But the organization must still grapple with a funding shortfall created by a Congressional vote to rescind around $1.1 billion in advance appropriated federal funding for PBS and NPR, and an entirely new landscape for public media. The CPB, which was created in 1967 as a nonpartisan nonprofit to direct federal appropriations to public television and radio stations, announced in January that it would officially dissolve. PBS has since reduced its budget by 21% and cut 15% of positions, or around 100 jobs.
Since the rescission, Kerger has been touring the U.S. and speaking with affected communities. “The light bulb went off,” she says of the public’s reaction. “It's like, ‘Oh, Viewers Like You. That means us.’” Since the July 2025 rescission, PBS has seen more than a million new memberships. Philanthropy and commercial partnerships are helping. And Kerger hopes to get “some level of government funding back,” particularly to support rural communities and infrastructure, she says.
TIME spoke with Kerger on July 15 about the aftermath of the funding pullback, what people get wrong about PBS, and what gives her hope about the future for the organization.
You've talked before about how some people don't understand what PBS is. What do people get wrong about PBS?
Flash forward to Lyndon Johnson. He was particularly taken with what the BBC was able to do in terms of bringing great culture and history to the public, and he thought that our country should have that. He recognized that this loose confederation of individual stations that were mostly doing local or educational stuff wasn't exactly it, and that with some support you could create something that was more akin to the BBC, and that's when he signed the Public Broadcasting Act. Part of that was to create a network [that] could pull all these individual stations together. The second part of it was to ensure that there was federal funding available for communities that would perhaps be challenged to have their own stations. And so our funding always looked like that up until we lost the money last year. The largest percentage of most of the money went to stations, not to PBS and NPR. I think that was a confusion with some members of Congress. I'm not sure they knew exactly what they were voting on.
Can you talk me through where things stand today with the funding pullback?
And then, of course there was the rescission. The executive order took out a program that we have managed for 30 years, which has funded our kids' content: Ready To Learn. For many years, the Department of Education would fund programming out of PBS that was all built around what the Education Department's priorities were, whether that's literacy or math skills or executive function or, in the last round—which had been re-upped under the first Trump Administration—workforce preparedness. Now, you can decide what that means for preschool, but we interpreted it as giving kids a really good start on the basics, before they entered school, as a way of just helping to make sure that we were jump-starting them in their school career that would lead to a professional career. After the executive order, that money was gone.
PBS have been working pretty deliberately to make sure that the public is aware that the funding is gone. In the time since the rescission, we’ve picked up more than a million new members, and most of those are people that didn't just write a check, but they agreed to give every month, so they've really signed up to be part of this. It has not solved all of our problems, but we're in at least a stable position right now.
The philanthropy is going to continue to be significant. We continue to look for production partners. We are streaming content on Amazon. So, some business revenue, some philanthropic investment, and the hope of trying to get at least some [funding] from the government. I think if we can get all those pieces aligned, we'll be in really strong shape.
So historically, half of our money came from our stations, and a lot of that was contributed money. So I would say probably moving forward, I would assume that half of our money would continue to be contributed money, if we can manage this properly. Of the government money, it was 15% in aggregate. Whether some piece of that would come back, I can't even begin to quantify what that would mean. The rest of it would be some combination of increased foundation grants, as well as the contributed money. So a quarter of earned revenue, a quarter of high net worth and then foundation grants and individual giving. Individual giving is what's kept us anchored in communities. It's also what makes this so powerful, because everyone feels that they own it.
There were a lot of people that said, “Don't you have a billionaire that could solve your problems?” If people want to make more generous contributions, that’s great. We have some big needs. I just think that this idea that someone is going to sail in and save you is not good, and it's particularly not good for media. Even if someone has the very best of intentions, there's always going to be that doubt of, is someone really directing, or does someone have a thumb on the scale, or so forth.
The current administration has turned its attention to some foundations as well. Is that a consideration when you're thinking about which foundations you will accept funding from?
I think the combination of doing that with the larger contributions, as well as lots and lots of small contributions, that's really always been the bedrock of public broadcasting. Every year, I think 23 years in a row, we have fielded a study that ranks us most trusted of public institutions. YouGov has been doing a similar survey in the last years. Same thing. I think we're number two after the Weather Channel. I think part of it is that if you anchor your support in a lot of grassroots philanthropy, people have to trust you, and so we take all of this really super seriously.
Are these the sorts of conversations that you're having with members of Congress? What is it that they are expressing they're most concerned about?
What would it take to get that through?
This isn’t the first time that PBS has faced these sorts of challenges, but to your mind, why do you think PBS has become a target in this moment?
Who are your audiences, in terms of demographics?
I'd say the one commonality for a PBS viewer is that [it’s] people that are curious about the world, just want to learn more. I've been talking a lot over this last year as we've rolled into the 250th [anniversary of the U.S.]. I've always been struck by what I view as our key values of our country. The pursuit of happiness. What does that mean? I think what it means is lifelong learning. It's this idea that anyone would have the opportunity to achieve their potential, and that's who we are, and so I think that for our viewers, that very much captures who watches.
I feel like we have had a role in the life of people and families and communities across this country, and I am deeply committed to making sure that we continue to meet the needs of people that clearly will evolve over the next 10, 15 years. I think how we connect to people will continue to change. I think the power of a story well told is extraordinary, and so, however that story [is told], I want to make sure that we're there to do that. I think our place in local communities is pretty profound.
But I think for us to thrive, we also have to make sure that we're continuing to bring in new voices and new perspectives. Our focus is around making sure that we're educating and engaging and inspiring. I really hope that as we look forward over the next 10 to 15 years, that it will continue to also be a through line. We want to embrace that whole idea of pursuit of happiness and really ensure that people see possibility. And if we do that and we do it well, then I'll be really proud of what we've accomplished at PBS.
Hence then, the article about pbs chief paula kerger on the aftermath of federal funding cuts and what people get wrong about public media was published today ( ) and is available on Time ( Middle East ) The editorial team at PressBee has edited and verified it, and it may have been modified, fully republished, or quoted. You can read and follow the updates of this news or article from its original source.
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( PBS Chief Paula Kerger on the Aftermath of Federal Funding Cuts—and What People Get Wrong About Public Media )
Also on site :