Judge orders Trump administration to explain why order to restore Voice of America wasn't followed
U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth of the District of Columbia gave the administration until Aug. 13 to explain how it will get VOA working again. The outlet that dates back to World War II has been largely dark since March.
Lamberth said the administration needs to show what it is doing with the $260 million Congress appropriated for VOA's operations this year.
Kari Lake, the adviser appointed by Trump to run the government news agencies, said in June that 85% of employees at VOA and its overseers at the U.S. Agency for Global Media had lost their jobs. She called it a 'long overdue effort to dismantle a bloated, unaccountable bureaucracy.'
Lamberth said there's a process for eliminating funding that had previously been appropriated — Congress must vote on it, as it recently did for NPR and PBS funding. But that hasn't happened here, he said.
He scolded the administration for providing 'cagey answers' and omitting key information when asked for it in previous court orders.
'Without more explanation, the court is left to conclude that the defendants are simply trying to run out the clock on the fiscal year, without putting the money Congress appropriated toward the purposes Congress intended,' Lamberth wrote. 'The legal term for that is 'waste.''
There was no immediate comment from the White House.
___
David Bauder writes about the intersection of media and entertainment for the AP. Follow him at http://x.com/dbauder and https://bsky.app/profile/dbauder.bsky.social.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Canada Tariff Spike Adds New Trade Risk
The U.S. just turned up the pressure on Canada: President Trump signed an order hiking tariffs to 35% starting August 1, 2025, blaming Ottawa for not doing enough on fentanyl and other illicit drug flows and for retaliating on earlier U.S. Moves. The new rule makes it clear that any attempt to dodge the hike through rerouting gets punished hardera 40% transshipment tariff now kicks inwhile goods that still qualify under USMCA keep their preferred treatment. Trump didn't slam the door shut on talks; he even floated the idea of a conversation with Prime Minister Mark Carney later that night, so this is escalation with a sliver of a reset option. Warning! GuruFocus has detected 7 Warning Signs with BOM:500400. The message from Washington frames the move as emergency action to force cooperation, but for markets it just added a fresh layer of political risk to the already tight cross-border trade relationship. Companies with supply chains straddling the border now have to factor in uncertainty, and investors will be watching whether Ottawa responds, if talks ease the tension, or if this becomes a broader tit-for-tat episode. This article first appeared on GuruFocus.
The Hill
29 minutes ago
- The Hill
Iranian Americans are demanding peace, not war
Iranian Americans are still reeling from Israel's attack on Iran in June. For 12 days, we were frantically trying to reach our loved ones across Iran hoping that Israeli attacks would not kill our families as they fled cities, spurred on by cryptic social media threats from President Trump. Ultimately, more than a thousand Iranians were killed, most of them civilians, and it is likely that Israeli and American bombs will soon fall again if there is no diplomatic settlement. As the fog of war clears, an important truth has once again been exposed, which powerful voices in Washington and Tel Aviv have spent years and enormous resources distorting: Iranian Americans firmly believe that diplomacy – not war and sanctions that destroy innocent lives – is the most effective path for the U.S. to deal with Iran's government, whether on nuclear policy, regional stability, or its human rights abuses. For years now, an echo chamber on social media has sought to portray Iranian Americans as united in begging Trump and Netanyahu to bomb Iran and 'Make Iran Great Again.' On Persian-language satellite networks like Iran International — created and long funded by individuals closely tied to the Saudi royal family – viewers are led to believe that most Iranians view Netanyahu as a 'liberator' and welcome U.S. bombs and sanctions on Iran as tools of freedom. Meanwhile, voices opposed to war and sanctions have been viciously silenced. Our organization, NIAC, along with countless independent researchers, grassroots advocates, and prominent experts, has long been demonized, including by an oped author in this very publication, falsely smeared as part of a vast pro-Tehran conspiracy because of our anti-war, pro-diplomacy stance. In reality, our organization and those opposed to war and supportive of diplomacy put the interests of ordinary Americans first, guided by the belief that more war is not good for American security and prosperity — or for the people and future of Iran. Reports from Middle East Eye and Politico Magazine have detailed some of the scale of the campaign against pro-peace Iranian Americans – from doctored videos and anonymous bomb threats, to rape and death