Maybe you can lay that out for us.

Well, the beauty of public radio is that it can be a little bit like stone soup, if we're going to continue this kitchen metaphor, which is that, you know, we bring to it what we bring to it, and some of our stations with lots of resources are able to bring to it the ability to produce shows that can then get aired across the network, um, by other stations.

And then some of our stations with fewer resources are able to really focus on what matters the most to their communities, um, whether that's local reporting.

I'm a big fan of the public affairs call-in show like we're doing right here today.

I think that that is sort of the most uniquely public media, uh, thing that we are able to do as organizations.

But the, what we've been hearing is that it's really different out there for everyone.

So we had this year, uh, post-federal defunding, where we received an upsurge of donations across the network, and that was massively appreciated.

Um, how are you thinking about that? How is NPR thinking about trying to, uh, expand its, its audience, uh, since it's now more reliant than ever on its audience for its, uh, fiscal future?

What message does that send, do you think, to the White House?

I think it sends the message really to any administration because you have to think that as Fox is making their determination on this, they're also looking to future administrations and what may be yet to come to pass.

The press stands united on this one.

This is a matter of the First Amendment.

It is a matter of press freedom.

And I think we've seen Fox make similar decisions in the past.

This is not the first time they've stood up as a matter of principle.

How does this current situation between the press pool and the president, how does this fit into the context of the broader relationship between the White House and media outlets during this second Trump presidency?

And I was thinking, you know, is public media one of the last standing campfires?

I, I love that analogy.

I'd not heard that previously, but I think that's absolutely right.

There's such a great deal of understanding now about how important local media is in healthy communities.

Across the United States over the course of the last 30 years, we have lost a extraordinary number of local newspapers and local media outlets, things that when I was growing up, we...

My local hometown, about 20,000 people, had two newspapers.

Now it has a half of one.

I'm wondering also what have you learned about whether, uh, and how a mission-driven institution can out-compete the market for trust and attention, uh, and not just fight for survival alongside it?

You know, how do I consume some NPR content like on YouTube, for example? But that isn't necessarily a big income generator for you, is that right?

Right.

So I think that people think of us as radio because that's our origin.

But in fact, 50 percent of our listening comes from digital platforms.

It comes through podcasts.

It comes through YouTube.

It actually comes through reading online.

I'm interested as to how, in this moment of belt tightening, your technological savvy comes into all of it.

You know, how do I consume some NPR content, like on YouTube, for example? But that isn't necessarily a big income generator for you, is that right?

Right.

So I think that people think of us as radio because that's our origin.

But in fact, 50 percent of our listening comes from digital platforms.

It comes through podcasts.

It comes through YouTube.

It actually comes through reading online.

I'm interested as to how in this moment of belt tightening, your technological savvy comes into all of it.

How, uh, does NPR... uh, how would it, cutting it be a risk to public safety?

So the most important thing for everyone watching to know is that these cuts are not about NPR.

They are about the National Public Radio Network.

70% of all of the funds that are at risk right now go directly to local stations.

Last night, while the Senate was on the floor n- uh, debating this exact package, we saw a 7.3, uh, uh, register earthquake hit off the coast of Alaska.

Three stations immediately went into broadcast around tsunami warnings.

The local sirens in their hometown told residents to tune in to their local radio station.

What would you tell Senator Collins?

(laughs)

(laughs) It’s a tough, it’s a tough spot.

Um, here, what I’d say on the sort of response and mobilization is I wasn’t there for some of the things that, eh, that, uh, um, are referenced around Me Too, around racial bias or discrimination.

Um, I’m aware of the stories, and I can’t speak for my predecessors as to why something was handled one way or another.

My view is that were those things brought to my attention, we would move with similar alacrity.

There’s – I have very low tolerance for any sort of abuse in the workplace or any sort of inequities in the workplace.

It just isn’t the kind of culture that I think we should create.

Very much so.

Why did NPR decide to take up this fight?

So, it's really important for folks to have the understanding that we chose not to do this over the funding issue.

Funding is for stations.

Its funding is very important for local stations, and I'm happy to talk about that.

We chose to do this because it is a First Amendment issue.

And what I mean by that is, the executive order very clearly engages in what is called viewpoint discrimination, which is to say that the president has stated that NPR and PBS should not receive federal funding because he disagrees with our programming and our editorial choices in terms of the story selection that we cover or the way that we cover the news, and therefore has said that federal funding shouldn't go to us because he accuses us of being unfair and biased.

That is a matter of viewpoint discrimination.

Why does NPR need federal funding?

So how precisely does President Trump's executive order against NPR and PBS violate the First Amendment? What's the case that you're making against the Trump White House?

Well, it's interesting, because the executive order is very specific in that it accuses NPR and PBS of not airing fair or unbiased news.

And so it is a textbook example of viewpoint discrimination from a First Amendment standpoint.

Essentially, by blocking funding to NPR and PBS, it is a form of retaliation against our organizations for airing editorial programming that the president might disagree with.

The safeguards for our editorial independence go very far back.

They go back to the Public Broadcasting Act.

It was one of Congress's sort of paramount in, objectives was to ensure that public media was independent from government influence.

