WRFH/Radio Free Hillsdale 101.7 FM - Under the Radar: 05.02.25

Episode Date: May 5, 2025

This week on “Under the Radar,” hear about an executive order defunding public media, a bill that commits to moving America from 5G to 6G internet, a Supreme Court case about which immigrants will receive temporary protected status, and more. I’m your host, Luke Miller, and on this show we’ll cover the news you didn’t catch this week from the mainstream media. While they’re covering the President’s latest tweets, here you can hear about the new legislation, executive orders, and Supreme Court decisions that affect you. Welcome, to “Under the Radar.” 

This is Under the Radar on Radio Free Hillsdale 101.7 FM. Now, here's your host, Luke Miller. This week on Under the Radar, hear about an executive order defunding public media, a bill that commits to moving America from 5G to 6G internet, a Supreme Court case about which immigrants will receive temporary protected status, and more. I'm your host, Luke Miller, and on this show, we'll cover the news you didn't catch this week from the mainstream media.

While they're covering the president's latest tweets, Here you can hear about the new legislation, executive orders, and Supreme Court decisions that affect you. Welcome to Under the Radar. The first piece of news I have for you this week is an executive order signed by the president on May 1st entitled Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Biased Media. The goal of the executive order is to defund the CPB, which is the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which encompasses NPR and PBS, or National Public Radio, and the Public Broadcasting Service. CPB receives about $535 million in taxpayer funding every year, according to Pew Research, and the executive order claims that government funding of news media in this environment is not only outdated and unnecessary, but corrosive to the appearance of journalistic independence.

This executive order, unlike many others that the Trump administration has signed, is not just a cut to the spending or assigning a particular agency head to look at cutting spending. this bill entirely cuts all direct and indirect federal funding for NPR and PBS. Now, the first thing I want to point out is the fact that NPR and PBS are going to be just fine. Federal funding is not even their primary source of funding, which means that they're still going to survive even without the federal funding, but the federal government gets to cut $535 million of annual spending here. And that's not to say that NPR and PBS won't be affected by that loss of money at all. It certainly is a lot of money that they're losing.

However, for anyone who's worried that Sesame Street isn't going to be on the air anymore, they're going to be just fine. The organizations are going to stay intact, even without the federal funding. The second thing I want to talk about here is the Trump administration's claims that NPR and PBS are biased, or at least ideologically leaning. In a recent Fox News article, former NPR editor, Yuri Berliner, revealed that while he was editor there, registered Democrats outnumbered registered Republicans in the NPR newsroom 87 to 0. It means there was 87 registered Democrats and zero registered Republicans. And that's who was determining the streamline of media through those public sources. Now, there are plenty of private news organizations that are like this.

We all are aware of the fact that there are more left-leaning news outlets and there are more right-leaning news outlets. However, NPR and PBS aren't up front and honest about the makeup of their reporting teams. NPR and PBS both claim to be neutral and unbiased, and they kind of have to as publicly funded sources. If you're going to use taxpayer money, you have to at least, give the impression that you're doing work that will benefit all taxpayers and do so with the authoritative stamp of governmental approval. However, beyond just the 87 Democrats to zero Republicans make up of the NPR newsroom, there have been other reasons for the Trump administration to argue that these organizations aren't unbiased. For example, a couple years ago, Sesame Street ran a segment

where they brought a gay couple on to talk to kids about the importance of gay marriage and adoption of children into households with homosexual parents, things like that. Another example in 2016, PBS released a movie called Real Boy, which follows the transition journey of a teenager and forwards an ideology that at the very least a lot of people across the United States wouldn't necessarily want their tax money going to support. There are many other examples, but there is reason to believe that at the very least these publicly funded organizations are taking an ideological side to some extent, as opposed to remaining entirely neutral. And the reason that you would expect them to remain at least semi-neutral on these hot-button issues is the fact that they are not just

funded by one side of the political aisle. They are funded by taxpayers, which means that people who don't support that kind of ideology are being forced to subsidize it through their tax dollars. And that's why there's a difference between public media and private media. You have a choice whether you would like to donate to the Daily Wire or to the Young Turks or to various left-leaning or right-leaning private news organizations, that's your choice. And if you choose to donate your money that way, you have an expectation that they're going to spend your money in a way that aligns with your values. Or at least you're aware of that before donating money. With public media, you don't necessarily have a say in how that money is used. So that's at least the argument

