Kari Lake Urges Defunding of PBS, Calls It “Anti-American” and “Left-Wing”
Swoboda Condemns PBS Bias but Defends Funding; Trump Has Long Opposed Federal Support for PBS and NPR
Arizona GOP Chair Gina Swoboda sent out a mailer on August 14 that recently surfaced on social media in which she blasted PBS for viewpoint discrimination but stopped short of supporting efforts to eliminate its public funding.
The statement marked an unusual break from Republican leaders who have long pushed to defund public broadcasting, and it drew swift backlash from conservatives. Radio host Garret Lewis and Turning Point USA executive Tyler Bowyer were among those who publicly challenged Swoboda’s position. Whether fellow Republicans will ultimately rally to preserve PBS remains uncertain.
“President Petersen is correct to call out PBS imposing viewpoint discrimination on a candidate they do not support — but eliminating public broadcasting isn’t the answer. Public broadcasting has value, especially now when corporate media is consolidating and shutting down. Just four years ago, people were rightly concerned that only a handful of powerful interests owned the news. Public broadcasting is supposed to be a safeguard against that — a place for non-editorialized statements of fact.”
Swoboda continued:
“But when taxpayer-funded media engages in viewpoint discrimination, as ASU and PBS did in blocking a candidate they do not support, it destroys that trust. Without investigative journalism — like Arizona Republic’s Stacey Barchenger’s reporting — the public would never have known what happened. That’s why PBS must tell the people of Arizona exactly what steps they will take to ensure this never happens again. If they can’t, all we’ll have left is private journalism, and that’s not good for balance either.”
Emphasizing constitutional stakes, she added:
“The First Amendment protects a free press — but it also comes with the responsibility to avoid imposing political agendas and to protect the public from government-funded media being weaponized. The balance in the First Amendment is vital, and what happened here is bad for the people of Arizona.”
Original image by Kelly, with edits by GROK — Kari Lake on the trail during the 2022 election.
While Swoboda stops short of defunding, Lake sees zero value in PBS.
State 48 News editor Christy Kelly broke down the PBS fight in the Arizona Globe. For the deep dive, Rachel Alexander has the full play-by-play in The Arizona Sun. ICYMI, here are the highlights you need to know:
Key Revelations
Michael Crow & Mi-Ai Parrish Involved: Newly released emails confirm that ASU President Michael Crow and Mi-Ai Parrish, a former Arizona Republic publisher now serving as an ASU media executive, actively coordinated to secure favorable media treatment for Katie Hobbs. Instead of allowing the traditional gubernatorial debate format, they worked to arrange a solo PBS interview for Hobbs after she declined to debate Kari Lake.
Crow’s Email: In one exchange, Crow stressed the importance of maintaining control over ASU’s “venue and brand,” insisting on “structure…and format…….and….people who believe in elections as participants.” His language suggested that participation was being framed in partisan terms rather than neutral journalistic standards.
Parrish’s Response: Parrish replied directly to Crow’s comments with a telling question: “What outcome are you seeking?” Critics point to this as evidence that ASU officials were less concerned about impartial coverage and more focused on engineering a favorable political result for Hobbs.
Kari Lake’s Response
Election Interference Claim: Kari Lake has seized on the emails as proof of what she alleged during the 2022 race — that taxpayer-funded institutions colluded to disadvantage her candidacy. She accused ASU, PBS, and Michael Crow of “blatant election interference,” stating that their actions “robbed me of my First Amendment rights” and denied her a fair platform to address Arizona voters.
Demand for Accountability: Lake is now calling for President Crow’s removal, arguing that his leadership turned a taxpayer-funded university and media outlet into political tools that benefited Hobbs. She also suggested the actions may have been unlawful, saying the revelations “proved what we knew all along” about bias in the 2022 election.
Public & Political Fallout
Neutrality Undermined: The revelations have cast serious doubt on PBS’s long-standing claim of journalistic independence. By granting Hobbs exclusive access while denying Lake the traditional debate stage, critics argue that PBS abandoned its role as a neutral platform.
Reaction from Officials: Tom Collins, executive director of the Arizona Clean Elections Commission, said Parrish’s role was “a shock,” especially coming from a public media representative. He cautioned that “viewpoint-based distinctions between speakers are not something that public entities should be lightly contemplating,” underscoring the potential constitutional and legal concerns.
Broader Concerns: Lake and her supporters argue that this incident is part of a larger pattern of media bias in Arizona. For them, the emails confirm long-held suspicions that powerful institutions tilted the scale in Hobbs’ favor during one of the most closely watched gubernatorial races in the country.
What’s Next
Growing Pressure on Crow: The political pressure is intensifying, with Lake and other critics demanding Crow’s resignation. Lawmakers are beginning to echo these calls, suggesting his leadership has eroded public trust in both the university and its media arm.
Push for Investigations: Legislative leaders and media watchdog groups are already preparing to pursue oversight hearings, with some calling for independent investigations into whether ASU’s involvement crossed ethical or legal boundaries. These steps could shape not only Crow’s future but also the governance of taxpayer-funded media institutions in Arizona going forward.
POTUS: Defund Public Media
At the federal level, on May 1, 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14290, dismantling federal funding for public broadcasting. The order accused NPR and PBS of perpetuating partisan bias, and called for a reset of taxpayer-supported media. Congress followed suit with the Rescissions Act of 2025, stripping $1.1 billion from CPB’s budget by July 24. News outlets like PBS and NPR have filed lawsuits, asserting the move breaches the First Amendment and statutory protections.
President Trump has made his position on PBS clear for years. Here are a few posts if you’re wondering where he stands on the issue.
I don't see the argument for allowing election deniers like Lake from participating in an election debate, when she'll simply say the election was rigged if she loses. Folks who have no faith in our election process have no business in participating in the process.
Regardless of the personalities involved, there's no delegation of authority from the several States to Congress to establish and maintain a press other than for archival purposes. Hence NPR and PBS are unconstitutional.