
‘Fight back': journalist taking Trump administration to court calls for media to resist attacks
'I never in a million years thought I would have to fight for freedom of the press in the United States of America. And yet here we are,' says Patsy Widakuswara, the White House bureau chief for the broadcasting network. 'As journalism is under attack, it feels empowering to fight back. We need more people to resist and fight back.'
Kicked out of press conferences on multiple continents for asking pointed questions, Widakuswara is not the type to balk at challenging powerful leaders. In her three decades as a journalist those instincts have served her well, and perhaps at no better time than now.
The White House reporter is now leading the charge to save VOA, which the US president has described as 'anti-Trump' and 'radical'. In March, Trump signed an executive order that effectively cut off its funding via its parent company, the US Agency for Global Media (USAGM).
Launched in 1942, initially to counter Nazi propaganda, VOA is a federally funded international broadcasting network, produced in dozens of languages that reach about 350 million people around the globe.
For decades it has been seen as a form of soft power, encapsulating the values of liberal America. But after Trump's order its operations have been suspended, with virtually all of VOA's staff of 1,300 placed on immediate administrative leave and about 600 contractors terminated.
The lawsuit filed by Widakuswara and several of her colleagues follows lawsuits the Trump administration has taken out against ABC News and CBS's 60 Minutes in the US, and attempts to expel some press from the White House. Those backing the case argue that VOA has for decades provided an important source of objective information, especially in illiberal environments.
'These are not just women in Afghanistan or farmers in Africa,' said Widakuswara of VOA's audience. 'They're also activists in Russia and decision makers all around the world who are also facing the onslaught of disinformation and propaganda from Russia, Iran, China, and extremist organisations like [Islamic State] and al-Qaida.'
At home having a quiet Saturday when she received the email about VOA's demise, Widakuswara says to do nothing was inconceivable. In a matter of days she had rallied a team to fight against it, and by Friday morning had filed a lawsuit.
'It's just the way I'm wired,' she says over the phone from Washington. 'Congress gave us a mandate to tell America's story to the world through factual, balanced and comprehensive reporting. If they want to change the size, structure or function of VOA, they can't just shut us down. They must go through Congress. That's the law.'
Starting her career in Jakarta in the late 90s, just as Indonesia's decades-long dictator Suharto was being toppled, the Indonesian-born journalist has seen first-hand the impacts of authoritarian regimes.
Widakuswara worked at a campus radio station, and later as a fixer for foreign journalists when they flooded in to cover the event, as mass student protests inundated the parliament building and forced Suharto to step down.
Sign up to Headlines US
Get the most important US headlines and highlights emailed direct to you every morning
after newsletter promotion
'That was my first taste in media,' she says. 'Holding autocratic governments to account.'
The experience led to a career in television, and a British Foreign and Commonwealth Office scholarship to obtain her master's in journalism at Goldsmiths, University of London. After stints at the BBC and Channel 4, she was named VOA's White House bureau chief in 2021.
Now, she finds herself pushing against fascistic tendencies in her adopted home. 'I grew up in 80s Indonesia where there was no press freedom and newspapers had to be careful what they printed to avoid government closure,' she says. 'Could the US backslide that far? Not if enough people resist, and that's why I'm fighting back.'
Her lawsuit, backed by Reporters Without Borders and four unions, argues the Trump administration, through the actions of the defendants, USAGM, and the government's special adviser Kari Lake, are attempting to unlawfully dismantle VOA's operations because they deem it contrary to the government's agenda.
Widakuswara argues that Trump's executive order is a violation of press freedom, the first amendment, and laws to prevent executive overreach, with VOA funding approved by Congress, not the president.
Another motivating factor is to support her 47 colleagues at VOA on J-1 or journalist visas in the US, who could be sent back to countries such as Russia, Belarus, Vietnam and Myanmar which have previously jailed journalists.
Widakuswara's efforts to save VOA appeared to score an early win, with a judge in April ordering the Trump administration to restore funding to VOA and other US-funded media. But the preliminary injunction was only a temporary measure.
On Saturday, just as VOA staff were preparing for a 'phased return' to work, a court of appeals issued a stay on that ruling, saying the court did not have the authority to block Trump's executive order regarding employment matters.
