The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit handed the Trump administration a significant win, halting a previous court order that called for the reinstatement of over 1,000 Voice of America employees. Kari Lake, a senior adviser for the U.S. Agency for Global Media, hailed the decision as a “BIG WIN in our legal cases at USAGM & Voice of America. Huge victory for President Trump and Article II.” She added that the District Court judge would not be able to manage the agency as he had appeared to want.
In a 2-1 ruling, the appeals court, with Trump-appointed Judges Gregory Katsas and Neomi Rao, sided against Obama-appointed Judge Cornelia Pillard. The majority opinion stated that the government is likely to win on the merits because the district court probably lacked jurisdiction to interfere with USAGM’s personnel actions. This decision also affected the restoration of grants to Radio Free Asia and Middle East Broadcasting Networks for fiscal year 2025.
On March 14, President Donald Trump signed an executive order aimed at cutting down on what he deemed “unnecessary” parts of the federal bureaucracy. One target of this order was the USAGM, with the goal of ensuring that taxpayers weren’t funding radical propaganda. The White House shared articles questioning the neutrality of these state media outlets and highlighted a lawsuit claiming that Voice of America had been infiltrated by anti-American influences.
Blaze News previously reported that due to the executive order, around 1,300 VOA journalists and staff were put on administrative leave, and funding to VOA’s sister networks was paused. U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth had ruled against the administration in April, calling its efforts “arbitrary and capricious” and likely in violation of multiple federal laws. He ordered that USAGM employees be returned to their previous status and that fiscal year 2025 grants be restored to certain networks.
The appeals court disagreed with Lamberth’s ruling, stating that he likely lacked jurisdiction over USAGM’s personnel decisions. They pointed out that Congress had established comprehensive rules for handling employment disputes involving federal employees. Even though one judge expressed doubt about Congress’s administrative methods, the majority believed administrative agencies could provide broad relief in large-scale personnel matters.
Lamberth also lacked jurisdiction to restore grants for Radio Free Asia and Middle East Broadcasting Networks for fiscal year 2025. The appeals court noted that district courts don’t have the authority to resolve contractual claims against the United States; that power lies with the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. The court believed that Lamberth’s order to reinstate all employees was an unwarranted intrusion into the Trump administration’s foreign-affairs authority.
The court emphasized that depriving the Executive Branch of control over its international broadcasting staff threatened its ability to “speak with one voice” in foreign affairs. Margot Cleveland, from the Federalist, remarked that this conclusion could have widespread implications, as many legal challenges against the Trump administration involve employment decisions that Congress said district courts shouldn’t decide.
The decision came just a day after the Department of Justice informed VOA employees that they could begin returning to work. A letter sent to VOA lawyers indicated that staff could start coming back to the office next week, though it would be a phased return due to security, building space, and equipment considerations. This victory underscores the Trump administration’s efforts to streamline federal operations and exercise control over international broadcasting.
In the broader context, this case reflects ongoing debates about the role and independence of state media in the U.S. The court’s decision is seen as a validation of the administration’s authority over federal agencies. Supporters of the ruling argue that it protects taxpayers from funding what they see as biased or un-American content.
Critics of the initial ruling believed that the district court overstepped its bounds in trying to manage federal personnel decisions. The appeals court’s decision reinforces the notion that such matters should be handled within the framework established by Congress. This outcome may set a precedent for how similar cases are handled in the future.
The Trump administration’s push for reforms in federal agencies is part of a broader effort to reduce government inefficiency. By challenging the status quo, the administration aims to ensure that government entities operate within their intended scope and purpose. This case highlights the ongoing tension between the executive branch and other parts of the government.
The decision also brings attention to the role of the judiciary in overseeing federal agency actions. While the courts play a crucial role in checking executive power, this case suggests there are limits to judicial intervention in agency affairs. As the legal battles continue, the implications of this decision will likely be felt across various sectors of government and media.
Ultimately, the appeals court’s ruling demonstrates the complexities of managing federal agencies and the importance of adhering to established legal frameworks. The outcome is seen as a victory for those who advocate for a limited, efficient government. As the Trump administration continues its efforts to reform federal operations, similar legal challenges may arise, testing the boundaries of executive authority.
