Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor criticized the Court’s 2024 presidential immunity case in her first public appearance since the start of the second Trump term, saying it places the Court’s legitimacy on the line. 

Sotomayor made the comments during an appearance in Louisville, Kentucky, during which she was asked a range of questions, including the public’s perception of the high court, according to the Associated Press. Sotomayor’s comments are her first in public since President Donald Trump took office last month. 

‘If we as a court go so much further ahead of people, our legitimacy is going to be questioned,’ Sotomayor said during the Louisville event. ‘I think the immunity case is one of those situations. I don’t think that Americans have accepted that anyone should be above the law in America. Our equality as people was the foundation of our society and of our Constitution.’

In a 6-3 decision in July 2024, the Supreme Court ruled in Trump v. United States that a former president has substantial immunity from prosecution for official acts committed while in office, but not for unofficial acts.

The case stemmed from Special Counsel Jack Smith’s federal election interference case in which he charged Trump with conspiracy to defraud the U.S.; conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding; obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding; and conspiracy against rights. 

Sotomayor notably wrote the dissent, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, saying the decision ‘makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law.’

‘Never in the history of our Republic has a President had reason to believe that he would be immune from criminal prosecution if he used the trappings of his office to violate the criminal law,’ the dissent continued. ‘Moving forward, however, all former Presidents will be cloaked in such immunity. If the occupant of that office misuses official power for personal gain, the criminal law that the rest of us must abide will not provide a backstop. With fear for our democracy, I dissent.’

During her Louisville appearance, Sotomayor shared that she ‘had a hard time with the immunity case,’ saying the Constitution contains provisions ‘not exempting the president from criminal activity after an impeachment.’

Sotomayor warned that if the Court were to continue down the same path, the Court’s legitimacy would ultimately be at risk. 

‘And if we continue going in directions that the public is going to find hard to understand, we’re placing the court at risk,’ Sotomayor said. 

When asked for comment, a White House spokesperson told Fox News Digital, ‘This historic 6-3 ruling speaks for itself.’

The justice suggested that one way to resolve the public’s distrust in the Court would be to slow down in overturning precedent. The Court has, in recent years, overturned various landmark decisions, including Roe v. Wade in 2022, and striking down affirmative action in college admissions in 2023 and the Chevron doctrine in 2024. 

‘I think that creates instability in the society, in people’s perception of law and people’s perception of whether we’re doing things because of legal analysis or because of partisan views,’ Sotomayor said. ‘Whether those views are accurate or not, I don’t accuse my colleagues of being partisan.’

Sotomayor made similar comments in 2023, saying she had a ‘a sense of despair’ about the Court’s direction following the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision, which overturned Roe. Sotomayor did not name the case specifically. 

However, the justice said she did not have the luxury to dwell on those feelings.

‘It’s not an option to fall into despair,’ Sotomayor said. ‘I have to get up and keep fighting.’

Fox News Digital’s Ronn Blitzer and the Associated Press contributed to this report. 

President Donald Trump is expected to sign an executive order establishing a White House Faith Office on Friday. 

The new office will ’empower faith-based entities, community organizations, and houses of worship to better serve families and communities,’ according to a fact sheet obtained by Fox News. 

The office will be housed under the Domestic Policy Council and will consult experts in the faith community on policy changes to ‘better align with American values.’ 

The office plans to coordinate with other agencies on training for religious liberty and on elevating grant opportunities for non-profit faith-based entities, community organizations and houses of worship. It will also collaborate with the Department of Justice on identifying constitutional religious liberty protections. 

The order will come one day after Trump signed an order to create a task force to identify ‘anti-Christian bias.’

The White House said this ‘Task Force to End the War on Christians’ will comprise members of the president’s Cabinet and key government agencies, and the order seeks to ‘end the anti-Christian weaponization of government.’ 

It came after nearly two dozen pro-life Christians were charged and sentenced for demonstrating outside abortion facilities during the Biden administration. Trump pardoned 23 pro-life protesters in his first week on the job. 

President Donald Trump may soon meet with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.  

‘He may meet next week, yeah. Whenever he would like. I’m here,’ Trump told reporters while hosting Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba on Friday. 

Trump said that the meeting would likely be held in Washington, D.C., because he would not go to Ukraine. 

