Judge has reinstated Voice of America employees, condemning the shutdown as illegal and conducted in “bad faith”
A federal ruling mandates that USAGM reinstate more than 1,000 employees and resume global broadcasts following a year-long suspension.
A federal judge has temporarily halted a year-long shutdown that had sidelined more than 1,000 Voice of America employees, prompting the agency to resume its operations.
On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth determined that the disbanding of the U.S. Agency for Global Media, which supervises Voice of America, violated federal law. He directed the agency to restore its workforce and resume full operations by March 23. The decision follows months of employees being on paid administrative leave as leadership worked to reduce the agency to what they referred to as its “statutory minimum.”
Judge Royce C. Lamberth was forthright in his ruling. He indicated what he referred to as a “flagrant and nearly year-long refusal” to adhere to congressional requirements. He also targeted Kari Lake, who spearheaded the initiative to reduce the agency’s scope, stating that “the defendants’ ongoing failure to disclose and retain crucial information in this case has been a hallmark of bad faith.”
The decision arises from two related lawsuits, one initiated by VOA Director Michael Abramowitz and another filed by employees. For numerous individuals within the agency, this decision represents not only a legal victory but also an opportunity for renewal.
Plaintiffs Patsy Widakuswara, Jessica Jerreat, and Kate Neeper described it as a “monumental decision,” expressing their readiness to mend the damage and rebuild trust with global audiences. Abramowitz expressed his satisfaction with the outcome, stating he was “thrilled” and emphasizing that “Voice of America has never been more needed.”
The court’s ruling nullifies an earlier plan that aimed to cut the agency down to only 68 positions. Nonetheless, government officials have yet to provide a public response to the ruling, which raises questions about their commitment to the agency’s future and the implications of the court’s decision.
The message is unmistakably clear at this moment. The microphone is active once again.
