by Jennifer Shutt, Alabama Reflector
August 20, 2025

WASHINGTON — The Corporation for Public Broadcasting will no longer administer a grant program that has so far provided millions of dollars to local television and radio stations to upgrade the equipment they use to send out emergency alerts.

The change comes after Republican lawmakers voted last month to defund the corporation, following a request from President Donald Trump to zero out more than $1.1 billion in previously approved spending for the organization.

Congress originally formed the Next Generation Warning System grant program in fiscal 2022 and provided the Federal Emergency Management Agency about $40 million during its first year.

FEMA then gave that money to CPB to reimburse stations for infrastructure and other improvements meant to get emergency alerts sent through the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System to more Americans.

That appears on track to change in the months ahead.

FEMA officials wrote in a notice of funding opportunity for the current fiscal year that the grants will now go directly to state and tribal governments that can then award funding to public broadcasting stations that make improvements to their emergency alert systems.

Democrats and some Republicans have raised concerns that without funding from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, local stations wouldn’t be able to raise enough funding to remain in operation, potentially leading to holes in the country’s emergency alert system.

‘Rescission consequences’ for local public media

CPB, which plans to cease operations later this year, announced this week that it would no longer be able to administer the grant funding Congress approved during fiscal 2023 and 2024. The corporation had yet to determine which applicants would receive the funding lawmakers provided for those two years.

“CPB has been fully invested in the NGWS program and its mission to protect the American public,” CPB President and CEO Patricia Harrison wrote in a statement. “This is one more example of rescission consequences impacting local public media stations and the communities they serve—in this case, weakening the capacity of local public media stations to support the safety and preparedness of their communities.”

That could potentially leave much of the $136 million in grant funding approved by Congress in limbo.

CPB wrote in a statement that “FEMA should assume responsibility for disbursing the funds as Congress intended, or most of the FY 2022 funding—and all funds from FY 2023 and FY 2024—will go undistributed.

“As a result, critical emergency alerting equipment will not be purchased, leaving communities, especially those in rural and disaster-prone areas, without the upgrades Congress intended.”

A FEMA official, speaking on background, couldn’t say definitively how the agency would handle funding for those three fiscal years.

The White House and Office of Management and Budget did not immediately respond to requests for comment from States Newsroom on Wednesday about the grant program.

Projects funded so far include:

• Mid-South Public Communications Foundation in Cordova, Tennessee, which received $1.657 million to “replace a transmitter and two emergency generators to ensure the rural agricultural communities in Tennessee, Mississippi, and eastern Arkansas receive timely emergency communications.”
• Blue Ridge PBS in Roanoke, Virginia, which received $1.122 million to “replace critical broadcast infrastructure that will strengthen their signal in the mountainous region to reach more rural communities with targeted emergency alerts.”
• Louisiana Public Broadcasting, which received nearly $2 million to “install transmitters and antennas for KLTL-TV in Lake Charles and KLTM-TV in Monroe and update alerting equipment to enable statewide delivery of alerts and warning messages.”

Congress votes to end public media funds

Kate Riley, president and CEO of America’s Public Television Stations, released a written statement this week calling CPB’s inability to administer the grant program for FEMA “yet another devastating result of the rescission of public media funding.”

She also called on FEMA “to establish a new process for delivering this funding to public broadcasters” and urged “Congress to restore essential direct funding to local stations throughout this country whose communities depend on them for lifesaving public safety services, proven educational resources and essential community connections.”

Trump sent Congress a rescissions request in early June, proposing lawmakers eliminate previously approved funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and several foreign aid accounts.

The House voted mostly along party lines to approve the full $9.4 billion proposal later that month. GOP senators, except Maine’s Susan Collins and Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski, approved a similar bill in July after removing spending cuts to the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR. The House voted to clear the revised legislation a few days later, sending the bill to Trump for his signature. 

Alabama Reflector is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Alabama Reflector maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Brian Lyman for questions: info@alabamareflector.com.

The post Grants to boost local emergency alert systems in question as public media agency closes appeared first on alabamareflector.com

Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.

Political Bias Rating: Center-Left

This content presents a critical view of the Republican-led defunding of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and highlights concerns from Democrats and some Republicans about the negative impact on local emergency alert systems. It emphasizes the consequences of budget cuts initiated by former President Trump and Republican lawmakers, portraying these actions as harmful to public safety and local media. The overall tone and framing suggest a center-left perspective that supports public broadcasting funding and is critical of conservative fiscal decisions affecting it.

by Sam Stockard, Alabama Reflector
August 19, 2025

This story originally appeared on Tennessee Lookout. 

U.S. Agriculture officials announced a new initiative Monday to stop subsidies for solar energy panels that take up farmland while supporting cuts in agriculture grants to Tennessee universities.

Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins introduced the initiative by the Trump administration after a Future Farmers of America breakfast at the State Fairgrounds in Lebanon where she said the federal government will make new grants to bolster Tennessee farming while targeting grants that don’t help farmers’ production.