Trump also said there was a possibility he would meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin, noting that the two have always had a ‘very good relationship.’ 

‘That’s why it is so sad that this happened,’ Trump said, appearing to reference Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. ‘This never would have happened if I were president.’ 

Trump, who met with Zelenskyy in New York in September 2024, urged Putin to cease the war — or face sanctions — in a post on Truth Social on Jan. 22. 

‘Settle now, and STOP this ridiculous War! IT’S ONLY GOING TO GET WORSE,’ Trump said. If we don’t make a ‘deal’, and soon, I have no other choice but to put high levels of Taxes, Tariffs, and Sanctions on anything being sold by Russia to the United States, and various other participating countries.’

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent also said he backed issuing harsher sanctions on Russia during his confirmation hearing Jan. 16 to expedite the end of the war. 

According to retired Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg, Trump’s envoy for Russia and Ukraine, Trump is the only person who could end the conflict. 

‘The only person that Putin will really want to talk to — because he’s kind of denigrated other leaders that are out there — is President Trump, and President Trump’s the only one who can bring this to a conclusion,’ Kellogg told ‘Fox & Friends Weekend’ on Sunday. 

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Fox News Digital. 

Fox News’ Rachel Wolf contributed to this report. 

The Justice Department and a group of FBI agents reached an agreement in federal court Friday over the dissemination of information about FBI agents involved in the Jan. 6 investigation.

According to the text of the deal, the Trump administration cannot release information about the FBI agents who investigated the January 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol riot without giving plaintiffs at least two days’ notice so that the matter can be considered again in federal court.

It does not, however, place such a time limit on the dissemination of agents’ identities to other government agencies or the White House. 

The deal resolves, at least for now, a dispute over the release of information that agents said they feared could be used for retaliation or leaked to the public.

The agreement comes after active FBI agents and the Federal Bureau of Investigation Agents Association, a voluntary agents’ group, sued the Justice Department earlier this week seeking to block the release of any identifying information about FBI agents involved in the January 6 investigations.

The two parties tussled for hours in court on Thursday in front of U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb, who questioned both parties at length on the nature of DOJ’s questionnaire, the potential for disclosures or retaliation and how the Justice Department intends to use information divulged in the questionnaires.

The agreement defers any immediate relief for plaintiffs, pushing to March 27 their hearing for a preliminary injunction. 

Cobb previously granted the two parties a brief administrative stay on Thursday evening, saying that if the information was released she believed it ‘would put FBI agents in immediate danger.’

The agreement comes just days after FBI leadership said it had provided the Justice Department with a list of agents who worked on Jan. 6 investigations and criminal cases, in keeping with an earlier deadline set by U.S. Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove.

‘Plaintiffs assert that the purpose for this list is to identify agents to be terminated or to suffer other adverse employment action,’ lawyers for the FBI agents said, adding that they ‘reasonably fear that all or parts of this list might be published by allies of President Trump, thus placing themselves and their families in immediate danger of retribution by the now pardoned and at-large Jan. 6 convicted felons.’

Lawyers for the agents argued that any effort to review or discriminate against agents involved in the investigation would be ‘unlawful and retaliatory,’ and a violation of civil service protections under federal law.

They also cited ‘profound concern’ that the list of thousands of FBI agents involved would be leaked to the public, threatening their safety. 

Meanwhile, lawyers for the Justice Department stressed that their intent in issuing the questionnaire was to conduct an ‘internal review’ of activities in the Jan. 6 probe, not to punish individuals for carrying out orders. 

Bove also sought to emphasize this message in an all-staff email to FBI personnel earlier this week. In the email, Bove stressed that the questionnaire was not intended to be a first step to mass layoffs, and stressed it was simply intended for review.

The Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and the attorney general are expected to release their proposed plan for the declassification of the JFK files on Friday. 

Both offices, in coordination with the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs and the Counsel to the President, have until the end of the day Friday to release their proposed plan. 

Last month, President Donald Trump signed an executive order to declassify files on the assassinations of former President John F. Kennedy, his brother Robert F. Kennedy and civil rights icon Martin Luther King, Jr. 

‘Everything will be revealed,’ Trump told reporters as he signed the order in the Oval Office.

