Three members of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting’s board were dismissed this week by President Donald Trump, triggering a lawsuit that could reshape how much control the executive branch can exert over institutions designed to operate independently of partisan politics.
On April 29, CPB and its Board of Directors filed suit in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., seeking a declaration that the president lacks the authority to remove board members before their six-year terms expire. The action follows an April 28 message, described in the complaint, in which a White House official informed Laura Ross, Thomas Rothman, and Diane Kaplan that they were no longer members of the board.
The Public Broadcasting Act of 1967, CPB’s founding statute, provides that a board member may be removed only for failing to attend at least half of the year’s meetings. The complaint argues that “there is no statutory authority for the President to remove a CPB Board member prior to the end of their term,” and warns that such interference “would chill CPB’s independence.”
Congress established CPB as a nonprofit corporation that is not part of the federal government. Although it receives public funding, CPB is, by law, a “nonprofit corporation… which will not be an agency or establishment of the United States Government”, and its board members “shall not… be deemed officers or employees of the United States.” These provisions, found in 47 U.S.C. § 396(b), reflect lawmakers’ intent to keep CPB free from political pressure. Its structure allows it to distribute federal funds while remaining institutionally distinct from executive control.
That goal also shapes how board members are appointed. Under 47 U.S.C. § 396(c), political affiliation may not be a factor in selection, and no more than five of the nine appointees may belong to the same party. These safeguards were adopted to help ensure that public media remains broadly representative and shielded from partisanship.
This commitment to editorial freedom was explicit from the start. Upon signing the Act, President Lyndon B. Johnson said CPB “must be carefully guarded from government or party control,” and “must be free, and it must be independent—and it must belong to all our people.” Congress echoed that view in its legislative report: “Noncommercial television… must be absolutely free from any Federal Government interference over programming.” (113 Cong. Rec. 31587; S. Rep. No. 90-222, at 11).
CPB does not produce or broadcast programs. Instead, it funds more than 1,500 local public radio and television stations. A CPB fact sheet notes that over 70% of its annual appropriation goes directly to those outlets. The Act prohibits any federal official or agency from influencing what stations air with those funds.
Observers say the president’s move is part of a broader push to assert control over government-adjacent bodies that traditionally operate independently. Since returning to office in January, Trump has sought to remove or replace leaders at several such entities, including the Office of Government Ethics and the National Labor Relations Board. Legal challenges have followed, focused on whether fixed-term appointments can be cut short without specific congressional authorization.
The CPB case touches on a long-running debate over the limits of executive power. In Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935), the Supreme Court ruled that Congress can protect members of certain agencies from being fired without cause—such as misconduct or neglect—affirming that independence is a permissible goal. In Seila Law v. CFPB (2020), the Court found that a single-director agency structure violated the Constitution’s separation of powers, but explicitly left in place protections for multi-member boards like CPB’s.
A report by the Congressional Research Service explains that the degree to which Congress can insulate an entity often depends on its function—whether it enforces laws, resolves disputes, or administers public resources.
“The President cannot remove CPB Board members merely because he prefers different political views or priorities,” the complaint states, arguing that Congress deliberately withheld such authority to preserve the organization’s independence.
A ruling for CPB could reinforce legal constraints on executive removals at other independent commissions. A decision favoring the White House could widen presidential authority and weaken long-standing checks on partisan influence in public service.
About Author
