Federal Judge Orders Voice of America Staff Back to Work

Objective Facts

A federal judge on Tuesday ordered the Trump administration to restore the Voice of America's operations after large parts of the government-run broadcaster had effectively been shut down a year ago, putting hundreds of employees who have been on administrative leave back to work. U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth gave the U.S. Agency for Global Media a week to put together a plan for putting Voice of America on the air. A federal judge ruled that the administration's dismantling of Voice of America was unlawful and ordered more than 1,000 employees back to work. U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth called Kari Lake's lack of cooperation in the case a "Hallmark production in bad faith." White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said in a statement shared by the U.S. Agency for Global Media the ruling "will not be the final say on the matter." "President Trump was elected to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse across the administration, including at the Voice of America — and efforts to improve efficiency at USAGM have been a tremendous success," Kelly wrote.

Left-Leaning Perspective

Left-leaning and mainstream outlets including NPR, CNN, CBS News, NBC News, and The Washington Post extensively covered Judge Lamberth's ruling as a comprehensive legal defeat for the Trump administration's dismantling effort. These outlets focused on Lake's lack of legal authority—specifically that Lamberth said Kari Lake, who had been Mr. Trump's choice to lead the agency, did not have the legal authority to do what she had done at VOA because she lacked Senate confirmation—and the judge reversed the administration's decision to essentially sideline 1,042 of VOA's 1,147 employees and shrink its operations to the "statutory minimum" required by Congress. Left-leaning coverage emphasized procedural violations and the broader threat to democratic institutions. U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth, a fiery 82-year-old Ronald Reagan appointee who has repeatedly clashed with Lake, found that the plan to shrink the agency was illegal because it violated federal administrative law. Outlets highlighted that Judge Royce C. Lamberth said Tuesday that Lake "repeatedly thumbed her nose" at statutory requirements and that the Trump administration has "made no effort to defend the merits" of its downsizing decision. The framing emphasized press freedom concerns, with Lake and her allies have tried to reshape what little remains of VOA into an overtly pro-Trump messaging operation. But veterans of US-funded international broadcasting say the agency's editorial independence and credibility are essential components for its success. Left outlets also noted the geopolitical implications. "Because every day that (Voice of America) is not broadcasting, is a day we cede the global information space and allow adversaries to fill it with disinformation and anti-American propaganda," Widakuswara said. The ruling was framed as protecting American soft power and democratic values abroad.

Right-Leaning Perspective

Right-leaning outlets and the Trump administration framed the issue differently, centering on government efficiency and perceived media bias rather than legal procedures. LAKE DESCRIBES THE NEWS OUTLET AS "ANTI-AMERICAN PROPAGANDA." "Examples, refusing to call hamas terrorists, glamorizing che guevara, airing campaign style videos favoring president biden, even broadcasting a graphic depicting trump with a swastika over his face on the news. I wouldn't want that even if it were biden by the way, this is totally inappropriate." LAKE'S TESTIMONY OVER V-O-A – ALIGNS WITH THE CRITICISM FROM PRESIDENT TRUMP INSIDE AN EXECUTIVE ORDER SIGNED IN MARCH – ORDERING LAKE TO OVERSEE A MASSIVE REDUCTION OVER THE AGENCY. Rather than accepting the legal ruling as final, "President Trump was elected to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse across the administration, including at the Voice of America — and efforts to improve efficiency at USAGM have been a tremendous success. This will not be the final say on the matter," Anna Kelly, a White House spokesperson, said. When Lake responded to the earlier March 7 ruling, Lake responded Saturday, saying "the american people gave President Trump a mandate to cut bloated bureaucracy, eliminate waste, and restore accountability to government. An activist judge is trying to stand in the way of those efforts at USAGM." Lake claimed that "Judge Lamberth has a pattern of activist rulings — and this case is no different. Conservative outlets and Lake's defenders positioned the judge as an obstacle to necessary reform rather than a neutral arbiter, even noting that Lamberth is an appointee of former President Ronald Reagan—suggesting conservative credentials don't prevent judicial activism against the administration's goals. Right-leaning framing acknowledged efficiency gains: Roughly 1,400 out of more than 2,000 agency jobs were cut, representing about 85% of the workforce since March 2025. $17 million in previously allocated funds were redirected to core mission support, and the lease for a D.C. office building has been terminated to save costs. These numbers illustrate the scale of restructuring at USAGM.