The executive order came after Trump had previously promised on the campaign trail to declassify the documents upon entering his second term, saying at the time, ‘When I return to the White House, I will declassify and unseal all JFK assassination-related documents. It’s been 60 years, time for the American people to know the truth.’

Trump had initially promised to release the last batch of documents during his first term, but such efforts ultimately dissipated. Trump then blocked the release of hundreds of records on the assassination following several CIA and FBI appeals.

‘I have no choice,’ Trump said in a memo, where he cited ‘potentially irreversible harm’ to national security if he allowed the records to be released. Trump said at the time the potential harm to U.S. national security, law enforcement or foreign affairs is ‘of such gravity that it outweighs the public interest in immediate disclosure.’

Attorney General Pam Bondi, who was sworn in on Wednesday, is in New Orleans, Louisiana, for the day to survey Super Bowl LIX security. Bondi’s first full day on the job is part of an effort to highlight the administration’s broader commitment to crack down on violent crime and acts of terrorism.

Bondi has yet to formally address Trump’s order to declassify the JFK assassination files and her approach to the task. 

Fox News Digital learned shortly after she was sworn in that the new AG would be issuing several major directives on her first day, including orders to combat the weaponization of the legal system and making prosecutors seek the death penalty when appropriate. 

Tulsi Gabbard, Trump’s pick for DNI, successfully advanced out of the Intel Committee this week, with all Republican members voting in her favor. 

Gabbard has faced questions during her confirmation process regarding her past meeting with former Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, her previous FISA Section 702 stance and her past support for NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden. 

Fox News’ David Spunt, Breanne Deppisch, Julia Johnson and Brooke Singman contributed to this report. 

Senate Republicans are moving full steam ahead with their plans for a massive conservative policy overhaul through the budget reconciliation process, despite House GOP leaders still insisting their chamber is set to go first. 

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., unveiled a 61-page resolution that would fund President Donald Trump’s priorities for border security, fossil fuel energy and national defense.

It would fund completion of Trump’s border wall, as well as provide dollars for more beds in detention centers at the border. The bill would also include funds to hire more Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, hire more personnel patrolling the border and increase the number of immigration judges in order to process the backlog of existing asylum cases.

On energy, the bill is aimed at ramping up offshore drilling leases and stopping the Biden administration’s methane emissions fee.

The legislation would also fund increased military readiness, grow the U.S. Navy and build an ‘integrated air and missile defense to counter threats,’ according to a summary provided by Graham’s office.

Graham also signaled the bill would be deficit-neutral, with his press release stating that its $342 billion in new spending will be offset by the same amount of money in savings.

Per the Senate’s plan to split Trump’s reconciliation priorities into two bills, it is expected that extensions to Trump’s Tax Cuts and Jobs Act – as well as other key Trump proposals, such as eliminating taxes on tipped and overtime wages – will be in a second plan released at a later date.

Republicans plan to use their majorities in the House and Senate to pass a wide swath of Trump policy initiatives, from extending the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act to funneling more cash to operations at the U.S.-Mexico border.

The budget reconciliation process makes that possible by lowering the threshold for Senate passage from 60 votes to a simple 51-seat majority. Because the House already operates on a simple majority threshold, it will allow Republicans to skirt Democratic opposition to pass their agenda – provided the measures included involve budgetary or other fiscal matters, as reconciliation rules call for.

The first step in reconciliation is advancing a resolution through the House and Senate budget committees, which will then give instructions to other committees of jurisdiction that will eventually form a final bill.

The Senate’s plan differs significantly from the House’s intended approach.

While both sides agree on what should be passed via reconciliation, House GOP leaders and Republicans on the Ways & Means Committee are concerned that the intense political maneuvering the process takes will mean they run out of time before passing a second bill with Trump’s tax cuts at the end of this year.

A Ways & Means Committee memo sent earlier this year projected the average American household could see taxes rise by over 20% if those provisions expire at the end of 2025.

Trump himself has repeatedly called for ‘one big, beautiful bill’ but said he ultimately was not concerned about the packaging as long as all of his priorities were passed.

House Republicans had intended to move one bill through their budget panel this week, but the process was stalled as spending hawks pushed for deeper funding cuts than what GOP leaders initially proposed.