behind this executive order is that if you remove public funding from CPB, which funds NPR and these organizations are going to survive. They will be privately funded and the donors can have an influence on the kind of ideology that they support. However, half of the country is not subsidizing certain ideological reporting or biased reporting that they're not supportive of. Another thing that the Trump administration referenced in regard to this executive order is the allegedly skewed coverage by NPR and PBS of the Hunter Biden laptop story in 2020. Those outlets both suppressed that story claiming it was misinformation, disinformation. And if information, you know, comes from a federally funded source, you would expect it to be authoritative, or at least fact-checked

and neutral for that matter. But the Trump administration argues in this executive order that government-funded media is no longer necessary. I was happy to see that the executive order stated that it doesn't matter which ideology NPR and PBS are promoting, that if they are taking a side, a political side, they're stepping out of their boundaries as a publicly funded organization. So that's the aim of this executive order. It's going to defund. entirely CPB, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and its subsidiaries, NPR, and PBS. The next piece of news I have for you this week is a bill that just passed the House of Representatives this week, entitled The Future Uses of Technology Upholding Reliable and Enhanced Networks Act, or the Future Networks Act.

We have to make everything an acronym in the House of Representatives these days, but the point of the bill is to establish what they're calling the 6G Task Force. So I didn't actually know this, but when you see 4G internet or 5G internet, it's referring to the generation of network technology that's going on. So we're now in fifth generation industry network technology. The point of this bill is to establish a governmental task force that will work with private tech companies and networking companies within the communications industry to set new network speed standards for the sixth generation of internet network technology to make progress towards developing that. technology and finding the best way to use it. The task force will also try to find any supply chain or cybersecurity limitations that might be stopping the development of technology within that industry. The task force is given a year to work with these private industry companies and come up with a written roadmap for what we need to do to get us to 6G faster. As of right now, 6G is expected around

2030 and the goal of this task force is to identify the limitations. that we face in technological development and work to eliminate them so we can try to speed up that timeline for 6G a little bit. So what's that actually going to do in effect? Well, the last development from 4G to 5G was focused on increasing download speeds and increasing the range that the fifth generation of network

would be able to cover. Now, 5G went worldwide in 2019, and there's been a rather significant technological development since 2019 that would require some advancements in network technology. And that would be the public AI forums. With more and more people using things like chat GPT, there's a demand for internet that will be able to better process and work with websites and apps like that that require so much processing to happen. It puts a much bigger strain on the network. And so one of the big goals for 6G internet is to be able to

better accommodate more people using these AI platforms at the same time. A couple other interesting projections about what 6G is going to look like. There have been some estimates that 6G is going to be up to a thousand times faster internet speeds from the 4G and 5G integration that's still going on now. Another thing that the industry is working on developing is what they're calling Wi-Fi implants, and it's like a network chip that you could put into your phone, into your device that will allow it to have Wi-Fi wherever it goes. It can kind of be its own router, which I think would be a pretty awesome development. At that point, if you're paying for Wi-Fi, you'd be able to access the internet literally anywhere. I know I could use to have something like that in situations where I find myself

without internet, without connection to Wi-Fi anywhere. If you had a Wi-Fi chip in your phone that allowed you to have access to the internet anywhere, that would certainly be a useful development. So that's something that these technology companies are working on developing with this 6G internet. And that's what the bill hopes to subsidize. The goal is for the 6G task force, the governmental task force to work with private companies and assist in hastening the development of these technologies. You're listening to Under the Radar with Luke Miller on Radio for Hillsdale, 101.7 FM. The next piece of news I have for you this week is an appeal by the Trump administration that has just reached the Supreme Court this week about whether the Secretary of Homeland

Security can revoke temporary protected status from a particular country. The way that the temporary protected status program works is that usually, the DHS Secretary can allow foreign citizens to come and stay in the United States without becoming American citizens if they cannot return safely to their home country because of natural disaster, armed conflict, or some other extraordinary and temporary conditions in the foreign country. The way that this program normally works is that the secretary has to terminate the temporary protected status designation when a country no longer meets those criteria. In 2021, President Biden's DHS Secretary Alejandro Majorcas designated the country of

of Venezuela under the TPS program, the temporary protective status program, because Venezuela was facing what he called a severe humanitarian emergency, with millions unable to access basic health care and adequate nutrition. They also claimed that limited access to safe water and health care centers contributed to the spread of COVID-19. So that was the origin of the temporary protected status from Venezuela. Now, with the incoming Trump administration, DHS Secretary Kristy Noem, in February tried to terminate the TPS designation of Venezuelan nationals. Now, a group of Venezuelan nationals and an organization that represents TPS beneficiaries, sued the Trump administration in San Francisco,