Deep Dive

It has been operating with a skeleton staff since President Trump issued an executive order to shut it down. The underlying conflict traces to March 14, 2025, when Trump signed an executive order to reduce federal agencies to statutory minimums. In public and in court documents, Lake and U.S. Justice Department trial attorneys representing the agency justified their actions by repeatedly invoking Trump's executive order of March 14, 2025. It called for the agency and others to be reduced to "the minimum presence and function required by law." (An accompanying news release was headed "The Voice of Radical America." Trump and Lake have attacked the network's coverage of the U.S. as anti-American as justification for dismantling it.) The judge's core critique was procedural: Lamberth noted that Trump had issued an executive order last year to reduce the "bureaucracy." The order directed several agencies, including the one overseeing Voice of America, to reduce their functions to the minimum required by law. But, as the judge explained, the government proceeded to immediately wind the agency down to "skeletal operations," including placing nearly all staff on paid administrative leave, before determining what its minimum legal obligations were. What each perspective gets right and what they miss: The right correctly identifies that government bureaucracies can be bloated and inefficient, and that some reduction in federal spending is a legitimate policy goal. They also correctly note that Trump won a significant electoral mandate and voters expect executive action. However, they underestimate the legal constraints on how that power can be exercised—the Administrative Procedure Act requires agencies to consider relevant factors, and Congress's appropriations carry binding weight. Left-leaning outlets correctly emphasize rule of law and institutional safeguards, and they rightly highlight that unchecked executive power over media and information threatens democratic accountability. But they sometimes downplay the real problems of government inefficiency or treat every court win as a permanent settlement when appeals and further litigation remain likely. Both sides largely avoid the genuine tension: balancing presidential efficiency goals with Congressional authority over spending and statutory mandates. What comes next will test whether this ruling sticks. Lake had denounced Lamberth's March 7 ruling, saying it would be appealed. Since then, Mr. Trump nominated Sarah Rogers, the undersecretary of state for public diplomacy, to run USAGM. That requires Senate approval, a step that was not taken with Lake. The shift to a Senate-confirmed leader removes the legal authority issue but opens new questions about editorial control. Appeals courts may overturn Lamberth's rulings, particularly on remedies. And he declined to restore hundreds of contractors whose positions were severed under Lake. The judge concluded their fate had to be considered by administrative courts that handle labor disputes within the U.S.—leaving a partial victory for the administration and ongoing litigation over contractors. The political battle is far from over, even if the immediate legal outcome favored VOA reinstatement.

OBJ SPEAKING

← Daily BriefAbout

Federal Judge Orders Voice of America Staff Back to Work

Mar 18, 2026· Updated Mar 20, 2026
What's Going On

A federal judge on Tuesday ordered the Trump administration to restore the Voice of America's operations after large parts of the government-run broadcaster had effectively been shut down a year ago, putting hundreds of employees who have been on administrative leave back to work. U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth gave the U.S. Agency for Global Media a week to put together a plan for putting Voice of America on the air. A federal judge ruled that the administration's dismantling of Voice of America was unlawful and ordered more than 1,000 employees back to work. U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth called Kari Lake's lack of cooperation in the case a "Hallmark production in bad faith." White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said in a statement shared by the U.S. Agency for Global Media the ruling "will not be the final say on the matter." "President Trump was elected to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse across the administration, including at the Voice of America — and efforts to improve efficiency at USAGM have been a tremendous success," Kelly wrote.

Left says: It's a major defeat for the Trump administration's effort to cut the news outlet to the bones. Democratic and left-leaning outlets emphasized the illegality of Lake's appointment and actions, portraying the ruling as a vindication of editorial independence and democratic norms.
Right says: The Trump administration insisted the ruling "will not be the final say on the matter" and reiterated the goal of eliminating waste and bureaucratic bloat at federal agencies. Conservative voices argue the courts are blocking legitimate efforts to reduce government spending.
✓ Common Ground
A bipartisan group of lawmakers appropriated $643 million toward the agency earlier this year, specifying allocations for Voice of America and the other international networks the agency funds. This suggests some shared ground across the aisle that VOA should receive substantial government funding—though left and right disagree sharply on how to use it.
Both sides acknowledge President Donald Trump last week nominated Sarah Rogers, the undersecretary of state for public diplomacy, to replace Lake as head of USAGM. The shift toward Senate-confirmed leadership indicates shared recognition that Lake's appointment was legally questionable, even among those who supported her mission.
Some voices on both sides recognize that Lamberth handed Lake a partial victory; he declined to restore hundreds of contractors whose positions were severed under Lake. The judge concluded their fate had to be considered by administrative courts that handle labor disputes within the U.S. This mixed outcome suggests neither side won a complete victory, which may provide room for negotiation on future governance.
Objective Deep Dive

