One of the attendant tragedies of the recent defeat of Conservative leader Pierre Poilievere in the Canadian federal election was the imminent defunding of the CBC, Canada's state broadcaster, which consumes $1.4 billion a year in taxpayer funds and yet still supplements that income with ad revenue.

For years, in articles, speeches, and monographs, I have argued that the CBC is not only an affront to free speech but completely unnecessary in a traditional media world that has been subsumed first by many cable news networks and then the internet.

The Liberal Government of Mark Carney, brought to you in part by the influence of President Donald Trump, who endorsed Carney on three occasions during the Canadian election campaign, is committed to increasing the funding of the CBC.

So it is not without irony that the Trump administration is doing the right thing for Americans by defunding the National Public Radio (NPR) and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) through an executive order. Together, these government-funded media approximate what Canada has with the CBC: a nationwide radio and television network that seeks ever-increasing sources of taxpayer resources while also freelancing with private advertising.

The primary reason to oppose taxpayer-funded media and support Trump's defunding is apparent: subsidized media is bought press. It will inevitably be influenced by its funding source, especially when it overwhelmingly comes from just one source. The same could be said of any news outlet functioning due to Big Pharma's largesse. The same applies to many cable news outlets bought and regulated by drug companies.

Nonetheless, the Trump administration has assiduously explained why it will defund these public media. And it's not just about the bias or the sanctity of maintaining a free press in America.

A White House news release explained the justification for the end of the gravy train:

"National Public Radio (NPR) and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) receive taxpayer funds through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB). Unlike in 1967, when the CPB was established, today, the media landscape is filled with abundant, diverse, and innovative news options. Government funding of news media in this environment is outdated, unnecessary, and corrosive to the appearance of journalistic independence."

"At the very least, Americans have the right to expect that if their tax dollars fund public broadcasting, they fund only fair, accurate, unbiased, and nonpartisan news coverage. No media outlet has a constitutional right to taxpayer subsidies, and the Government is entitled to determine which categories of activities to subsidize. The CPB's governing statute reflects principles of impartiality: the CPB may not "contribute to or otherwise support any political party." 47 U.S.C. 396(f)(3); see also id. 396(e)(2).

"The CPB fails to abide by these principles to the extent it subsidizes NPR and PBS. The viewpoints that NPR and PBS promote do not matter. What does matter is that neither entity presents a fair, accurate, or unbiased portrayal of current events to taxpaying citizens."

When reading this, one is struck by several items of interest, but the overwhelming sense is that there is virtually no justification for continuing to fund state broadcasters, not just because they pose a danger of becoming a government mouthpiece but also a Deep State mouthpiece.

This is precisely what has happened in Canada with the CBC, in the UK with the BBC, and with NPR and PBS. While both organs are state broadcasters, they have been very selective in reflecting the opinions and goals of that state, usually only stating the objectives of the Government when the Democratic Party controls it. Although NPR is probably more inclined to cross the line from objective journalism to Democratic activism, PBS has exhibited such tendencies.

That is the very definition of the work of the Deep State: a bureaucracy that is not necessarily working for the current Government but the one it wishes to see return to power.

This is precisely what has happened to NPR/PBS. They have gone beyond parroting the talking points of the Government of the day. Because they have become vested interests in bloated bureaucracies, these media outlets have become spokespersons for the Government they want to see in power—and please keep the money flowing.

Who will suffer at NPR/PBS due to Trump's defunding? Not so much the journalists – most of whom are competent professionals who could find jobs in the private sector – but the executives who run these enterprises and earn excessive salaries they could never get in the real world, where remuneration is based squarely on performance and the station's success. However, NPR/PBS doesn't ultimately have to worry about performance because the government checks are always coming.

So, if state broadcasting is inherently opposed to good governance and freedom of the press, it is also unnecessary. Why does the American taxpayer need to pay for media outlets of any kind at an age when someone like you or I can create our news program on YouTube or Rumble and get on with it? Why do we need special news-gathering groups when more news is available online than could ever be imagined by legendary newspaper moguls like William Randolph Hearst?

The trend toward market-induced diversity began with CNN's 24-hour, seven-day-a-week cable news cycle almost four decades ago. That revolution spawned hundreds of other such cable news options, offering everything from news to cooking, all shades of news, and all forms of cuisine. Suddenly, it wasn't just CBS, NBC, and ABC anymore; it was a vast media universe, and it was time for NPR/PBS to join them.

Most people of value at NPR/PBS – the journalists, producers, and contributors – could easily transition to the private sector. For years, these state-run organs have been telling us they merit taxpayer subsidy because they are such inimical examples of journalistic integrity and produce programming of such overwhelming and evident merit. If their culture and programming are incredible, why can't they sell it on the open market? Why can't they survive without public money? That irony has, I believe, been the best and most obvious argument for defunding these organizations. They can't have it both ways: either they are producing shows of such excellence that they couldn't fail in the free market, or they are broadcasting crap that taxpayers shouldn't be expected to pay for.

As a Civil War writer and reenactor, I was captivated by Ken Burns' 1990 PBS documentary. It is probably the best work and will stand the test of time. I still watch it today. Burns created many more brilliant works that achieved and set the mark for documentary excellence.

Would these works have been produced if PBS had not received its government funding? Did David O'Selznick need a check from President Franklin Roosevelt to make Gone with the Wind? Was Michelangelo on the government dole? No, he found patrons. That's like advertising, pay-per-view, or the patrons on YouTube.

Unfortunately, like NPR, PBS is not producing news on any such level.

So, of course, there will be pushback from the left about defunding NPR/PBS. They believe you should have to pay to hear and see their opinions. The Democrats don't want to lose that constant companion during election campaigns or that constant critic of Republican administrations that are successfully exposing and cutting massive amounts of government waste.

They don't want to lose their sidekick – especially when you're paying for it.

But there's no legitimate reason you should be paying for it, and it's time to say goodbye to public funding for NPR/PBS.