Judge Halts Trump Administration Efforts to Dismantle Voice of America

U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth ruled that the government likely violated the law in its rush to dismantle federally-affiliated media groups.

A view of the Voice of America (VOA) building, a day after more than 1,300 of the employees of the media broadcaster, which operates in almost 50 languages, were placed on leave in Washington, D.C., U.S. March 16, 2025. Annabelle Gordon/File Photo/Reuters

A federal judge has ordered President Donald Trump’s administration to reverse its efforts to shut down Voice of America (VOA) and restore the decades-old federal news service.

In an opinion delivered on April 22, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Judge Royce Lamberth sided with plaintiffs suing the administration and U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM) management, saying that they had likely violated the law in the rush to dismantle VOA and other federally-affiliated media groups in line with a March 14 executive order.

“[Defendants] took immediate and drastic action to slash USAGM, without considering its statutorily or constitutionally required functions ... and without regard to the harm inflicted on employees, contractors, journalists, and media consumers around the world,” Lamberth wrote.

He granted a preliminary injunction for plaintiffs ordering that employees of VOA, Radio Free Asia, and the Middle East Broadcasting Network be reinstated and returned to their prior status, noting that some employees were endangered or placed at risk of deportation by the sudden policy shift.

VOA sits under the umbrella of the USAGM, which oversees VOA and other media groups, including several that operate in countries or regions with limited freedom of the press. Those groups include Radio Free Europe, Radio Free Asia, the Middle East Broadcasting Network, the Office of Cuba Broadcasting, and the Open Technology Fund.

USAGM has historically been considered an arm of U.S. diplomacy.

In Executive Order 14238, titled “Continuing the Reduction of the Federal Bureaucracy,” Trump called for USAGM and its subsidiaries to be “eliminated to the maximum extent consistent with applicable law.”

On March 15, the day after that executive order, 1,042 employees of USAGM were placed on administrative leave. Currently, all VOA employees remain on administrative leave “with no indication of returning,” the opinion said.

“As a result of the defendants’ actions, VOA is not reporting the news for the first time in its 80-year existence,” the factual summary read. “Its website has not been updated since March 15, 2025, and radio stations abroad that rely on VOA’s programming have either gone dark or air only music.”

In the injunction, Lamberth pointed to the legal requirement that VOA “serve as a consistently reliable and authoritative source of news.”

The filing also noted potential harms for affected USAGM contractors currently in the United States under a J1 visa, who “face the possibility of deportation to home countries, in some instances those with authoritarian regimes that are hostile to a free press.”

On March 22, plaintiffs affected by the decision brought suit against Kari Lake, the administration’s senior adviser to the CEO of USAGM, and against agents of USAGM who had worked to implement the executive order.

Plaintiffs alleged that in practice, government officials proceeded in “terminating and threatening to terminate the majority of USAGM staff, ending grants to its affiliates, and silencing programming,” which they claimed violated the First Amendment, separation of powers, the Take Care Clause of the Constitution, and multiple congressional laws.

They sought the reinstatement of all employees and staff dismissed in compliance with Trump’s executive order from the six affected media subsidiaries.

In his decision, Lamberth granted plaintiffs’ request only in part, ordering the reinstatement of affected “employees, contractors, and grantees” of VOA, Radio Free Asia, and the Middle East Broadcasting Network. Other groups under the USAGM were excluded.

Because the ruling was preliminary, it will be subject to scrutiny as the trial progresses or an appeal is filed by the government.