Will Trump and Musk Destroy Public Media and Independent Documentary? It'll Be Close.
Ever since I began covering the independent film industry, I’ve been writing about the death of film companies and faltering industry trends. I’m like the grim reaper of the indie film business, with my personal bibliography reading like a graveyard, littered with shuttered companies, or obsolete business models, including but not limited to the collapse of The Shooting Gallery (2001), Good Machine (2002), The Association for Independent Video and Filmmakers (2006), New York’s independent film scene (2009), Fortissimo Films (2016), SVOD deals (2018), filmmaker development labs (2023), “the golden age of documentary” (2023), “peak TV” (2023), Participant and Cinereach (2024), and many others. In an Indiewire story published yesterday, you can read about my latest potential obit: the fate of publicly-funded media in the age of Trump 2.0, which translates to the potential downfall of the majority of the U.S. independent documentary field.
The article is only the tip of the iceberg. I spoke with a number of people who didn’t make the final edit. Some of their points I’ve included below, because it’s obviously a very complicated issue that could pan out in different ways, but one thing is clear: If Donald Trump and his anti-democratic cronies can wrap their corrupt, self-serving little hands around Congress, they can finally make due on the extremist Right’s promise to gut funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the NEA, and the NEH. (We didn’t think overturning Roe vs. Wade would actually ever happen, but here we are.) And as the Indiewire article makes clear, these organizations form the bedrock for a lot of important independent documentary work, particularly regional filmmakers and social-issue storytellers across the country. And people are really scared about their livelihoods.
After speaking with lots of folks, I’m really not sure what’s going to happen, but I think there’s a good chance that these agencies will survive in some capacity (as will the Department of Education and the Environmental Protection Agency, as much as Trump would like to kill these, as well). The Republican-controlled House of Representatives will ultimately have the final say on putting together a budget, and the G.O.P. margin is very small. If the Democrats are unified in opposition—and there’s no assurances they will be (see the passing of “nonprofit killer” HR 9495 with the help of 15 Dems)—all it would take next year is a few moderate Republicans to say no: We don’t want to destroy the fabric and flow of public information.
“Not that that the NEA or NEH will be abolished, but more importantly that people who have strange ideas—of what art is or is not, or what the humanities are or are not—are put in charge.”
What may be more likely than the all-out destruction of these agencies is their perversion. Like the last Trump Administration, he is likely to appoint individuals to oversee these organizations whose very identity is antithetical to that agency (i.e. appointing a climate-change-denier to lead the EPA in 2017.)
When I spoke to Alyce Myatt, the NEA media arts director from 2011-2013 and a former PBS VP of programming (whose quotes didn’t make it into the final article), she told me her main concern was “not that that the NEA or NEH will be abolished, but more importantly that people who have strange ideas—of what art is or is not, or what the humanities are or are not—are put in charge,” she said.
Knowing that right-wing ideologues might take over PBS in the near future and make it even more conservative than it already is, “Going to Mars: The Nikki Giovanni Project” filmmakers Michèle Stephenson and Joe Brewster were particularly adamant that now is not the “time to back down,” as Brewster said. “I don’t think it’s time to make documentaries about how great it was in the 1950s, because it wasn’t. Give us a public television that allows for risk-taking and critical thinking. Make the mission clear. Don’t water down the mission.”
What will be interesting to see is how the community accomplishes this. Another filmmaker Bernardo Ruiz spoke optimistically that such actions could help public media become less dependent on the federal government, providing an “opportunity for its supporters such as philanthropy and audiences to step up and put their money where their mouth is,” he said. “There must be robust support if we want responsible and ethical work out there with a big platform.”
But some industry veterans worry that dollars will be stretched even thinner than they are now. “Yes, there are private donors and foundations,” Women Make Movies’ Debra Zimmerman told me. “But everyone will be going to them to try to close their funding gaps.”
Indeed, one of the things that worries me about the available pot of funding that has existed in the past for public media and important investigative and social-issue documentaries is that it won’t be there because philanthropists and donors will be too busy trying to buttress basic human rights with their money. When communities are being ripped apart by Stephen Miller’s proto-Nazi anti-immigrant policies or women are dying or wounded in increasing numbers because of the coming crackdown on pregnancy/abortion care, I would expect those dollars to go straight to immigration advocacy groups, abortion funds, and Planned Parenthood rather than documentaries about them.
As I’ve also written about, some funders (i.e. Participant) are already leaving the “impact” media space, because they don’t feel like there’s enough upside, either financially or culturally. I wouldn’t necessarily buy this argument, however, and I think there’s room for serious push-back. As I’ve argued before, one of the reasons that Trump was set to win the election was he managed to drive misinformation and America’s narrative to where most viewers and voters are, from YouTube to X to Instagram to podcasts. (Full-page New York Times op-eds about Trump’s danger to democracy don’t mean diddly squat.)
But with the right resources, creativity, and distribution, I do believe media-makers can get stories out into the world about real people and real issues that will resonate with the broader general public and help turn our current authoritarian oligarchic tide. Because of this, now is actually the time to double-down on funding and distributing progressive media and storytelling—it’s more important than ever.
When I worked at a major university, I reported, in part, to the #3 person in the President's office, who was VP of Public and Government Relations, so he dealt with the Beltway politics for a major (and wealthy) university. He was what I call a polite Republican. His firm belief was that PBS, et al would always survive because it was a favorite kick ball to rile the Dems up and so little money it was not worth killing. And I have read fervent support by the likes of Huckabee (senior, mind you) for the NEA. But with this new administration, no old rules apply, and even if it is kept, they are masters in media manipulation. All bets are off.
Anthony, thanks for this writing and for the IndieWire article yesterday. When you write,"....philanthropists and donors will be too busy trying to buttress basic human rights with their money......I would expect those dollars to go straight to immigration advocacy groups, abortion funds, and Planned Parenthood rather than documentaries about them", I think you are missing what educational and impact campaigns actually do after a film is made . The films are meant to educate and strengthen the work of immigration rights groups or Planned Parenthood. And raise money for them as well. It's a virtuous cycle that works remarkably well, especially if the film is funded with soft money (foundations) and not with investors hoping to make their money back.