Rollins criticized the Biden administration’s Inflation Reduction Act and “market distorting incentives” for solar panels, which she said are eliminating Tennessee farmland.

The secretary made the statements even though a study by the nonpartisan Tennessee Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations found that solar facilities aren’t likely to be the “primary driver” of development on farmland for decades. The study also determined that land can be returned to farming once a solar facility goes out of use.

Earlier this year, the federal government made dramatic cuts to higher education grants, including eliminating more than $31 million in funding to the University of Tennessee Institute of Agriculture, which houses agricultural research and resources for Tennessee farmers and communities in 95 counties.

Rollins defended the reductions, saying “Those cuts were being made in programs that did not align with the president’s vision of putting farmers first.”

Deputy Secretary Stephen Vaden of Tennessee described the reduction as a “repurposing” and said changes were made in research funding based on whether a grant “helps a farmer in the field make more money.” Projects aimed at “clean energy” or based on “racial criteria” were eliminated, he said.

In addition to stopping solar panel development on farmland, Rollins announced that nearly $89 million will go toward 13 rural development projects in 28 Tennessee counties to “promote partnerships” and infrastructure investments for rural education. The department has distributed nearly $100 million this year to more than 10,000 farmers through the Emergency Commodity Assistance Program, according to Rollins.

Some farmers have said they expect prices to increase because of President Donald Trump’s tariffs, which are forcing them to pass on higher rates to customers. Rollins said Monday the administration has signed eight new trade agreements expected to boost the nation’s economy.

Tennessee Lookout is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Tennessee Lookout maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Holly McCall for questions: info@tennesseelookout.com.

Alabama Reflector is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Alabama Reflector maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Brian Lyman for questions: info@alabamareflector.com.

The post U.S. agriculture secretary announces end to subsidies for solar panels on farmland appeared first on alabamareflector.com

Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.

Political Bias Rating: Center-Right

The content presents a generally favorable view of policies and officials associated with the Trump administration, emphasizing support for traditional farming interests and criticism of the Biden administration’s approach to solar energy subsidies and grant allocations. While it includes some factual context and opposing data, the framing and focus on defending cuts to higher education grants and promoting rural development align more closely with center-right perspectives that prioritize agricultural production and skepticism of certain clean energy initiatives.

by Nada Hassanein, Alabama Reflector
August 18, 2025

Heading into the respiratory illness season, states and clinicians are working to encourage pregnant patients to get COVID-19 vaccinations, even though the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services no longer recommends that they should.

Along with being older and having an underlying health condition, pregnancy itself is a risk factor. Pregnant women are more vulnerable to developing severe illness from COVID-19. They’re also at high risk for complications, including preterm labor and stillbirth. The vast majority of medical experts say getting the shot is safe and effective — much safer than having the illness.

But HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced in May that the agency would no longer recommend that pregnant women get the vaccine. Before testifying before Congress in June, Kennedy circulated a document on Capitol Hill claiming higher rates of fetal loss after vaccination. But the authors of those studies told Politico that their work had been misinterpreted.

Experts say the federal shift puts the onus on state health agencies to ramp up vaccine guidance and outreach. Clinicians and public health organizations are trying to dispel misinformation and make sure information reaches low-income people and people of color, who had higher maternal death rates during the pandemic. During the first two years of the pandemic, the virus contributed to a quarter of maternal deaths, according to federal data.

“We are severely disappointed,” said Dr. Neil Silverman, a professor of clinical obstetrics and gynecology at the University of California, Los Angeles David Geffen School of Medicine. He has studied vaccines and pregnancy for the past 15 years and specializes in high-risk pregnancies.

Silverman called the federal shift a “public health tragedy on a grand scale.”

Vaccinations against COVID-19 help prevent severe illness in pregnant people as well as their newborns, who are too young to get vaccinated, Silverman said. In what’s called passive immunity, vaccinated mothers pass on antibodies to their babies through the placenta and through breast milk.

“State public health agencies are probably going to have to implement vaccine guidance that differs from the federal recommendations. And that’s going to be an interesting can of worms,” said OB-GYN Dr. Mark Turrentine, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the Baylor College of Medicine in Texas.

Turrentine serves on a board of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists that focuses on immunization and infectious diseases. He said his recent pregnant patients who had COVID-19 hadn’t gotten the vaccine.

“The change in guidance on the federal level just really makes a lot of confusion, and it makes it very challenging to try to explain to individuals why all of a sudden the difference,” Turrentine said.

A slew of public health organizations have been making a concerted effort to dispel vaccine myths. They include the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit organization of maternal-fetal experts. At a news briefing the society held this month, clinicians stressed the safety and long-standing science behind COVID-19 vaccines, as well as the shots for RSV and the flu. Cases of RSV and the flu tend to peak in the winter months, while in recent years COVID-19 cases have spiked in the summer and the winter.