seeking to postpone the termination of Venezuelan nationals under TPS. In March, U.S. District Court judge Edward Chen ruled against Christy Noem and the Trump administration, barring Christy Noem from ending the designation of Venezuelans under TPS. He actually apparently claimed that Christine Nome trying to seek to lift an existing TPS designation was unprecedented and suggested that her attempts were predicated on negative stereotypes about Venezuelan migrants. In the current case, the Trump administration solicitor general D. John Sauer wrote that the decision rested control of the nation's immigration policy away from the executive branch and imposed the court's own perception as to whether the government's actions might contradict U.S. foreign policies have adverse. national security ramifications or weaken the standing of the United States and the international community, which were all phrases that the district court judge used to say that Christine Noam could not

revoke TPS status for Venezuela nationals. Now, the case is being heard this week, so the Supreme Court has not made its decision yet. But I think it is worth noting that a district court judge claimed that he could shut down a presidential action or the actions of the executive branch because they might contradict U.S. foreign policies, they might have adverse national security ramifications, or they might weaken the standing of the United States in the international community. That's a rather expansive view of the role of judges in this country. If a judge can shut down executive action because he thinks it might, quote unquote, weaken the standing of the United States in the international community, then a judge could

literally shut down anything. I mean, that's such a low bar for a district court judge to be able to shut down federal policy, and it's entirely based on his opinion. The judge also claimed that it was unprecedented for the DHS secretary to attempt to lift a TPS designation, but that just flies in the face of how the TPS system is supposed to work. It's temporary protected status. It's not permanent. And the original TPS designation was placed in 2021, and part of the reasoning for that was COVID, which is not an issue anymore. The TPS designation is supposed to be lifted when the conditions that originally were used for the designation are no longer met. Yes, Venezuela is still in economic turmoil, but at a certain point, the U.S. federal government has to make the decision that the country needs to get back on

its feet by itself at this point, and we can't keep taking refugees, essentially. And that's supposed to be the DHS secretary's job to determine when that happens. Christy Noem tried to do that, and the judge said that her decision was based off of negative stereotypes about Venezuelan migrants. And based off of that, he was able to issue sweeping preliminary relief that overrides any of Christy Noem's decisions about the matter and puts her efforts on hold indefinitely. And it isn't a small number of refugees we're talking about here. The Solicitor General claimed that there were hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan migrants in the country now under this temporary protected status that would be eligible for deportation if the temporary protected status was revoked. And whether you agree or disagree with the deportation efforts, it seems to be hard to argue that the judge is not. not overstepping his boundaries when he claims that it's his job to judge what might weaken the

United States standing in the international community. His job is to override actions that violate the law, not that violate his opinion of what makes the United States look good. And that seems to be what he's trying to do here. So the Solicitor General's arguments have been heard by the Supreme Court. We're now waiting to hear back from the TPS beneficiaries law firm. They're going to speak before the Supreme Court this upcoming week. So stay tuned for what might happen next in that case. The next piece of news I have for you this week is a bill that was just introduced in the House of Representatives called the Made in America Manufacturing Finance Act. What the bill would do is it would increase the loan limit for small businesses from $5 million to $10 million, so it doubles it. This is regarding

just what they call 7A and 504 small business manufacturing loans. And what that means is the government loaning money to small manufacturing companies to kind of inject some money that'll help them to invest and expand their businesses. Now, part of President Trump's campaign in 2024 was to bring manufacturing jobs back to the United States. This bill seems to back up that kind of promise. According to the U.S. Small Business Administration, nearly 99% of manufacturers in America are small businesses. And the way that you see businesses grow is through loans. They have to get loans in order to invest in more, whatever more might be for them, whether it be more workers, whether it be more equipment, whether it be bigger facilities, whatever it might be.

And when small businesses upscale into more production, that's going to create more jobs. So that's the goal of the bill. In order for manufacturing to expand in the United States, you have to invest money into it. And the way that our government does that is through these 7A and 504 small business manufacturing loans. Now, apparently, under the Trump administration in the first 100 days, approvals for these small business manufacturing loans have increased by 74%, which means a couple of things. First of all, small businesses are foreseeing good economic conditions for expansion.

