I’m a professor at a well-known research university. And, well, maybe it won’t surprise you too much that I lean towards liberal Democratic views.
Another thing—yes, I also listen to National Public Radio.
It’s pretty obvious that both our prestigious universities and NPR have a liberal slant. We don’t often say this openly, though. There’s a sort of fear that acknowledging it might inadvertently support President Trump, who has a knack for distorting our intentions. But if we want to combat his falsehoods, honesty seems like the best approach.
Back in May, Trump signed an executive order aimed at stopping public funding for NPR and other broadcasters created by Congress in 1967. His reasoning? He claimed that NPR engages in “radical spreading disguised as ‘news.'” That, in itself, is a piece of propaganda. There’s no solid evidence that NPR pushes out “radical” misinformation, although one can’t deny a certain liberal bias.
After all, it does cater to an audience like mine. A 2019 Pew survey revealed that 87% of those who consider NPR their primary news source identify as Democrats, while only 12% are Republicans. That’s not a slight lean—it’s a clear divide.
But yes, audience preferences do influence NPR’s reporting. A major issue highlighted by business editor Uli Berliner showed how NPR’s political bias affected coverage around significant events like the Russia allegations and the Hunter Biden laptop controversy back in 2016. He was put on leave and resigned shortly thereafter.
NPR then tried to manage the fallout. Rather than acknowledging the concerns Berliner raised, his supervisor accused him of being disloyal and, strangely, of misbehaving.
There’s a real fear here. As NPR’s Managing Director Tony Cabin mentioned, the next time our reporters challenge Republican leaders, they might get cut off simply because those lawmakers consider NPR biased.
A month after the executive order, Trump urged Congress to recover a substantial $1.1 billion designed for public broadcasting over the next two years. The Senate is expected to address this proposal soon. If they don’t move on it by July 18, it expires. But, with Republicans holding a majority, it could very well pass.
However, had NPR taken last year’s criticism seriously instead of defending itself, the situation might look different today. It’s not exactly a beacon of radical propaganda, but there’s no question it has a Democratic leaning. If they admitted that openly, it could earn them more trust from skeptics.
This mirrors the situation at elite universities. Despite claims of political neutrality, everyone knows that’s a fallacy.
Take Harvard, for instance. Despite significant criticism from Trump’s administration, a 2023 survey found that 77% of faculty identified as “liberal” or “very liberal,” whereas only 2.5% identified as conservative. A similar trend holds at Yale, where liberal professors outnumber conservatives by an astounding 28 to 1.
And, I mean, if you think this doesn’t impact our teaching methods, you might not be paying attention. Scholars at Claremont McKenna College discovered that out of a vast collection of syllabi, popular works like Ta-Nehisi Coates’ bestselling memoir are heavily assigned, while perspectives from authors like John McWhorter, who critique some of Coates’ views, are rarely highlighted.
Let me clarify: the university isn’t being run by “Marxist maniacs,” as Trump has charged. If that were the case, my students, many of whom pursue careers in finance or consulting, would be poorly prepared for their futures.
But yes, we are pushing a certain brand of political liberalism. If we don’t address Trump’s misinformation—and the cutbacks in research funding that follow—we’re really just feeding into his narrative.
Some of my fellow Democrats might bristle at the thought of conceding anything in this debate. They may think that recognizing the political imbalance at NPR or in our universities could somehow empower our adversaries.
But it’s the opposite. The very role of journalists and scholars is to critique the world around us, and that includes our own institutions.
By not doing so, we give Trump a significant victory in this fight. He seeks to stifle research, discourse, and the free exchange of ideas. It’s ironic—and tragic—that in trying to resist him, we might be falling into the same trap.
Jonathan Zimmerman teaches education and history at the University of Pennsylvania and serves on the advisory board of the Albert Lepage Center for History in the Public Interest.
