Originally published on www.sayerji.substack.com

What happened to me can happen to anyone -- the silencing of dissent is not journalism, it's ideological warfare using your tax dollars.

Introduction: A Turning Point in the Fight for Free Speech

The recent Executive Order by the White House to end federal funding for National Public Radio (NPR) and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) has triggered predictable waves of political outrage. Yet the real story goes far deeper than partisan agendas or culture war talking points. As someone who was defamed, deplatformed, and digitally assassinated by these very networks for exercising constitutionally protected speech, I can attest that this is not a political move -- it's a long-overdue course correction.

Executive Order: A Quote Worth Framing

In the May 1, 2025 Executive Order titled Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Biased Media, President Trump made the following declaration:

"It is the policy of the United States to end the use of Federal funds to subsidize media organizations that use taxpayer money to engage in political advocacy and propaganda rather than balanced journalism. No American should be forced to fund media that do not serve the public interest, misinform citizens, and actively silence opposing views."

This sentiment underscores a crucial reality: taxpayer-funded media must not become megaphones for ideological dogma or tools for suppressing constitutionally protected inquiry and dissent.

The Personal Cost of NPR and PBS's Bias

In 2021, NPR published a hit piece entitled "For Some Anti-Vaccine Advocates, Misinformation Is Part Of A Business," targeting me directly -- not with fact-based refutations, but with character assassination couched in pseudo-journalistic concern. As I documented in my full cross-interview with NPR's Geoff Brumfiel (video here, analysis here), their reporting was riddled with conflicts of interest.

Let's be clear: NPR's "health" section is literally called SHOTS, with a syringe icon -- a not-so-subtle signal of where their editorial allegiance lies. How can any entity operating under the pretense of neutrality and funded by public money use such branding, while dismissing any critique of mRNA vaccine products as "far-right misinformation"?

Here's how Brumfiel opened his inquiry to me:

"I would like your response to those who say you are using false, anti-vaccine conspiracy theories to promote your business."

No mention of the 1,300+ peer-reviewed studies archived on GreenMedInfo.com demonstrating adverse effects from vaccines. No acknowledgment that my site is ad-free and publicly accessible. Just pre-baked conclusions from a narrative dictated not by science, but by sponsors -- notably, NPR's long-standing funders such as the Gates Foundation and PhRMA, the drug industry's lobbying arm.

PBS, once trusted as a nonpartisan, publicly funded news source, has increasingly aligned itself with the financial interests of major corporate and philanthropic power centers. Its NewsHour program, which aired the defamatory segment in question, has received consistent funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation since 2008--an entity deeply enmeshed in global vaccine campaigns and pharmaceutical partnerships. In doing so, PBS has compromised its journalistic integrity by platforming narratives that serve these vested interests while suppressing dissenting voices. The February 17th, 2022 segment is emblematic of this troubling shift, as it rehashes disproven claims without evidentiary support, effectively acting as a mouthpiece for a coordinated censorship agenda rather than offering balanced reporting.

Foreign Influence and the Resurrection of Seditious Libel

Adding insult to injury, NPR and PBS promoted narratives produced by a UK-based group called the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), which orchestrated the infamous "Disinformation Dozen" list, along with its May, 2021 fraudulent report guilty of an astronomical 1300 fold margin of error, yet still not corrected or retracted. That blacklist was cited by President Biden, the US Surgeon General Vivek Murthy (later found covering up vaccine injuries and deaths), in Congressional hearings, by 14 State Attorney Generals, and echoed tens of thousands of times across the media, resulting in mass deplatforming, lawfare, black operations, death threats, DHS accusations of 'domestic terrorism,' and character smearing of citizens who dared question official vaccine policy, as I did, even before the mRNA jabs were deployed in 2020, and going back long before that when UNICEF first smeared Greenmedinfo.com in 2013.

This was not a domestic debate. This was foreign interference aimed at silencing Americans, and part of a larger agenda to censor, adjudicate and criminalize free speech, the details of which you can read about here.

Let that sink in: an unelected, foreign-based NGO coordinated with U.S. government officials and media entities funded by your tax dollars to target and censor American citizens for lawful speech.

Journalism or Ideological Enforcement?

As the Executive Order rightly notes:

"Media entities receiving public funds must maintain a commitment to balanced and impartial reporting. When these organizations instead serve as platforms for one-sided narratives, they undermine public trust and the very rationale for their subsidization."

Instead, NPR and PBS chose to act as gatekeepers, moral arbiters, and ideological enforcers. They labeled dissent "dangerous," framed scientific transparency as "conspiracy," and branded anyone challenging pharmaceutical dogma as extremists.

They violated the spirit of the First Amendment -- not by voicing disagreement, but by amplifying campaigns to silence and punish others. Yet, the human body is a constitutionally protected domain, and what they did was illegal, unethical, and a violation of the Nuremberg code of medical ethics, which are crimes against humanity.

Where Do We Go From Here?

Defunding NPR and PBS is not the end of the road -- it's the beginning of a conversation we desperately need to have about the future of media in America. A publicly supported media apparatus can serve a vital role in an informed democracy, but only if it is:

1. Transparent in its funding and affiliations
2. Accountable to citizens, not special interests
3. Impartial in its reporting, avoiding ideological entrenchment
4. Constitutionally compliant, respecting free speech and due process

We don't need more corporate media monopolies or billionaire-funded echo chambers. But neither can we afford state-funded outlets acting as mouthpieces for suppression.

Conclusion: Reclaiming Public Trust

This moment is not about revenge -- it is about redemption. About restoring public media to its rightful role: amplifying diverse perspectives, facilitating informed dialogue, and holding power to account.

To those who claim defunding NPR and PBS is an attack on free speech, I say: No. Funding state-sanctioned speech while silencing citizens is the real attack.

Let's not abandon public media. Let's transform it -- into something worthy of We the People. And, in the meantime, let's support the rise of the 5th estate of independent, citizen-driven and supported media, like Substack. Your readership and support is what makes it possible!