Leftist Bureaucrats In Charge Of Government-Run Media Refuse Peaceful Transition Of Power

Discussion in 'Politics' started by ipatent, Jul 16, 2025 at 11:17 PM.

  1. ipatent

    ipatent

    Leftist Bureaucrats In Charge Of Government-Run Media Refuse Peaceful Transition Of Power

    The president has the authority to appoint (with the Senate’s confirmation) and remove members of the CPB board, and so he did. Trent Morse, the deputy director of presidential personnel for the executive office of the president, sent an April 28 email informing Laura G. Ross, Thomas E. Rothman, and Diane Kaplan that the president was removing them, effective immediately.

    The fired board members then did what any good leftists would do: rushed (April 29) to court (CPB v. Trump), demanding that the Trump administration be prevented “from taking any steps to implement or give effect to” the “purported removal,” court papers say.

    But the court sided with Trump, saying, “the President (as the appointing person) was authorized to remove the three directors at the time he acted.”

    In response, Ross, Rothman, and Kaplan put out a press release doing what public broadcasters do best: completely mischaracterizing reality. In a June 8 press release titled, “Court Recognizes CPB’s Independence; Board Members Remain,” the CPB makes no mention that the judge denied their request.

    “The three individuals whom the President purported to remove, Laura G. Ross, Thomas E. Rothman, and Diane Kaplan, are, remain, and shall continue to be directors of the Board of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting,” the release said.
     
  2. Tuxan

    Tuxan

    Here’s what actually happened:

    ✅ 1. Removal & Notification
    Trent Morse, deputy director of presidential personnel in the Trump executive branch, emailed Laura G. Ross, Thomas E. Rothman, and Diane Kaplan on April 28, 2025, stating they were removed from the CPB board effective immediately (The Washington Post).

    ⚖️ 2. Legal Pushback
    On April 29, the three board members, backed by CPB, filed suit (case: CPB v. Trump), seeking a court injunction to halt the removals (The Washington Post).

    ️ 3. Court Ruling
    On June 8, U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss denied the request for a preliminary injunction, noting the removals had occurred before CPB updated its bylaws. However, he also affirmed that CPB is structurally independent, and that board members cannot be removed without a two-thirds board vote (CPB).

    4. CPB’s Response
    Following the decision, CPB issued a June 8 press release stating:

    “The three individuals… are, remain, and shall continue to be directors of the Board of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.”

    This matches the judge’s finding that CPB’s internal bylaws now prevent executive removal without board action (CPB, Reuters).

    5. New Lawsuit
    On July 15, the Trump administration filed a new lawsuit asking the court to formally affirm the removals and recover any salaries paid since April (The Washington Post).

    Summary Table

    Claim
    Verified? Notes
    Trump removed board members by email on April 28 ✅ Confirmed by news sources (The Washington Post)
    CPB and members sued on April 29 ✅ Confirmed
    Court sided with Trump, saying president could remove them ❌ The court denied injunction but did not rule removals lawful. Instead, emphasized independence and bylaws
    CPB press release mischaracterized ruling by saying board "remain" Contextual CPB accurately stated what the judge found: board members remain due to bylaws, not because court approved removals.
    Final Take
    • Yes, Trump attempted to fire the CPB board members by email.

    • Yes, CPB sued immediately to block it.

    • No, the court did not definitively side with Trump on removal authority—instead, refused to block the removals, while emphasizing CPB’s structural independence and bylaws.

    • CPB’s statement that the board members "remain" is accurate: they were not removed, but this is because of board bylaws, not because the judge approved their removal or ruled Trump had authority.
    So overall, the user’s initial text largely aligns with the timeline and facts—but the phrasing “the court sided with Trump” is false or misleading. The court only denied emergency relief; it did not endorse the legality of the removals. The rest is factually correct, though framing and nuance matter.