The US is so weird right now.

You have a President who is ordering the defunding of tons of groups (universities, media, aid, institutes) while not clearly having that authority and often doing so for what he views as ideological crimes.

Also arresting and trying deport people for things that are not clearly crimes (newspaper op-eds, etc) and without due process.

Very strange times. Right now I have some faith the courts in the US will stand up to this and get the US back on track but I worry that dam may not hold forever.

Saving grace is that his is not widely popular, although that is more for his tariff moves than for the others.

> You have a President who is ordering the defunding of tons of groups (universities, media, aid, institutes) while not clearly having that authority and often doing so for what he views as ideological crimes.

It’s important to remember that while the President issues the orders, there are other actors behind the scenes writing them for him. They have goals that go beyond a single man considering ideological crimes.

Can you explain and reference sources? Otherwise it is a pretty vague comment.

How do you suppose such evidence could be procured? I understand the burden of proof in terms of claims, but this is one that is, by design, difficult to gather substantial evidence for. Particularly without legal/criminal repercussions, and that's in good times when they are at least making an attempt to follow the law.

It's not at all vague, unless you haven't been paying attention. Project 2025, for example.

The chapter about education is a great read.

Thank you!

Project 2025 would be the most obvious answer

Project 2025 is the playbook, plenty of references on line.

> Right now I have some faith the courts in the US will stand up to this

I think "the guardrails will hold" thinking is flawed when you have someone who is willing to completely side step the system and push the limits.

We're not actually sure what holding someone from this administration in contempt even looks like functionally since U.S. marshals are under the DOJ.

Weird is not the term for it. I'd say suspension of due process is terrifying.

I say this as a firm conservative. The courts have so far been outstanding, despite all the inappropriate pressure. I have no doubt they will continue to be. I'm also quite impressed with conservative voters who are speaking out to their conservative representatives.

Ultimately though, despite many many calls not to do so, Congress has goven the executive branch unheard of powers. Executive power needs to be reigned in tightly and then Congressional power needs to reigned in as well. We need to push for Federalism.

Could you share what the courts have done? What I’ve witnessed is cowardice to hold officials accountable or in contempt for unconstitutional acts.

Not weird. It's textbook fascism.

"Strange" times is a bit of an understatement.

The executive branch has ignored the courts a few times, basically saying "What are you going to do about it?".

I feel like it has to lead to a standoff of some group with guns saying they're following the courts/defending the constitution against another group with guns saying they're following the orders of the president (just like those Nazis who were "just following orders"). I need to print t-shirts with "Is it a coup d'etat yet?" to sell to the onlookers when this happens (in theory I could start selling these now).

> this is a time where our system of checks and balances can come to shine

why do you think that, all things considered?

I find that many of us, somewhat passively, including myself, have been using the term "strange" to describe the American poltitical situation. I think this is to avoid using more charged political terms that are actaully more accurate like fascist, authoritarian, dictator... These are dictionary words which are increasingly apropos.

How do the courts enforce their rulings if the executive branch is wholly beholden to the president? It’s already a big problem for the DoJ.

See https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-situation--formalis...

I guess this is why it's called a constitutional crisis and not a constitutional opportunity

Even judge Xinis [kilmar garcia] was talking a big game, but then folded after promising 'expedited discovery' and the consideration of contempt. She delays week after week and grants the executive the right to hide under the shadows under seal so the public can't know what's happening, even though prior she bragged about forcing them to file these updates with the public.

The court folds and folds when they realize they can't actually impose what they ordered. I am taking note. The executive definitely is taking note -- Marc Rubio on live TV angrily taunted the judge.

there's no saving grace here until rubber meets the road and ICE, among others, start being arrested.

Otherwise, it's just a lot of harms being created and not resolving to anyones benefit. This is accelerationist entropy not being stopped but slowed.

It's like saying, we're only going to give you one paper cut per day.

I suppose this is in response to this executive order: ENDING TAXPAYER SUBSIDIZATION OF BIASED MEDIA https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/05/endi...

I would add that PBS has this to say about public media funding:

> The U.S. is almost literally off the chart for how little we allocate towards our public media. At the federal level, it comes out to a little over $1.50 per person per year. Compare that to the Brits, who spend roughly $100 per person per year for the BBC. Northern European countries spend well over $100 per person per year.