Keenly aware of the unfavourable political climate she is up against, Widakuswara says it is hard to know if their case will ultimately prevail, but the only choice is to try. 'Even if it's just like a 5% chance or even a 1% chance, that's better than a 0% chance, which is what happens if we do nothing.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Telegraph
a few seconds ago
- Telegraph
Energy giant takes £4bn hit as Trump goes to war on ‘con job' wind farms
More than £4bn was wiped off the value of the world's biggest offshore wind farm developer after Donald Trump declared war on renewable energy projects. Shares in Ørsted plunged by an unprecedented 29pc in early trading to a record low after it revealed it would seek to raise 60bn Danish kroner (£7bn) from a new stock offering as it battles a downturn in the industry. The company, which is majority owned by the Danish state, will hold an extraordinary general meeting on Sept 5 to approve the plans. Rasmus Errboe, chief executive, said the company had been hit by 'adverse market developments in the US', where the president is waging a war against the wind industry. Mr Errboe said the company's fundraising through shareholders was the 'best solution' to strengthen the company's balance sheet and fund its Sunrise Wind development, off the coast of New York. 'Con job' It comes after Mr Trump briefly halted work on a separate wind farm off the coast of New York in April and last month branded the renewable energy source a 'con job' during a visit to Scotland. He said at his Turnberry golf course that turbines spoiled the landscape and sucked in hefty subsidies, adding: 'The whole thing is a con job. It's very expensive.' President Trump has rolled back subsidies for the renewables industry under his tax cutting bill working its way through Congress. He suspended licensing for new wind farms on his first day back in office in January. His hatred of turbines stems from a long planning battle he had with Scottish authorities. He opposed plans for a major North Sea wind power development that he complained could be seen from his Aberdeenshire course, but lost the case. Ørsted usually funds wind farms by selling off stakes in the projects. However, it said on Monday that it was cancelling its planned sale for its New York scheme in favour of the new share issue. Mr Errboe said: 'Ørsted and our industry are in an extraordinary situation with the adverse market development in the US on top of the past years' macroeconomic and supply chain challenges.' Lene Skole, chairman, said the company faced an 'unprecedented regulatory development in the US' which meant raising money from shareholders was 'the best path forward'. Jenny Ping, an analyst at City, said Ørsted's decision was 'sensible' in the long run but 'likely painful' in the short term, while Ahmed Farman, at Jefferies, added the move was 'clearly negative'. Under the share issue, the Danish state will maintain its 50.1pc stake in the energy company, Ørsted said. A spokesman for Norway's Equinor, which holds a 10pc stake, said it would 'assess the proposal'. The company also plans to raise more than 35bn Danish kroner from selling stakes in its energy projects over the next two years. It plans to invest around 145bn Danish kroner during that time and insisted its earnings guidance for this year remains on track. The fundraising plans come amid wider turbulence at Ørsted. In May, the company pulled the plug on the 2.4-gigawatt Hornsea 4 project off the east of England as it blamed rising costs and interest rates. Wind farm operators are expected to be offered bumper subsidies by Ed Miliband, the Energy Secretary, to attract bids for renewable energy contracts in an auction that launched last week. A wind auction in 2023 failed to receive any bids after ministers initially refused to raise the subsidies on offer. They later backed down, with Mr Miliband overseeing a record £3bn of contract for difference awards last year.


Daily Mail
a few seconds ago
- Daily Mail
The year's most dubious stock trades by politicians come to light
By and Published: | Updated: Members of Congress aren't technically allowed to use insider knowledge to trade stocks while in office, but a couple of well-timed trades have raised eyebrows among eagle-eyed critics. Momentum to ban members of Congress from trading stocks is swelling even as lawmakers make major profits from the turbulent stock market. Right now, existing law allows legislators sitting on military committees buy defense stocks while financial regulators can snap up crypto and bank shares. Though trading on inside information is forbidden, there's little enforcement - and the practice appears rampant on Capitol Hill. Senate proposals would bar even the president and vice president from trading, but wealthy lawmakers claim restrictions would strip incentives and force unfair divestment of their holdings. Others complain they can't survive on their $174,000 salaries alone, fueling a trading bonanza that's generating handsome profits just as ban proposals gain steam. Here the Daily Mail highlights the top most suspect stock trades of the year. Rep. Rob Bresnahan (pictured), R-Pa., a 34-year-old freshman legislator has been one of the most scrutinized traders. He was the former CEO of Kuharchik Construction, Bresnahan's family company, where he is credited with expanding the family business. The Pennsylvania Republican campaigned on banning members from trading, but he has reported more transactions than practically every other lawmaker. 