Executive Order 14290, titled "Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Biased Media", is an executive order signed by U.S. president Donald Trump on May 1, 2025 to end federal funding for NPR (a radio network) and PBS (a television network) by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) and by federal agencies, alleging biased news coverage in violation of the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 (PBA) and that public funding for news programming was "not only outdated and unnecessary but corrosive to the appearance of journalistic independence" in the current U.S. media market.

CPB, PBS, and NPR executives issued press releases arguing that the executive order was unlawful under the PBA and that the organizations would explore how to continue providing programming while challenging the order. On May 27, NPR and three public radio stations sued the Trump administration for ending their federal funding under the executive order, citing it as a violation of the First Amendment. On May 30, PBS sued the Trump administration for ending their federal funding under the executive order.

Before the executive order was issued, the CPB filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration on April 28 after Trump attempted to fire three of the five members of the CPB's board of directors, while the CPB also filed a lawsuit against the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in March 2025 for halting their funding under the Next Generation Warning System Grant Program within the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System.

FEMA released the funds on April 24. On June 8, District of Columbia U.S. District Court Judge Randolph Moss ruled against a preliminary injunction requested by the CPB in its lawsuit against the attempted director removals since the CPB changed its by-laws afterward under the District of Columbia Nonprofit Corporation Act to prevent any authority, including the President of the United States, from removing a director without a two-thirds vote of the other directors, which allowed for the directors to keep their positions. On July 15, the Trump administration filed a separate lawsuit to remove the same CPB directors.

Although the CPB is required under the PBA to facilitate the development of public broadcasting in the United States with "strict adherence to objectivity and balance in all programs or series of programs of a controversial nature", the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held in 1975 that the "objectivity and balance" requirement under the law was an aspirational obligation rather than a legally enforceable standard, and the D.C. Circuit suggested that if it were a legally enforceable standard, it would be more restrictive than the fairness doctrine of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and raise "substantial constitutional questions" if it was analogously enforced. In 1978, the D.C. Circuit reiterated these concerns in a case that struck down an FCC regulation for noncommercial broadcasters, stating that an enforceable "objectivity and balance" standard "would raise serious constitutional questions, particularly in light of the Supreme Court's cautious approval of the more limited fairness doctrine in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC." While the FCC fairness doctrine established a requirement for broadcasters to present programming that covered controversial issues of public importance with the opportunity for the presentation of contrasting viewpoints, the FCC gave broadcasters wide discretion to determine how to comply with the regulation.

Despite the Supreme Court's decision in Red Lion Broadcasting, the FCC repealed the doctrine in 1987 after studying the evolution of mass communications case law, the advancement of broadcast technology, and the doctrine's application in practice since its promulgation in 1949, and ultimately concluded in a 1985 report that the doctrine was chilling speech and probably violated the First Amendment under intermediate scrutiny. Referencing the D.C. Circuit Court decisions and the FCC's decision to repeal the fairness doctrine, a 1994 Yale Law & Policy Review (YLPR) article argued that if the fairness doctrine violated the First Amendment, then a legally enforceable "objectivity and balance" requirement under the PBA does as well a fortiori since they both impose content-based restrictions on speech that would not satisfy strict scrutiny due to overbreadth and vagueness, and that a legally enforceable "objectivity and balance" requirement for CPB funding would qualify as an "unconstitutional condition" under Rust v. Sullivan (1991) since it would infringe on the free speech rights of grant recipients outside of a government-funded program.

A 1994 Federal Communications Law Journal (FCLJ) article made similar arguments about the constitutionality of a legally enforceable "objectivity and balance" requirement. However, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) noted in a 2024 report that the Supreme Court stated in Rust v. Sullivan that even if government programs require speech to operate, the government may "selectively fund a program to encourage certain activities it believes to be in the public interest, without at the same time funding an alternative program" and held that the government can implement content-based restrictions within its own programs. At the same time, the CRS noted that the Supreme Court also held in Legal Services Corp. v. Velazquez (2001) and USAID v. AOSI I (2013) that the government is not permitted to create conditions for funding that leverage control of private speech outside of government-sponsored programs, and that the general principle of the unconstitutional conditions doctrine was established in Perry v. Sindermann (1972), where the Supreme Court stated that the government "may not deny a benefit to a person on a basis that infringes his constitutionally protected interests—especially, his interest in freedom of speech."

In reports issued in 2017 and 2025, the CRS noted that the CPB was congressionally incorporated as a private nonprofit corporation under the PBA, while PBS and NPR were privately incorporated as nonprofit corporations in turn by the CPB in 1969 and 1970 respectively. However, the CRS also noted in a separate 2017 report that the Supreme Court held in Lebron v. National Railroad Passenger Corp. (1995) and Department of Transportation v. Association of American Railroads (2015) that a declaration by Congress that a corporation is a governmental or private entity is not dispositive when determining that status in judicial review. Citing the CPB as a point of comparison, the Lebron decision also held that a corporation is a governmental entity if it was created by law to further governmental objectives and if the government retains the authority to appoint a majority of its board of directors. Referencing Lebron, a 2007 University of Pennsylvania Law Review (UPLR) article argued that despite the congressional declaration in the PBA that the CPB is a private corporation, federal courts could still hold that the CPB is a governmental entity since it was created under the PBA and the government appoints all of its directors.