Conservatives have insisted that any plan Republicans pass must be deficit-reducing or deficit-neutral.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., told reporters on Friday morning that he was playing ‘phone tag’ with Graham due to their schedules but signaled he still intended for the House to move ahead with their plan next week.

‘I sent him a text message early this morning and explained where we are in the process and how it’s moving aggressively,’ Johnson said.

He told reporters he hoped for a House Budget Committee markup of the bill as early as Tuesday. 

Graham, meanwhile, intends to advance his bill through committee on Wednesday and Thursday.

Senate Republicans are meeting with Trump at Mar-a-Lago on Friday night.

Fox News’ Daniel Scully contributed to this report.

: Republican lawmakers are calling on the Trump administration to investigate President Biden’s dismissal of a lawsuit claiming millions in fraud from a green energy project the day after the 2024 election.

In 2011, President Barack Obama’s Treasury Department granted Tonopah Solar Energy, LLC hundreds of millions of dollars for the construction of a green energy solar plant, the Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project, in Nevada.

However, the energy group was eventually sued by CMB Export, LLC for alleged fraud involving approximately $275 million of taxpayer dollars in a qui tam lawsuit, which is a case on behalf of the government claiming fraud against federal programs. The case was being investigated by the Department of Justice (DOJ), until the Biden administration filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit on Nov. 6, 2024 – the day after the presidential election.

In a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi, obtained first by Fox News Digital, Republican Reps. Lance Gooden, R-Texas, and Carol Miller, R-W.Va., are sounding the alarm over the previous administration’s decision to halt the potential recovery of taxpayer funds.

‘Despite investing three and a half years in investigating this case, it is deeply troubling that the DOJ reversed its position shortly after the presidential election, claiming the dismissal was in public interest and citing undue burdens on federal agencies,’ the letter reads. ‘This decision is perplexing, given that the government stands to lose nothing by allowing CMB Export, LLC, to proceed with the case.’

The letter asks that Bondi investigate the Biden administration’s rationale for dismissal, potential conflicts of interest, timeline of events, and accountability regarding the possible misuse of taxpayer funds.

‘The American people soundly rejected the Biden administration’s radical Green New Deal agenda and fraudulent coverups when they voted for President Trump,’ Miller told Fox News Digital. ‘Our understanding is the Crescent Dunes project was an energy proposal that cost American taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars, produced less energy than promised, and posed safety concerns for individuals working on the project. With President Trump back in the White House, transparency is now the standard for the federal government.’

Biden’s DOJ claimed the dismissal was ‘commensurate with the public interest,’ and that litigation obligations would impose ‘an undue burden’ on the government, two claims that are being called into question in the new letter.

The letter asks if there is any evidence that the timing of the motion was politically influenced, coming right after the election loss, and if the DOJ’s decision to dismiss a case that seeks to recover taxpayer dollars conflicts with its responsibility to uphold accountability in cases of alleged fraud against the government.

‘The allegations in this case represent not just potential financial fraud but a breach of public trust,’ the Republican lawmakers wrote. ‘The Crescent Dunes project, like other failed ‘green energy’ initiatives, has already cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars, and the dismissal of this case raised serious concerns about the previous administration’s commitment to protecting public funds and prosecuting fraud.’

The lawmakers asked that the DOJ conduct an internal investigation into the case, and upon reevaluation, consider allowing CMB Export, LLC, to continue its charge against the solar company.

‘The American people deserve accountability and transparency in how their tax dollars are used, especially in cases involving allegations of fraud on such a significant scale,’ the letter reads.

A top House Republican is moving to make it harder for China to procure advanced U.S. technology amid longstanding concerns about intellectual property theft by Beijing.

‘My proposed legislation will establish safeguards to prevent future shocks like China’s development of DeepSeek using American technology. In addition to the chips China reportedly stockpiled, it appears China used chips under the current export control threshold to achieve this AI breakthrough,’ House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Mark Green, R-Tenn., told Fox News Digital.

‘This scenario should be a wakeup call — if you give the CCP an inch, it will take a mile. The CCP’s craftiness is coupled with a total disregard for legal and security considerations. We already know that the CCP uses technology to oppress its own citizens and to commit acts of espionage and sabotage against the United States, including major cyberattacks.’

DeepSeek is an artificial intelligence (AI) software company based in Hangzhou, China. Its AI chatbot is known to be similar to ChatGPT, which was made by California-based OpenAI.