threats that have driven many out of the public debate. Until May 2019, the U.S. State Department was even funding an operation, the Iran Disinformation Project, until it was exposed defaming Iranian American journalists, human rights experts, and NIAC as ''mouthpieces' and supporters of the Iranian government.' The New York Times recently reported that Israel had used social media posts and AI-generated videos during the war on Iran to attempt to incite unrest there, raising urgent questions about the extent of these tactics' deployment in what Netanyahu has called the 'second battlefield' of information and public discourse. Politico also reported that a $2 million Israeli government-linked disinformation campaign targeted 128 U.S. lawmakers through hundreds of fake social media profiles, demonstrating that Americans are also on the target list. The intent behind a campaign to portray Iranian Americans as supportive of military invasion — and to silence those who disagree — echoes the same strategy used to justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Once again, violence is being repackaged as popularly supported liberation and humanitarianism. But when the war long pushed by hawks finally came, many of the Islamic Republic's staunchest critics inside Iran stood against the foreign bombs falling on their communities. Outside Iran, pro-war figures and outlets like Iran International watched their own bases turn against them. Those who opposed this violence weren't regime sympathizers — they were, and are, the majority of ordinary Iranians and Iranian Americans. That's why, before this illegal war began, our organization launched an independent, comprehensive poll to determine where Iranian Americans actually stand on war, sanctions, and diplomacy. We were driven by concern that outside political interests were distorting our community's views to sell yet another U.S.-backed regime change war. Contrary to what the propaganda machine was churning out, the views of Iranian Americans are clear. Most of us are anti-war, anti-broad sanctions, and pro-diplomacy. In the poll, conducted by YouGov in May and June, we found that: 53 percent of Iranian Americans oppose military action against Iran, versus just 36 percent in support. 62 percent support a new U.S. nuclear agreement with Iran. 49 percent say diplomacy is the most effective way to prevent a nuclear Iran — compared to just 22 percent who favor war. Only 21 percentsupport broad-based economic sanctions. 60 percent oppose Israel's military actions in Gaza. This is not a community calling for more bombs or the fantasy of cruel sanctions and 'liberating' Iran through airstrikes or invasion. It is a community calling for smarter, more humane policies that advance peace and protect people. In a time when truth is under siege and lives hang in the balance, this campaign of smears, disinformation, and intimidation are not just attacks on one community or organization. They are an attack on the idea that people should have a say in matters of war and peace in our democracy. The goal isn't just to manufacture consent for war, but to manufacture fear and surrender to the idea that war is inevitable. We reject that premise wholeheartedly and remain committed to advancing peace – which is supported not just by most Iranian Americans, but by most Americans as well.
The Hill
29 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump is right about Brazil
The Trump administration's recent tariff threat against Brazil, coupled with his sanctioning of Justice Alexandre de Moraes through the Magnitsky Act, has many wondering why he picked a fight against another country's Supreme Court. Is this just petty spite, after Rumble — his pet social media project — was banned? Is he just angry that his ally, former Brazilian President Jair 'Trump of the Tropics' Bolsonaro, will likely be jailed? Or is the Trump administration right in claiming that the court has undermined the rule of law and the very Constitution it was sworn to protect? Surprisingly, Trump's criticism of Brazil's court is largely correct. In recent years, Brazil's Supreme court has become the most powerful institution in the country. It investigates, accuses, censors, and legislates. It is now acting as judge, jury, and executioner. What may not be obvious to outsiders is that this apparently unprecedented power-grab bears all the hallmarks of Brazil's 500-year legacy of patrimonialism. Not only does the court issue arbitrary rulings, but it also extends the Brazilian tradition of empowering an all-powerful, censorious, long-standing elite. This modus operandi started early in our history. With the Portuguese metropolis on the other side of the ocean, colonial plantations, governed by the farming elites, became the closest thing Brazil had to a state apparatus. Political power followed economic power. Political authority legitimized by royal titles passed from one generation to the next — entrenched indefinitely. Similar patterns of absolute, longstanding power continued after Brazil's 1822 independence. For the nation's first sixty years, 'friends of the king' dominated