It has been operating with a skeleton staff since President Trump issued an executive order to shut it down. The underlying conflict traces to March 14, 2025, when Trump signed an executive order to reduce federal agencies to statutory minimums. In public and in court documents, Lake and U.S. Justice Department trial attorneys representing the agency justified their actions by repeatedly invoking Trump's executive order of March 14, 2025. It called for the agency and others to be reduced to "the minimum presence and function required by law." (An accompanying news release was headed "The Voice of Radical America." Trump and Lake have attacked the network's coverage of the U.S. as anti-American as justification for dismantling it.) The judge's core critique was procedural: Lamberth noted that Trump had issued an executive order last year to reduce the "bureaucracy." The order directed several agencies, including the one overseeing Voice of America, to reduce their functions to the minimum required by law. But, as the judge explained, the government proceeded to immediately wind the agency down to "skeletal operations," including placing nearly all staff on paid administrative leave, before determining what its minimum legal obligations were.

What each perspective gets right and what they miss: The right correctly identifies that government bureaucracies can be bloated and inefficient, and that some reduction in federal spending is a legitimate policy goal. They also correctly note that Trump won a significant electoral mandate and voters expect executive action. However, they underestimate the legal constraints on how that power can be exercised—the Administrative Procedure Act requires agencies to consider relevant factors, and Congress's appropriations carry binding weight. Left-leaning outlets correctly emphasize rule of law and institutional safeguards, and they rightly highlight that unchecked executive power over media and information threatens democratic accountability. But they sometimes downplay the real problems of government inefficiency or treat every court win as a permanent settlement when appeals and further litigation remain likely. Both sides largely avoid the genuine tension: balancing presidential efficiency goals with Congressional authority over spending and statutory mandates.

What comes next will test whether this ruling sticks. Lake had denounced Lamberth's March 7 ruling, saying it would be appealed. Since then, Mr. Trump nominated Sarah Rogers, the undersecretary of state for public diplomacy, to run USAGM. That requires Senate approval, a step that was not taken with Lake. The shift to a Senate-confirmed leader removes the legal authority issue but opens new questions about editorial control. Appeals courts may overturn Lamberth's rulings, particularly on remedies. And he declined to restore hundreds of contractors whose positions were severed under Lake. The judge concluded their fate had to be considered by administrative courts that handle labor disputes within the U.S.—leaving a partial victory for the administration and ongoing litigation over contractors. The political battle is far from over, even if the immediate legal outcome favored VOA reinstatement.

◈ Tone Comparison

Left-leaning outlets adopted a tone of democratic reassurance and institutional protection, emphasizing rule of law, checks and balances, and the dangers of unchecked executive power over media. Right-leaning voices and the administration struck a defiant, frustrated tone, treating court orders as obstacles rather than authoritative judgments, and framing themselves as battling entrenched bureaucracy with judicial collusion. The right repeatedly called the judge "activist" despite his Republican pedigree, suggesting that even conservative judges are obstructing the Trump agenda.

✕ Key Disagreements
Legal authority and the proper check on presidential power
Left: Lamberth said that Lake's appointment violated the Federal Vacancies Reform Act and the Constitution's Appointments Clause and that therefore any actions she took in the role should be struck down. Left outlets emphasize that the law is clear: Lake had no authority, and courts must enforce that limit.
Right: Lake responded Saturday, saying "the american people gave President Trump a mandate to cut bloated bureaucracy, eliminate waste, and restore accountability to government. An activist judge is trying to stand in the way of those efforts at USAGM." Lake claimed that "Judge Lamberth has a pattern of activist rulings — and this case is no different. The right argues judges are abusing discretion to thwart elected officials' policy priorities.
VOA's editorial mission and alleged bias
Left: Lake and her allies have tried to reshape what little remains of VOA into an overtly pro-Trump messaging operation. But veterans of US-funded international broadcasting say the agency's editorial independence and credibility are essential components for its success. Left outlets defend editorial independence as the core strength of American soft power.
Right: LAKE DESCRIBES THE NEWS OUTLET AS "ANTI-AMERICAN PROPAGANDA." "Examples, refusing to call hamas terrorists, glamorizing che guevara, airing campaign style videos favoring president biden, even broadcasting a graphic depicting trump with a swastika over his face on the news." Conservatives allege VOA is biased against the U.S. and Trump, requiring editorial correction.
Whether courts should defer to executive efficiency claims
Left: "Defendants have provided nothing approaching a principled basis for their decision," Lamberth wrote. The left argues the administration provided no coherent justification for cutting 90% of staff—just an assertion of reducing to "statutory minimum" without analysis.
Right: "President Trump was elected to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse across the administration, including at the Voice of America — and efforts to improve efficiency at USAGM have been a tremendous success." The right contends the president has clear constitutional authority to improve federal efficiency without detailed judicial oversight of administrative minutiae.