DeepSeek’s release of the new high-profile AI model that costs less to run than existing models like those of Meta and OpenAI sent a chill through U.S. markets.

Its popularity in U.S. app stores has also renewed concerns about Chinese companies collecting American data, as well as the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) censorship practices.

The surprise DeepSeek release also displayed how China’s economic competitiveness has far outpaced the ability of U.S. business leaders and lawmakers to agree on what to do about it. 

The U.S. Commerce Department is now looking into whether DeepSeek used chips that were banned from entering China via sanctions, Reuters reported. 

Green’s bill would put export controls on certain national interest technology and intellectual property to China.

It would also call for sanctions against foreign actors who sell or purchase such items to and from China, as well as Chinese entities who knowingly use items covered by the export controls.

The head of the FBI Agents Association (FBIAA) is cautiously optimistic that newly minted U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi will steady the ship at the Department of Justice (DOJ) after turbulent weeks since President Donald Trump took office.

FBIAA president and CEO Natalie Baratold Fox News Digital in an interview this week that she is eager to see if Bondi will make good on her pledge to end political weaponization at the FBI and the Justice Department. 

This new leadership could reduce some of the heat agents have felt in recent weeks, she said, citing firings and forced departures of some personnel – as well as a questionnaire requiring agents to detail their roles in the Jan. 6 investigation. 

Bara pointed specifically to Bondi’s vows to not go after Trump opponents or chase down any so-called ‘enemies lists,’ two promises Bondi cited repeatedly last month during her confirmation hearing.

‘I’m optimistic about her statements moving forward, in that she has stated that people would not be targeted for simply doing their job,’ Bara said. ‘So I think we are optimistic in moving forward.’

Even so, she added, ‘there are still real concerns about compiling lists when looking at this stuff and being able to potentially release agents’ names.’

FBIAA, a voluntary professional association, represents more than 14,000 active and retired FBI special agents. The agency joined nine anonymous FBI employees earlier this week in suing the Justice Department to block access to records of agents involved in the Jan. 6 investigation, citing fears of internal punishment or retaliation, as well as threats to the agents or the agents’ families should their names be made public.

The judge in the case, U.S. Judge Jia Cobb, is expected to rule on their request for emergency injunctive relief early Friday afternoon.

The interview comes as rank-and-file DOJ and FBI employees have been roiled by recent firings at DOJ, forced resignations or retirements of FBI personnel and a detailed questionnaire sent to thousands of FBI agents asking them to detail their involvement in the Jan. 6 investigations. 

Justice Department acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove attempted to assuage FBI agents’ fears. He stressed in a recent email that the effort was simply to obtain and review what role agents played in the Jan. 6 investigation, and was not intended to be a precursor to a mass expulsion of employees.

The lawsuit filed this week emphasized their intent to ensure their identities were not released to the public and that they were not retaliated against for doing their jobs. 

Bara underscored these deep-running concerns to Fox News, noting that FBI employees and the agent association ‘didn’t have much clarification on what that list was going to be utilized for, besides a broad statement of just personnel actions,’ when the DOJ issued its request.

‘So it raised a lot of concern within the bureau – mainly because we have seen over the past few weeks the associate U.S. attorneys on the investigation be terminated, and then our seventh floor leadership be presented with ultimatums to either retire or be terminated.’ 

Other former department officials cited similar concerns in recent days, expressing fear that any mass purge of employees could compromise decades of agency experience across the bureau’s more than 52 field offices, who have deep knowledge of complex issue areas ranging from counterterrorism and violent crime to drug trafficking, cartel activity and more. 

‘It takes a really long time to get an agent hired and through the process,’ Bara told Fox News Digital, citing the lengthy background check and clearance process, as well as training at Quantico, Virginia. 

‘We can’t just pick somebody up off the street tomorrow and make them an FBI agent,’ she said. ‘So when we lose FBI agents – whether it be through retirement or some sort of ‘mass purge,’ to use a term that’s been thrown around in the media, it will take years and years and years, if not decades, to replace that experience.’

‘That’s scary for everyone at the bureau because we need to be able to have those people standing next to us to be able to get this work done.’ 