Uh, how do you respond to that?

Can you explain in plain English what that means, what the thrust of this lawsuit is?

So NPR is a private organization, and we have the right as a media organization to make our own e- editorial choices about what it is that we cover and how we cover it, and what we found in the executive order was that the order discusses the need to end federal funding based on the accusation that we are not presenting fair, unbiased news.

So from our perspective, what that means is that the order implies that edit- NPR needs to change its editorial posture if we are to receive federal funding.

It's very clear from the Public Broadcasting Act that public media is meant to be an in- independent source of information and, in fact, it is protected in the statute that established the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Uh, we believe that this is an infringement on NPR's First Amendment rights, but it is also an infringement on those rights of our station, both their editorial First Amendment rights and their rights to associate with NPR if they are unable to use their funds to choose to air our programming.

Are you speaking with leaders of other news organizations about how to navigate this moment? Are you getting support from other news organizations?

Yeah.

It's, I've had a number of conversations with leaders of larger media organizations, even than NPR, and I do believe that many of us feel as though this is a very difficult moment for this profession.

So is it immediate for NPR?

In a similar fashion, if we were to see a clawback of these funds, which we know is part of the conversation from a recession standpoint, or if we were to see that stations were no longer able to participate in their membership dues, that would be damaging.

But I think that Paula's point is the one that really people need to hear, the immediate damages to local stations.

And with NPR, we have stations in more than 246 stations with newsrooms, more than 200 newsrooms in every state in the country.

And that includes journalists who are out there covering their local communities.

especially in a time where we're seeing an advance of news deserts across the nation.

20% of Americans don't have access to another local source of news.

unbiased.

if they take a billion dollars away, what happens?

It's not great.

I, I really...

I think that Americans need to be aware that it is going to be harmful to the system, right? So a lot of us probably grew up on kids' television, PBS Kids.

It's in- I mean, it's, it is a crown jewel of American public broadcasting programming.

And whether you think about, you know, your history with Mr. Rogers, whether you're thinking about Sesame Street, whether you're thinking about more contemporary programming, that is so important and that is at threat, under threat.

Um, when you think about your local radio stations, those may not be able to provide the same sorts of services and the first thing that's gonna go, I have to tell you, is going to be local reporters' jobs.

Mm-hmm.

Ha, how white of me." Why did you tweet that?

Um, I think I was probably reflecting on what it was to be, to grow up in an e- environment where I had lots of advantages.

So, I mean, h- how does that work to give us the perception that you're doing your job of actually delivering unbiased information?

Well, I would agree with you that that number is a concern if it is accurate.

I do believe that we need to have journalists who represent the full breadth of the American society so that we can report well for all Americans.

This week, 82 years ago, Kristallnacht happened, and in that tower of burning books, it led to an attack on fact, knowledge, history, and truth.

truth.After four years of a modern-day assault on those same values by Donald Trump-

Wuhan.

Uh, we recognize that... we were reporting at the time, but we acknowledge that the new CIA evidence is worthy of coverage and have covered it.

You guys were oh for three on, on the three, the three of the biggest stories in the last five years, you guys were oh for three, and yet you maintain that NPR is not biased?

Uh, Congressman, I do not believe we are politically biased.

No, we are a nonpartisan organization.

Are, are you fundraising off today's hearing?

Uh, sir, I believe that there was a message that went out earlier today letting people know we were coming in, yes.

What would the practical impact of losing that funding be? I mean, I, I can imagine you've been preparing for this possibility even well before this hearing came up.

I mean, I think we have to be prepared for all scenarios all the time.

The thing that I would want everyone to know about federal funding is the impacts that loss of federal funding would have on local stations.

Again, of the $121.5 million, that's it, $121.5 million that goes to public radio on an annual basis, it's a lot of money.

I want to acknowledge that, and it's also not a ton of money relative to the total size of the American public budget, right? The federal budget.

100 million of that goes direct to local stations, and disproportionately, the, the percentage of those funds goes to support stations that have— that serve rural communities, that serve less affluent communities, that serve communities with really large areas of service where the infrastructure investment and making sure that broadcast airwaves reach the country is significant.

So, I think about my c- my colleagues in Eastern Kentucky who have to put, you know, repeaters in hollers in order for Eastern Kentuckians to be able to hear those radio broadcasts.

You're for all Americans, but you had, you know, an editor at NPR say, like, "No, the news has been biased, the way you talk about COVID or, you know, the Mueller report or whatever." There is this impression from certain people in America that NPR is not for all Americans, and obviously that's what the hearing's about tomorrow.

What would the practical impact of losing that funding be? I mean, I can imagine you've been preparing for this possibility even well before this hearing came up.

I mean, I think we have to be prepared for all scenarios all the time.

The thing that I would want everyone to know about federal funding is the impact that loss of federal funding would have on local stations.

Again, of the 121.5 million, that's it, 121.5 million that goes to public radio on an annual basis.

It's a lot of money.

I want to acknowledge that.

And it's also not a ton of money relative to the total size of the American public budget, right, the federal budget.

And obviously that's what the hearing's about tomorrow.