'Bresnahan has filed more stock trades than almost any other member of Congress since entering office this year,' Quiver Quantitative's co-founder Christopher Kardatzke told the Daily Mail. Since being sworn in this January and August 8, the Republican has made at least 617 trades, according to federal disclosures data compiled by Quiver Quantitative. The Republican has repeatedly claimed his financial advisors manager his trades, but when pressed recently by a local radio station on why he doesn't instruct them to halt the transactions he deflected. 'And then do what with it?' the lawmaker told WVIA. 'Just leave it all in the accounts and just leave it there and lose money and go broke?' Bresnahan introduced a bill earlier this year to ban members and their spouses from stock trading, even as he's continued to make transactions. Right before Trump's signature domestic agenda the 'One Big, Beautiful Bill' passed Congress, Bresnahan reported sale in Centene, a healthcare company that later lost over half of its share price because of Medicaid cuts contained within the legislation. Democratic attack ads have shredded him for voting for the cuts. 'Honestly I found out about it in real time but the key takeaway is I follow the STOCK Act and I follow the rules,' Bresnahan said when pressed on the stock sale by WNEP . Bresnahan has been widely criticized for being hypocritical about his stock trading. He's claimed his advisors are forbidden from trading in companies held by foreign adversaries, however his disclosures show that he has bought and sold shares in Alibaba, a Chinese e-commerce company. Bresnahan has also indicated he will put his money in a blind trust, where it is managed by someone else and he has no clue about the individual transactions. But setting up such an account takes time, he has claimed. 'The whole process has been excruciating,' he told the Washington Examiner recently. Nearly 170 of the Pennsylvanian's trades occurred just after Trump's early April tariff announcement, dubbed 'Liberation Day' by the White House. In one instance in February, the lawmaker even disclosed a day trade, showing the purchase and sale of Palantir stock on the same day. 'Even if the portfolio is managed by a financial advisor, as Bresnahan has claimed, we're left to wonder why an advisor is day-trading Palantir stock in a U.S. Congressman's account,' Kardatzke said. Firebrand Marjorie Taylor Greene has also gained attention for trading the same stock around the same time - a transaction that has netted her thousands. The Georgia Republican made a flurry of stock purchases around the exact time that Trump instructed the nation that it was 'a great time to get rich, richer than ever before,' on Truth Social. After the market dipped around Liberation Day, Green heeded the president's warning and loaded up on discounted stocks. She purchased tech stock Impinj on April 4, which has since rocketed up over 100 percent in the last few months. And after buying Palantir on April 8, the Georgia Republican has doubled her investment, locking in a return over 115 percent. The tech company provides AI solutions and software to the federal government, including the Pentagon and more recently the Department of Homeland Security. Greene currently sits on the House Homeland Security Committee, the congressional panel that approves funding for DHS and ICE. She also claims her portfolio is managed by a financial advisor. 'Prior to this year, we had only seen one member of Congress ever buy Palantir stock. In the first two months of 2025, we saw six different members buy in,' Kardatzke noted. 'Maybe they all share the same financial advisor. The stock is up 148 percent so far this year.' Legislation to ban trading among members has even received backing from former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (pictured(, D-Calif., who has become notorious for scoring winning trades during her decades in Congress. When she led Congress in 2021 she famously brushed off questions about implementing a stock trading ban for members, citing 'a free market economy.' Though her disclosures show that these trades are done by her husband, Paul Pelosi, it does raise questions as to how he can so frequently beat the market, and by such massive margins. President Donald Trump posted on his own social media site Truth Social Saturday, calling Pelosi a 'disgusting degenerate' over her and her husband's stock trading practices. Trump wrote that 'Crooked Nancy Pelosi, and her very 'interesting' husband, beat every Hedge Fund in 2024.' 'In other words, these two very average 'minds' beat ALL of the Super Geniuses on Wall Street, thousands of them,' Trump also added. 'Speaker Pelosi does not own any stocks and has no knowledge or subsequent involvement in any transactions,' her spokesperson told the Daily Mail before Trump's latest attack on the former Speaker. Between 2023 and early July 2025, over 70 percent of Pelosi's trades were profitable, according to Capitol Trades . The Bay Area couple has also reported call options on AI-focused companies like Nvidia, Alphabet and others. 'I think it's a little bit sketchy just because of how high-risk high-reward option contracts are,' Christopher Josephs, co-founder of Autopilot, a congressional investing app, told the Daily Mail. 'No average everyday person trading does that.' The 85-year-old Democrat got defensive recently when asked by CNN's Jake Tapper to respond to Trump's attacks on her trading practices. 'Why do you have to read that?' Pelosi interrupted when Tapper began asking about members' trading. Neither Greene nor Bresnahan responded to the Daily Mail's request for comment.


Spectator
30 minutes ago
- Spectator
Could the Arctic be key to ending the Ukraine war?