Bara said the ‘best case scenario’ is that the identities of the FBI agents are kept private and that the installation of permanent leadership at DOJ and FBI will resolve the controversy as DOJ commits to a process for looking at the Jan. 6 investigations.

‘I don’t know of an FBI agent who doesn’t stand by their work, so we welcome a review of the work,’ she said. ‘But we are just concerned that it will be done in a thorough and fair manner.’

In 1967, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting burst into being under the Lyndon Johnson administration with a mission of ensuring ‘universal access to non-commercial, high-quality content and telecommunications services.’

By 1970, both PBS and NPR sprang forth from the CBP, and Americans were treated to the ‘News Hour,’ ‘Sesame Street,’ British comedies and science programming at a time when there were only three networks, cable TV was strictly for the boondocks, and VCRs were science fiction.

A big part of the reason that programming was limited was that production costs for broadcasting were incredibly high. In David Grzybowski’s book, ‘The Big Story,’ he cites Philadelphia news anchor Larry Kane talking about how hard it was during the 1979 Three Mile Island nuclear scare to just get a live TV shot from Harrisburg to Philly:

‘I know we had a live microwave, but the microwaves didn’t go that far. I think we sought some satellite time. I’m not quite sure. The satellite times in those days were $5,000 a minute.’

Five grand a minute! Today, I have done broadcast-quality, live interviews from Harrisburg to New York with my phone. I could do them from Tokyo or Tora Bora, too.

In other words, the core mission of CBP, to ensure universal access to high-quality programming, has been rendered all but irrelevant by technology. The agency is getting $535 million in taxpayer funds in the current budget, yet anyone with a laptop and a Wi-Fi connection can access billions of hours of programming, and even broadcast content themselves.

Much of this online programming is non-commercial. Colleges and universities offer free classes, museums and libraries offer a universe of free archives.

What has clearly happened over the past two decades is that, absent its original mission, public broadcasting found a new one, and this new mission is purely ideological, ludicrously leftist, and has nothing to do with access.

Take this telling statement from NPR’s CEO Katherine Maher, ‘Our reverence for the truth might be a distraction getting in the way of finding common ground and getting things done.’

Getting what done, exactly? It’s a radio station, it’s not a political body. In fact, the original 1967 CBP legislation requires ‘strict adherence to objectivity and balance in all programs or series of programs of a controversial nature.’

Not even the staunchest defender of public broadcasting could suggest with a straight face that objectivity and balance are among its scant qualities these days.

Put simply, public broadcasting is a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist anymore. In 1967, it might have made sense to fund alternatives to the expensive private programming funded by corporate advertising. Today, it makes no sense at all.

There is no reason or excuse for taxpayer dollars to go towards obviously biased news coverage in an age when information is quite literally at everyone’s fingertips.

Make no mistake, I am grateful that when I was 10, I got to see ‘Monty Python,’ ‘Dr. Who,’ Bob Ross, and the ‘McLaughlin Group’ on PBS. But for my son, and millions of Americans today, it doesn’t serve that purpose at all.

One of the hallmarks of President Donald Trump’s frenetic first few weeks in office has been to look at every program, every dollar, and ask if it is being spent wisely in furtherance of America’s goals. Another way of framing that is to ask, is this department or agency fulfilling its mission?

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting has not been fulfilling its mission for decades now. In fact, it is often in rank violation of it, especially with its one-sided coverage of social and political issues.

As former NPR editor Uri Berliner, now with the Free Press, has outlined, the bias was unmistakable. In the Hunter Biden laptop story he wrote:

 ‘The laptop was newsworthy. But the timeless journalistic instinct of following a hot story lead was being squelched. During a meeting with colleagues, I listened as one of NPR’s best and most fair-minded journalists said it was good we weren’t following the laptop story because it could help Trump.’

That is really all you need to know. There is no reason or excuse for taxpayer dollars to go towards obviously biased news coverage in an age when information is quite literally at everyone’s fingertips.

There have been calls to reform PBS and NPR. Not even cheeky suggestions like a show for Steve Bannon to balance things out.

But as hilarious as the facial expressions would be on the Vermont couple in the Subaru with the ‘Coexist’ bumper sticker when Bannon’s voice came out of the speakers, there is no reform that can fix a government project that simply has no reason to exist anymore.

Thanks for the memories, public broadcasting, but it’s best that we all just move on.