And what that means is that they think that the economy is going to be stable enough over the next couple of years that they can afford to take out a multimillion dollar loan to expand and that they'll make that money back to be able to pay the loan off. One of the factors that economists use in predicting the future of the economy is how much money is being taken out in loans at that time. And that's an indicator of how businesses foresee the future going. And how businesses foresee the future going determines how they invest their money, which determines the rate of growth. So if we're looking at manufacturing growth rates in the United States, you probably will see them grow if you're seeing small business loan approval go up by that

much in a short amount of time. What the bill would hope to do is to expand the amount of money that the government can loan to these small business manufacturers. If they can double that amount of money that's going to be double the investment into small business manufacturing in the United States, which would hopefully grow jobs and decrease reliance on other countries for things that we could produce domestically via these small businesses. That's been the underwriting goal of the Trump administration's attempt to bring manufacturing jobs back to the United States is, well, one to boost the American economy, but also to decrease American reliance on other countries for products. That's why the tariff system is now going into effect. That's why we're having all

these trade negotiations with other countries. That's the end goal is to boost the American economy and to decrease reliance on other countries. This bill seems to back that agenda that President Trump forwarded in his 2024 campaign, and it pairs really well with what the Trump administration is actually doing right now. Now, here's the other side of that coin. If you increase the loan approval rate and you increase the amount of money that you can loan out to these small businesses, while there is going to be some growth among those small businesses, they're going to invest it, they're going to grow, you're spending a lot of money there. That's a lot more money that the government is investing in these small businesses that's at least going to be temporarily out of its

hands. And when you increase the loan approval rate, you also increase the odds that you're not going to get some of that money back. Because a lot of those small businesses, as they try to expand, are going to fail. That's just how small business works in the United States. A lot of them are going to grow and make that money back and be able to pay the government back, but a lot of those businesses are going to fail too. So a lot of this money is being spent, not just invested, but spent. And that's the flip side of the coin. So if this bill were to pass, it would certainly inject some investment money into the small businesses in the United States, which would be good for growth, at least in the short run, but it's certainly a risk for the government to do as well.

The last piece of news I have for you this week is an executive order signed by the president on April 28th, entitled Strengthening and Unleashing America's Law Enforcement to Pursue Criminals and Protect Innocent Citizens. The executive order claims that safe communities rely on the backbone and heroism of a tough and well-equipped police force. When local leaders demonize law enforcement and impose legal and political handcuffs that make aggressively enforcing the law impossible, crime thrives, and innocent citizens and small business owners suffer. So to counter that, there's a few things that the executive order does. First of all, it establishes a legal defense fund for wrongly accused law enforcement officers. A couple of the other important things the executive order does is it hopes to increase the pay and benefits for law enforcement. officers. It hopes to expand access to and improve the quality of training for state and local law enforcement

officers. And the goal of all these things is not just to have a more efficient police force, but it's to incentivize people to join the police force. I mean, being a police officer is a very difficult job. It's dangerous. You're dealing with crime and violence all the time. It's just hard to incentivize people to join those ranks, especially when we've seen recently law enforcement officers being targeted for wrongful conduct or racism or discrimination or whatever might be. That's not to say that those things don't happen sometimes, but there's a target on police officers back now, just culturally speaking. And that makes it difficult to incentivize people to join the police force. So that's part of what the executive order does, is it hopes to increase pay for police officers. It hopes to increase and expand legal protections

for police officers. And it sets up a way for the federal government to help out police officers who have been wrongfully sued by state or local officials. The other important part about this order is the money that it sets aside to invest in the expansion and security of prisons, because apparently the Bureau of Prisons, which is the prison management system, is in a lot of trouble. Apparently, they're chronically short staff, their buildings are deteriorating. The overcrowded prison population has expanded to over 10% according to the Marshall Project, which means that the federal prisons are 10% overcrowded. And I've heard of many instances where prisons are not taking people in, where they're just releasing

criminals because they just don't have any more room to house them. So it's definitely worth note that the executive order sets aside money to invest in security and capacity for prisons, because that's a real issue right now that not many people are talking about. And it's something hopefully the Trump administration will address through the funding in this executive order. So to summarize this week, we had two executive orders, one that defunds NPR and PBS, and the other that hopes to strengthen and support state and local police forces. We had two bills, one which invests money into 6G internet and another which would allow the government to loan more money to small businesses. And lastly, we had a Supreme Court case about whether the Secretary of Homeland

Security will be able to revoke Venezuelan Nationals temporary protected status. Tune in next week for more. Well, that's all I have for you today on Under the Radar. I'm your host, Luke Miller, and I want to thank you for listening and encourage you to tune back in next time for more coverage of the news that fell Under the Radar. You're listening to Radio Free Hillsdale 101.7 FM. Thanks for listening to Under the Radar with Luke Miller, here on Radio Free Hillsdale, 101.7 FM.