On August 26, 2025, the long-simmering battle over the future of Voice of America (VOA) reached a boiling point in a Washington, D.C. federal courtroom. U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth, a veteran jurist appointed by President Ronald Reagan, ordered Kari Lake—a Trump administration official and self-styled acting CEO of the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM)—to answer questions under oath about her controversial efforts to dismantle the storied international broadcaster. The move marks the latest escalation in a high-stakes legal showdown that has pitted Lake and her allies against a coalition of VOA journalists, senior executives, unions, and press freedom advocates who argue that her actions violate both Congressional intent and the letter of the law.
Judge Lamberth’s order, delivered after a tense two-hour hearing, was unambiguous: Lake and two of her aides, including senior adviser Frank Wuco and VOA director of Persian broadcasts Leili Soltani, must sit for depositions by September 15, 2025. The judge demanded that they provide detailed information previously withheld about the operational status of VOA and its parent agency, USAGM. This, he made clear, was their “one final opportunity, short of a contempt trial, to provide such explanation.”
The urgency of the court’s demand stems from what Lamberth called “deeply troubling” evidence that Lake and her team had failed to show that VOA was fulfilling even the bare minimum of its statutory mandate. According to Law&Crime, the judge was particularly incensed by what he described as “cagey,” “misleading,” and “contradictory” information provided by Trump administration officials regarding the status of VOA’s broadcasts, staffing, and compliance with Congressional appropriations.
The roots of the dispute can be traced back to a March 2025 executive order by President Donald Trump, which labeled USAGM “the voice of radical America” and called for drastic cuts to its operations. Lake, a former Phoenix news anchor and failed Republican candidate for Senate and governor, was tapped to lead the charge. Upon arriving at USAGM in February, she moved swiftly—some say recklessly—to execute Trump’s mandate. Hundreds of VOA employees were fired, and many more were placed on indefinite paid leave. Where VOA once broadcast in 49 languages, by August 2025 it was down to just four. Less than 10% of its journalists remained on the job, a staggering reduction for a network whose mission, as Congress has repeatedly mandated, is to provide “news which is consistently reliable and authoritative, accurate, objective, and comprehensive.”
Lake’s actions did not stop at VOA. She also sought to terminate funding for sister networks such as Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio Free Asia, and the Middle East Broadcast Networks, despite explicit Congressional language requiring their continued operation. Judge Lamberth, according to BERITAJA, has previously ruled that Lake acted “hastily, violating legal and constitutional safeguards.” While an appellate court struck down some of his earlier orders, it left intact the requirement that VOA be restored to full capacity and able to meet its mission. Simply having journalists on paid leave and “on call” was, in the judge’s words, not enough.
The plaintiffs—who include VOA’s director, former White House bureau chief Patsy Widakuswara, fired Director Michael Abramowitz, senior executives, and unions—argue that Lake’s actions are a direct violation of Congressional intent and statutory requirements. They contend that the White House cannot simply order the firing of VOA’s director without the approval of a bipartisan advisory board, whose members were dismissed by Trump and never replaced. The legal team representing the plaintiffs has insisted that the administration’s moves amount to an unlawful attempt to sidestep the checks and balances that Congress put in place to protect the broadcaster’s independence.
The Justice Department, for its part, has defended Lake’s actions by citing the president’s Article II executive powers. Senior counsel Michael Velchik argued that, given the historical efforts to reduce the size of government, it was understandable that communicating precise information in real time would be difficult for Lake and the agency. But Judge Lamberth was not impressed. “That’s just a hide-the-ball answer,” he snapped during Monday’s hearing, repeatedly interrupting government attorneys and demanding substantive responses. He was especially critical of the lack of transparency surrounding key personnel decisions, including the firing of VOA Director Michael Abramowitz and the ouster of USAGM Acting CEO Victor Morales. “The defendants have consistently refused to give the Court the full story regarding personnel actions,” Lamberth wrote in his ruling.
Lake, for her part, has pushed back against the court’s authority. In an email to BERITAJA, she declared, “Time and again, we’ve seen district court judges overstep their authority. It’s wrong, but sadly, it’s become the norm. The current case against USAGM is a great example of why we need to restore constitutional checks and balances.”
The stakes are high, not only for the individuals involved but for the future of American international broadcasting itself. Since its founding in 1942, Voice of America has played a pivotal role in projecting U.S. values and news into authoritarian and closed societies—from Nazi-occupied Europe to the Soviet Union and beyond. Its mission, as Congress has repeatedly emphasized, is to serve as a model of press freedom and democratic discourse, even when American politics is at its messiest.
Yet the current legal battle reveals just how vulnerable that mission has become. Judge Lamberth’s concern was palpable as he questioned how Lake could possibly be complying with federal law when, for example, the statute requires broadcasts in Korean and none were being produced. The government argued that VOA’s purpose is to serve foreign policy imperatives, not to meet a fixed linguistic quota. “Who gets to decide?” Velchik asked in court. “Not me. Not the plaintiffs. Not the court.” But Lamberth was quick to remind him, “Congress has a constitutionally provided role.”
Adding to the confusion is Lake’s own status at the agency. Although she has styled herself as USAGM’s acting CEO since at least early July, neither the White House nor the agency has provided documentation of her appointment to that role. Under the relevant statute, an acting CEO must have served as acting deputy chief executive before the vacancy arose, or have been confirmed by the Senate to another federal position, or have been a senior agency executive for at least 90 days prior to the departure of the last Senate-confirmed CEO. Lake, by all accounts, does not meet these criteria.
As the September 15 deadline for depositions approaches, the outcome of this legal standoff remains uncertain. What is clear, however, is that the fight over Voice of America is about more than just one agency or one set of broadcasts. It’s a test of the fundamental principles of transparency, accountability, and the separation of powers at a time when those values are under extraordinary strain.
With the court poised to hold Lake and her colleagues in contempt if they fail to comply, the future of VOA—and the integrity of U.S. international media—hangs in the balance.