Brazilian politics. They issued judicial decisions, controlled parliament, and counseled the king, all to serve the interests of their class, and under the protection of life-long, royal titles. But they also added a new layer to Brazilian politics: control over public opinion. The first law against the press was passed in 1830, sanctioning publications that violated 'good customs' under penalty of prison. This vague standard gave the 'friends of the Emperor' discretion to, in the words of famous Brazilian novelist José de Alencar, 'fabricate public opinion in Brazil.' The nation's transition to republicanism also proved unable to break with patrimonial politics. For its first forty years, the presidency alternated like clockwork among the leading coffee and dairy producers. With federal authority far outweighing that of states and checks on the executive almost non-existent, supreme power was firmly entrenched among the coffee-and-cream elite. Censorship also became part and parcel of the regime. The first penal code created a special category outlining 'crimes of the press.' By 1923, that coercive power had escalated to the private domain — editors could be held personally liable for content published in their newspapers. When Brazil turned toward authoritarianism, a new absolute, long-standing ruling class emerged. In the 20th Century, Getúlio Vargas and his cronies obtained unchecked dictatorial power for an uninterrupted 15 years. The military establishment acquired similar access to the levers of power for more than 20 years. Censorship continued apace. News outlets were banned, pro-government newspapers were subsidized, and anti-state opinions were criminalized. Although regimes changed, patrimonialism endured — and today is no different. The first signs of the new patronage system appeared in 2019, when the court expanded its jurisdiction to unprecedented levels. Under the oft-cited 'Fake News Inquiry,' Justice Moraes acquired broad investigative authority. Citizens were arrested, journalists silenced, and the Federal Police began answering directly to the Supreme Court. With no end date in sight, the Inquiry has allowed Moraes to adjudicate indefinitely, unilaterally and supremely — with no appeals process to check his authority. Beyond acquiring broad jurisdiction, the court has also usurped legislative powers. Six years ago, it singlehandedly criminalized homophobia. Last month, it proposed guidelines for the regulation of social media. And, later on, Justice Gilmar Mendes sent recommendations to members of the congress on how legislators should treat indigenous lands. But the patronage only came into full display when the court acquired control over public opinion. The broadcasting network Jovem Pan was suspended for accurate reporting, including its reporting on the arrest of then-former President Lula da Silva. The platform X (formerly Twitter) was temporarily blocked for refusing to remove criticism of Justice Moraes himself. And the court's new plan to hold open-source platforms directly liable for user publications harkens back to the law of the press from a century ago. To crown it all, justices hold appointments until age 75. And so beyond expanding its functions, the court does so with guaranteed terms and little to no accountability. The question is why the turn back toward patrimonialism? Why censor, legislate, usurp the separation and balance of powers? As a nascent democracy, Brazil was left with many political issues undecided. With a flurry of political parties and the consequent difficulty of political negotiation, its congress was happy to defer contentious issues to the ostensibly neutral, unelected court. With broad legislative inertia, the court quickly took the jurisdiction granted by the congress as a license to lead the nation or, in the words of its chief justice, 'push history forward.' Justices increasingly justified decisions based on policy outcomes — labor market effects, defense of democracy, and political harmony, for example — rather than citing constitutional justifications. The cour turned the Constitution into a tool for pushing the 'right' ideas, not lawful ones. Amidst all this, Brazil's congress and executive sat on their hands. So, when the threat of far-right extremism reared its head, the court once again accepted a mandate to lead and defend Brazil. Touting the defense of democracy, it banned right-wing media outlets that threatened to sway the election in Bolsonaro's favor and suspended social media outlets that criticized the court itself. With no resistance, boundless jurisdiction, and an inflated sense of existential peril, ambition ran wild. In the end, there was no one left to guard the guards. Now, this all-powerful, censorious and long-standing guardian is Brazil's new patron. It does not respond to government overreach, it embodies it. It does not defend freedom of speech but instead violates it. It does not advocate for transitions of power but is anathema to them. Under the overbearing weight of patrimonial politics, Brazil is no longer a government of laws, but of men and women who wear cloaks.