Dr. Brenna Hughes, an OB-GYN who chairs the organization’s infectious diseases and emerging threats committee, pointed to survey data from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention showing that less than a third of eligible pregnant patients received COVID-19 shots, and only 38% received RSV shots for the 2023 to 2024 season. Less than half — 47% — received flu shots, and 59% received TDAP (whooping cough) vaccines.

CDC data shows that for last year’s and this year’s season, only between 12% and 14% of pregnant patients got the COVID-19 vaccine.

“The complications from the infection are so much greater than the complications and the very few and typically minor adverse events that might occur from the vaccine,” said microbiologist Sabra Klein, a professor of molecular microbiology and immunology at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

In June, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and 30 other professional health organizations signed a letter urging insurers to continue covering the COVID-19 shot for pregnant women, and have continued to urge coverage since then.

CVS Caremark, one of the nation’s three major pharmacy benefit managers, told Stateline it will continue covering the vaccine for pregnant women. The Arizona, California and North Carolina state Medicaid agencies also told Stateline they are still currently covering COVID-19 vaccines for pregnant women.

Dr. Kimberly Fortner, president-elect of the Infectious Diseases Society for Obstetrics and Gynecology, said during the maternal-fetal medicine briefing that she hopes medical groups’ joint messaging will bolster insurers.

“Hopefully by us linking arms, that can then help develop consistency so that insurers will continue to pay for the vaccine,” she said.

Exacerbating disparities

Dr. Ayanna Bennett, director of the District of Columbia Department of Health, said the federal government’s new stance has upended “a system that’s been stable for a very long time.”

Bennett said her agency used federal pandemic aid to shore up vaccine outreach efforts to communities of color. Now that flow of money is ending.

The changes in federal guidance and funding will “almost certainly exacerbate” maternal health disparities, said Marie Thoma, a perinatal epidemiologist and an associate professor in the University of Maryland Department of Family Science who researches pregnancy and COVID-19.

Black and Indigenous women died at higher rates. The virus exacerbated existing racial disparities in maternal health — and created new ones: Latina mothers, who generally see low rates of maternal mortality, saw deaths surge to 28 per 100,000 in 2021. Their rate was about 12 per 100,000 in 2018, according to federal data.

“We are going in with some exposure already that we didn’t have during the start of the pandemic. So, there will be some protection, but now that will erode,” said Thoma. “If we’re not getting vaccines, or if people are hesitant to take them, we could see some increase.”

Silverman said the administration’s efforts to strip mentions of race from government policies makes it difficult for institutions to reach populations at greatest risk. He called the dismissal of decades of data “saddening and infuriating.”

“The politicization of the vaccine process, or access to it, is what concerns me the most,” said Dr. Yvette Martas, a Connecticut OB-GYN who chairs the board of directors of the Hispanic Health Council.

Many women “are trying to navigate an economic system that’s not always in their favor in terms of also providing access to the kind of educational material that they need,” she said.

Not just COVID-19

In June, Kennedy ousted all 17 members of the CDC’s vaccine advisory committee, replacing them with some members who are vaccine skeptics.

The change is creating chaos. Some states have vaccine laws, such as mandates for kids and coverage statutes, that are specifically tied to the committee’s decisions.

The Vaccine Integrity Project at the University of Minnesota called on frontline health workers, health officials and professional societies to “counter the spread of inaccurate and confusing vaccine information.”

At a news briefing this month held by the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, representatives from Alabama, Connecticut and Washington, D.C., said they will continue to recommend vaccines.

Alabama’s state health officer, Dr. Scott Harris, said clinicians will be instrumental in getting correct vaccination information to patients.

“We don’t think that we necessarily have the same authoritative voice that we might have had a decade ago in trying to guide people in what to do, but we do believe that people trust their health care providers in most cases and are certainly willing to listen to them,” he said at the briefing.

Bennett said she is hopeful that strong, consistent messaging from respected medical organizations will help combat confusion.

“Having established groups like the American Academy of Pediatrics or the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology make very firm recommendations that keep us essentially not changed from where we have been, I think, should reassure families,” she said.

Stateline reporter Nada Hassanein can be reached at nhassanein@stateline.org.

Stateline is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Stateline maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Scott S. Greenberger for questions: info@stateline.org.

Alabama Reflector is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Alabama Reflector maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Brian Lyman for questions: info@alabamareflector.com.

The post Despite federal shift, state health officials encourage COVID vaccines for pregnant women appeared first on alabamareflector.com

Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.

Political Bias Rating: Center-Left

This article leans center-left due to its critical stance on the federal health policy change under HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has controversially rolled back COVID-19 vaccine recommendations for pregnant women. The coverage favors mainstream medical consensus, emphasizing the safety and importance of vaccinations, the risks posed by COVID-19 to pregnant people, and highlighting concerns from public health experts about the policy’s negative impact on vulnerable and minority populations. It critically frames the decision as politically motivated and potentially harmful, which aligns with a center-left viewpoint prioritizing science-based public health policies and equity in healthcare access. However, it maintains a relatively balanced tone by reporting facts and multiple expert opinions without overt partisan language.