> And it really shows in the health of their of their public broadcasting systems. They tend to view those systems as essential democratic infrastructure. And, indeed, data show that there is a positive correlation between the health of a public broadcasting system and the health of a democratic governance.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/a-look-at-the-history-of-p...

This part of the EO is peculiar: “The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall determine whether “the Public Broadcasting Service and National Public Radio (or any successor organization)” are complying with the statutory mandate that “no person shall be subjected to discrimination in employment . . . on the grounds of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex.” 47 U.S.C. 397(15), 398(b). In the event of a finding of noncompliance, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall take appropriate corrective action.”

Why is the Secretary of Health and Human Services the one responsible for this?

Because RFK Jr is considered sufficiently loyal that they are willing to follow Trump's directives without question. This is the only qualification that truly matters to Trump.

This qualification is particularly important for a role you want to use to arbitrarily punish people who aren't loyal enough.

Isn't it crazy that the supposed 'biased media' directly targets PBS who I know from watching children's shows as well as NOVA (it's been going for 51 seasons). These shows don't scream biased to me, they scream educational.

Education to the uneducated (or those who would prefer we remain uneducated in the face of power) can easily cast any education as "biased" against their purposes. Most people see through that for what it is, but an increasing population of Americans don't.

Totally toothless. CBP is created and funded by Congress, the president doesn't get to tell them how to spend their funds.

--doesn't-- -> shouldn't

no one will stop him.

Ask the nih how that’s going.

When I first moved to the US (Bay Area) and discovered NPR in my first week there I almost couldn’t believe that there was such a source of high quality and thoughtful programming.

The value destruction of the last few months has been astonishing.

Local radio stations are so good. I've been listening to them more in my car because they talk about local news, not the shit you read online. I haven't had a TV in ages, so this is my main way of staying in touch with what's going on around here.

Is it unusual for an executive order to claim something like this without any citation or reference?

> The CPB fails to abide by these principles to the extent it subsidizes NPR and PBS.

> Which viewpoints NPR and PBS promote does not matter.

> What does matter is that neither entity presents a fair, accurate, or unbiased portrayal of current events to taxpaying citizens.

I'm a big supporter of NPR but you don't need to look hard to see their progressive bias.

The way to fight Trump is to form mutual defense pacts. For example, the Big Ten schools are forming a mutual defense pact [1]. All media should form a similar pact.

[1] https://www.yahoo.com/news/big-ten-michigan-schools-moves-11...

This is quite sad. PBS and NPR were jewels of the American system. The right-wing has latched on to the message that all public-funded media that isn't right-wing-biased is _bad_ and are trying to kill it everywhere.

We are constantly fighting the same battle in Canada where the right-wing accuses media of being left-leaning, while most major news outlets are actually American-owned and slant right a lot of the time.

We are truly in a post-fact world now.

What's sad is that something that can take decades to build, can take a single term to destroy. Some things are not easily reverted when power changes. Sometimes it reminds me of a ratchet tool. One side can turn it and make changes, but the other side can only maintain status quo, and then the other side gains power again and turns it further.

I'm at the other side of the world, but one example from my local area is the municipality selling off and privatizing lots of stuff. When the worm is out of the can, you can't get it back in.

The good news is that the President has no authority whatsoever over the CPB, so they will likely not cut any funding to either of these.

At the end of the day, if the people in the executive who push the button to transfer the money decide to listen to the president over the courts or congress it doesn’t matter what the law says.

Yeah I remind my right wing friends that the "legacy media" practices "journalism" where the journalists are expected to engage in ethical practices including properly sourcing and researching their stories.

It's the "reality has a left wing bias" problem. The modern right relies so heavily on misinformation, misdirection, hyperbole, and outright dishonesty that anything approaching objectivity is seen as biased.

Funny because PBS and NPR bend over backwards to coddle Trump and his circle and to not seem oppositional. NPR national daily shows in particular cover Trump's shenanigans like the are reviewing the new BTS singles.

They too get to learn that appeasing bullies does not work. At best you're sending them away for today, but they'll be back for your lunch money tomorrow.

Yep, I stopped listening in the run up to the 2016 election as they made clear they were going to make space for both siding misinformation, lies, and the emotions of those who were fully bought into the propaganda machine.

I find it a shell of its former self.

I heard of a study done in trump's first admin. It said this will hurt rural communities far more than urban. So as usual Trump supporters will be punished more than non-trump supporters.

They won't be punished. They're listening to wingnuts on AM radio, not NPR news stories.