grounded in reality and reason should erect appropriate Chesterton fences preserving parts of this chaotic cosmos.

Meanwhile, we won’t encourage those with old-school experience in nitty-gritty work like teaching to totally stifle those inclined toward “big, hairy, audacious goals.” Business book authors have deemed BHAGs an energy boost for companies.

In our thought experiment, we should consider whether resistance will cause paralysis by analysis. Rejection of conversation compounds skepticism. It’s already arising among seasoned practitioners who, at the level of national and international politics, mock ideas like Trump’s “Riviera of the Middle East” plan as magical thinking.

One skeptic, David Sanger, whose recent New York Times commentary applied the “seat of the pants” critique to Trump, went on to warn that big ideas spark the wrong kind of collaboration. “Where diplomats look at a problem and see a negotiating challenge, Mr. Trump looks and sees a future resort rising from the sands,” Sanger wrote.

His criticism goes to the heart of this experiment. Yes, diplomats belong in the realm of negotiation. But perhaps a president like Trump can occasionally startle nay-saying leaders and stimulate progress by conjuring an image, or a deadline, or a mean tweet.

Provided it’s suitably fenced, this is a mind-expanding game of three-dimensional chess.

If “the business of America is business,” then let entrepreneurial and eccentric flowers bloom amid the practicality. When one “big, beautiful” prospect fails, our president listens and pitches another, freeing up the players in his game to ponder and respond. Call him a salesman, and mean it as a compliment.

Where the Motivations Might Lead

In that spirit, imagine a next generation of public-interest communication. It wouldn’t replace social media like TikTok, X, and Truth Social; that’s unlikely given the investments of Trump and Musk. For the sake of this experiment, we’ll probe other boundaries.

Various collaborators might see financial and reputational gains in developing oases of content where polarization is reduced, political trust is rebuilt, timely knowledge is more accessible, cultural legacies are maintained, and people reach out into their communities.

Consider several pathways of programming, broadly defined as educational, with ambitious core goals which Americans might consider socially desirable, even statesmanlike:

• improved relationships between the American people and their federal institutions, improving knowledge, interaction, accountability and trust;

• the same strengthening of civic bonds at the state and city level, across the nation;

• better and broader educational resources for teens and young adults who wish to enter fields with robust job growth and salaries, some of them “white-collar,” many “blue-collar”;

• improved knowledge about civics in the United States, but also about other countries’ geopolitical, economic, and cultural circumstances, providing global news and awareness as distinct from disfavored “globalist” ideology;

• heightened awareness of practices that increase physical and mental health for individuals and society, including candid discussions at the intersection of science, common sense, and the precautionary principle which environmentalism teaches.

One can develop many ideas for programs in these various categories. Perhaps they could be clustered in several menus available on a streaming service or as “channels” on a public-interest version of YouTube.

Government itself could take the lead in boosting public trust toward civic institutions. The executive branch could emulate the cable industry collaboration called C-SPAN. Instead of Congressional sessions and “Book TV,” various agencies would offer live coverage of public meetings, plus explorations of topics validly in their wheelhouses.

President Trump’s telegenic Cabinet secretaries would love to complement this coverage with their own podcasts—or with newfangled hybrids of fireside chats and Joe Rogan dialogues. This low-cost programming would fit under agencies’ existing communications budgets, which probably overspend on passé press releases.

Citizens would benefit from further immersion in reality while other communicators are offering them artificial intelligence and virtual lives. A democracy needs to know how its government works, what it does, and how it spends taxpayer money. We could start placing more faces and names on the stances and actions which are allegedly hidden in deep-state darkness. Imagine greater transparency and accountability, with less waste and cynicism.

State and local government agencies, along with the offices of governors and legislative representatives, should be encouraged to create similar coverage and civic engagement. Block grants to states for educational communication would allow cities and school districts to compete for money based on their ideas serving kids, parents, and teachers.

There are investment opportunities outside the classroom and family home. In this era of tragically weakened coverage by local newspapers and TV stations, ventures in new media platforms could help to foster a next generation of newsrooms, or at least independent journalists who would thrive on increased access and public awareness.

In 2023, the MacArthur Foundation, seeing the shrinkage of local news coverage, led a philanthropic partnership called Press Forward, which plans to invest $500 million to “support the reimagination, revitalization, and rapid development of local news.”

The foundation, which already helps to fund PBS News, might be attracted to some form of government-supported collaboration. The original $500 million price tag is said to be far too small to make nationwide impacts.

Of course, with or without extra scrutiny by journalists, officials at all levels of government would have to restrain their egos and any instincts to produce propaganda touting their excellence or demonizing others. Whatever they do, they might prompt citizens to follow up with group meetings, organized feedback, and heightened habits of news-watching.

An additional channel educating people about promising careers, timely job openings, and resources for appropriate training could be spearheaded by statewide officials, with input from federal agencies monitoring the economy and its need for particular skills.

Video content would be accompanied by websites or apps offering more information. Agencies could also host digital space for chats and Q&A. Extra services—and advertising—might flow in from local companies, civic groups, charities, churches, and labor unions.

Online partnerships could resemble, and reinvigorate, the “civil society” populated by Elks lodges, Rotary clubs, Knights of Columbus halls, and local gatherings of political parties. It would be ideal if portions of next-gen programming were cordoned off from the influence of AI, augmented reality, dopamine hits, and narrative-creating algorithms.

These ambitious visions for educational communication may seem akin to brainstorming about a “Riviera of the Middle East,” but we need to try generating cultural “great resets” that Americans are hungry for. Our values must be proactive. The King James Bible reminds us: “Where there is no vision, the people perish.” (Proverbs 29)

Sensing hope and success, defined in both secular and spiritual terms, the informed debates we start will help generate remedies for the lingering ills and oversights which have polarized America. There’s only one realistic way to fulfill Trump’s slogan—Americans making themselves great again.

This concludes the thought experiment.

But the latest experiments in federal budget management are actually ongoing—on a larger scale, under a stronger microscope, and with the public as a more engaged audience. We need to bring authentic values and historical knowledge together with systemic and strategic analysis related to budget plans for the 2026 fiscal year, which will begin October 1.

Thank you for participating in this introductory exercise. All apprentices are invited to stick around and dig deeply into your favorite line-items. We expect the reality show called our democracy will be picked up again for a new season. The plot is thickening.

Image from ClipSafari.com, a collection of Creative Commons designs.

Phronesis Plus

Welcome behind the paywall, where you’l find premium content for “Phronesis in Pieces.”

The Premium Section of “Phronesis”—Updated All Year

In “Phronesis Plus,” find additional new material via the navbar, especially the abundant Bookshelf of resources. A number of quotes and statistics were added as links in January. Many other categories of information are available for browsing by avocational students of phronesis.

The “About” page includes updated links to samples of my multimedia endeavors, including samples from 2025.