'It is in Alaska and in the Arctic that the economic interests of our countries converge and prospects for implementing large-scale mutually beneficial projects arise,' said Yuri Ushakov, Vladimir Putin's long-time foreign policy adviser and former Russian ambassador to the United States, at a Friday press conference in Moscow. His words pointed to Arctic economic cooperation being firmly on the agenda when Donald Trump meets Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday. For Trump, a massively important commercial deal of this kind is his typical negotiating strategy. It's the 'Art of the Deal' – offer something big, lucrative and tangible, then leverage it to unlock political concessions. It's the template Trump just used to broker a peace agreement between Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo, where economic incentives were bound up with resolving a long-running security dispute. An Arctic agreement between the US and Russia could revive energy collaboration between the two countries on a breathtaking scale. A deal would be massively lucrative for both sides. The Arctic contains an estimated 13 per cent of the world's undiscovered oil, roughly 90 billion barrels, and 30 per cent of its undiscovered natural gas. Russia controls around half of that, with explorers pointing to 2,300 million metric tons of oil and condensate, and 35,700 billion cubic metres of gas. It's a bonanza tailor-made for Trump's America First. Parlay US expertise and capital into these frozen assets and the pay-off would be staggering. The shipping upside is no less compelling. The Northern Sea Route offers the promise of slashing shipping times between Asia and Europe by up to 50 per cent. As melting ice slowly opens the Arctic lanes, that cut becomes ever more real: less fuel burned, no queueing at chokepoints, and avoidance of piracy hotspots. Pair that with a fleet of US oil champions and Arctic logistics savvy, and Trump suddenly holds a commercial deal that has the feel of an irresistible boardroom trophy. The US and Russia have been here before. In 2011 ExxonMobil struck a landmark deal with Russia's Rosneft to explore and drill in the Russian Arctic, including the Kara Sea. It was a project worth tens of billions, giving Exxon access to vast untapped reserves and giving the Russians US technology and expertise. Drilling began, but the partnership was suspended in 2014 when western sanctions were imposed after Russia's annexation of Crimea. Bringing it back to life, or using it as the template for new ventures, would be straightforward in commercial terms. The infrastructure, geological data and corporate relationships already exist. A revived Arctic partnership could go beyond oil and gas to include liquefied natural gas terminals, port upgrades, and joint development of the Northern Sea Route, binding the two economies together in one of the last great frontiers for energy extraction. There is no confirmation that the Arctic and Ukraine will be explicitly linked. Yet the logic is obvious enough and the hints coming from Moscow cannot be ignored. For Putin, the Arctic could be the sweetener that secures US agreement to a settlement on his terms in Ukraine. Moscow is unlikely to shift on the fundamentals: Crimea and the Donbas are written into Russia's constitution as part of its territory. Any deal would lock in those gains, demand Ukraine's demilitarisation and secure a buffer against Nato. Trump could claim an Arctic deal as a massive commercial win for the US and the end of a war which he insists was caused by Biden. Putin could gain Washington's help in pushing Kyiv to accept the deal. Trump's leverage is blunt. Kyiv's very survival depends on American weapons and cash. By threatening to cut them off, Trump can force Zelensky to the table on terms Kyiv has long rejected. For Trump, this is straight from his negotiating playbook: create a crisis point, hold the most valuable card, and make sure everyone knows you are prepared to walk away. For Zelensky, the choice would be between accepting a peace agreement that leaves Ukraine truncated, or facing a war without US backing. Ukraine's position is fragile. Its army is drained, its economy battered, and its war effort hinges on western aid. European and UK promises mean little without US firepower and financing. If Trump decides to pivot towards an Arctic bargain with Putin, Kyiv may need to fall in line or face the battlefield more or less alone. Zelensky can draw red lines, but without American support they'll count for little. The EU and Britain would protest loudly, but they lack the leverage to block an American/Russian deal. Brussels, London, Paris and Berlin have all made clear that no settlement should be struck over Ukraine's head, yet moral objections are no substitute for raw power. British, French and German support for Ukraine may not make much of a difference to the Russian advance if the war were to drag on without full US support. Kyiv would be furious about a deal on the Arctic linked to Ukraine. Zelensky has built his presidency on reclaiming occupied land and has vowed never to cede Crimea or the Donbas. A deal that locks in those losses would be denounced as a betrayal. London would echo the outrage, while Brussels would convene summits and issue condemnations. Yet despite the rhetoric, the Europeans would be powerless to change the outcome. The settlement would already be signed and control of US financing of the war firmly in Trump's hands. Beyond the western alliance, the reaction would be far warmer. Much of the global south sees the war in Ukraine less as a clash over borders, and more as a drag on global trade and growth. For China, India and Brazil, an end to the war, even entirely on Russia's terms, would be hailed as pragmatic diplomacy. Trump could present the Arctic bargain as proof that US-Russia cooperation can solve global problems, and this would help blunt criticism from Europe and the UK. The incentives for both Trump and Putin line up neatly. For Trump, it would be another Trump 'deal' in which commercial muscle underwrites a political settlement. Putin would keep his territorial gains and reopen the Arctic to US investment, and Ukraine would be left to make the best of a settlement it didn't shape. Britain and the EU would be reduced to a role of bystanders.