Public Media at a Crossroads: Disability Equity, Fiscal Constraints, and a New Home for Sesame Street

Introduction: A Converging Set of Challenges

The future of public broadcasting in the United States has entered a period of profound uncertainty. Two federal actions—Executive Order 14290, signed in May 2025, and H.R. 4, the Rescissions Act of 2025, have converged to place the funding of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), NPR, and PBS in jeopardy. While one is framed as a presidential directive aimed at eliminating perceived “bias” in publicly funded media, and the other as a legislative measure to enforce fiscal discipline, both converge on the same outcome: the destabilization of a public infrastructure that for decades has provided education, civic engagement, and accessibility to underserved populations.

Within this changing landscape, the cultural icon Sesame Street has been compelled to adapt, securing a new distribution arrangement to ensure its survival. The move underscores both the resilience of public media and the growing reliance on private partnerships to fill gaps left by diminished federal support. Taken together, these developments raise urgent questions about disability equity, fiscal responsibility, and the enduring role of public broadcasting in a democratic society.

Executive Order 14290: Disability Equity Under Attack

On May 1, 2025, President Donald J. Trump signed Executive Order 14290, titled “Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Biased Media.” The directive instructed all federal agencies, including CPB, to end both direct and indirect funding for NPR and PBS. By June 30, 2025, the funding restrictions were slated for implementation. Lawsuits filed by NPR and PBS soon followed, citing violations of the First Amendment and the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967. In parallel, a codifying bill (H.R. 3675) was introduced in Congress, seeking to transform the Executive Order into statutory law.

The implications for disability equity are profound. Unlike many commercial outlets, NPR and PBS have long offered accessible content, ranging from captioned broadcasts and audio description to plain-language programming and sign-language interpretation. For individuals with disabilities, these are not ancillary features but essential tools for equal participation in civic life. The termination of federal support risks dismantling this infrastructure, creating disproportionate harm to people with disabilities, rural families, and communities who rely on accessible, publicly supported media.

Perhaps equally concerning is the lack of stakeholder engagement. No evidence suggests that disability advocates or accessibility experts were consulted before issuing the Order. This omission reflects a recurring pattern in policymaking where accessibility is treated as an afterthought rather than an integral element of democratic governance.

H.R. 4: Fiscal Oversight or Cultural Collateral Damage?

While Executive Order 14290 advanced through executive action, H.R. 4 represents a legislative attempt to impose broad budget rescissions. The bill proposes to retract approximately $9.4 billion in previously appropriated funds, primarily targeting foreign aid and international development programs. Embedded within its provisions, however, is a sweeping cut to CPB—eliminating funding for fiscal years 2026 and 2027.

Supporters of H.R. 4 argue that the bill exemplifies fiscal prudence, ensuring taxpayer resources are not squandered on unnecessary expenditures. Yet when examined closely, the proposed rescissions reveal consequences that extend far beyond arithmetic savings.

In foreign policy, cuts to programs such as PEPFAR and international disaster assistance risk undermining humanitarian relief, global health initiatives, and regional stability. These are not merely moral obligations, but strategic investments that reduce the likelihood of future crises requiring military or economic intervention.

Domestically, the elimination of CPB funding threatens the stability of public broadcasting stations, particularly in rural and underserved regions where commercial media outlets provide limited coverage. Beyond children’s programming and local news, public broadcasting delivers critical emergency alerts, educational content, and civic resources that would otherwise be inaccessible.

Moreover, H.R. 4 raises procedural questions. The use of a rescissions package to revoke multi-year appropriations appears to test the boundaries of the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, suggesting not only a policy dispute but also a structural tension in how fiscal authority is exercised between Congress and the Executive.

Sesame Street Finds a New Home: Innovation Amid Instability

Amid these twin challenges, Sesame Street—perhaps the most recognizable product of American public broadcasting—has been forced to adapt. For its 56th season, the program will premiere on Netflix, while still airing on PBS and PBS KIDS platforms in the United States. This dual arrangement ensures that the series remains available to the families who have relied on it for more than half a century, despite the funding cuts to CPB and PBS.

The new season also introduces creative shifts. Episodes will be restructured into two 11-minute narrative segments, featuring new visual aesthetics and character-driven storytelling. Innovations such as Cookie Monster’s Foodie Truck and Abby’s Fairy Garden are designed to reflect evolving educational practices and to capture children’s attention in shorter, more engaging formats.

At the institutional level, Sesame Workshop, the nonprofit organization behind the series, has simultaneously expanded its global mission. Awarded the Elevate Prize Catalyst Award in 2025, it secured $250,000 in funding and international recognition for its work in over 150 countries, addressing issues from trauma-informed education to health awareness campaigns. This broader footprint illustrates how nonprofit resilience and private partnerships can sustain programming that public funding no longer reliably supports.

Yet, while Sesame Street has found a safety net through Netflix, smaller public media initiatives may not be as fortunate. The adaptability of one cultural icon cannot obscure the systemic fragility now confronting public broadcasting.

Shared Implications: Equity, Access, and Resilience

The developments surrounding Executive Order 14290, H.R. 4, and Sesame Street’s new home illuminate a common thread: the vulnerability of public media when funding becomes politicized or subjected to austerity measures.

For disability communities, the risk is especially acute. Public broadcasting has historically prioritized accessibility in ways that commercial markets often neglect. The erosion of this infrastructure threatens to widen existing inequities in access to education, information, and cultural participation.

At the same time, the case of Sesame Street demonstrates both resilience and limitation. Its survival reflects the power of public-private partnerships but also raises concerns about sustainability. Not every program can command the market presence required to attract corporate or streaming-platform partnerships. Without a robust CPB, countless smaller productions dedicated to local news, cultural preservation, or community education may vanish entirely.

This is the delicate balance confronting policymakers: fiscal responsibility must be reconciled with the broader human, cultural, and strategic impacts of policy choices. Public broadcasting is not a luxury but an essential component of democratic life; one that fosters inclusion, resilience, and civic trust.

Conclusion: Preserving Public Media as Democratic Infrastructure

At its core, the debate over Executive Order 14290, H.R. 4, and Sesame Street’s new home is not merely about dollars and cents. It is about whether public broadcasting remains a cornerstone of democratic infrastructure or becomes collateral damage in the pursuit of budgetary discipline and ideological realignment.

Yes, fiscal prudence is necessary. But when prudence is divorced from equity, the result is not efficiency; it is exclusion. Accessible public media ensures that every child can learn, that every family can remain informed, and that every community can participate in civic life.

Policymakers, advocates, and the public must recognize this moment for what it is: a crossroads. To safeguard the principles of accessibility and inclusion, we must support public broadcasting not as an optional expenditure but as a national commitment to equity.

Sesame Street’s survival demonstrates what resilience can achieve. But the true test is whether our broader society can extend that resilience to the many voices, programs, and communities that lack such iconic recognition. Protecting public media is not only about preserving cultural touchstones—it is about ensuring that democracy itself remains accessible to all.

Thank you for taking the time to engage with this issue. Your willingness to reflect on the future of public media helps safeguard not only programs like Sesame Street but the principle that information, education, and culture must remain accessible to all.

Warm regards,

Ian Allan

Self-Advocate for The Arc of Northern Virginia

Ian Allan is a self-advocate with a deep commitment to policy literacy, systems change, and disability justice. Through The Arc of Northern Virginia, he works to ensure that people with intellectual and developmental disabilities are not merely served by systems, but are actively shaping them.