On this year’s World Press Freedom Day, while much of the world paused to honor the role of independent journalism, a striking silence came from the top of the U.S. government—paired with a significant federal court decision on Saturday that effectively dismantled protections for key global media outlets like Voice of America and Radio Free Asia. In this episode, I break down how the Trump administration’s actions—and the courts’ response—threaten the very infrastructure designed to bring free press to authoritarian regimes. What’s at stake isn’t just funding. It’s the survival of truth itself in different corners of the globe.
This video can also be found on my new YouTube channel. Please feel free to subscribe and comment there as well.
–Ryan
P.S. This newsletter is moving!
To keep receiving updates, commentary, and in-depth legal analysis, you’ll need to subscribe to my personal Substack.
Just enter your email below to stay in the loop—that will soon be the place new editions of this newsletter are published.
Thank you for reading—and for being part of this community.
TRANSCRIPT
Hi everyone,
Welcome back to In The Know—or welcome for the first time. My goal is to keep you informed on pressing issues of the day and to stay critically engaged with them. It’s about fostering analysis and starting meaningful conversations.
Today’s topic coincides with World Press Freedom Day, which was this past Saturday. There’s been a remarkable convergence of events: the Trump administration is engaging in a massive dismantling of global media organizations, and there’s been complete silence from the Secretary of State—Marco Rubio—on this important day. At the same time, a major court opinion came out supporting the Trump administration’s actions.
Let me start with a quote. As you read it, try to guess who said it:
“As we commemorate World Press Freedom Day, it is important we take a moment to recognize the courage and sacrifices of journalists around the globe. At a time when freedom of the press remains under attack worldwide, it’s important to advance the basic liberties that are critical for healthy democracies.”
That quote is from Marco Rubio—but not this year. It’s from when he was a senator. This year, on World Press Freedom Day, he was silent. So was the Secretary of State, which breaks precedent. Secretary Blinken made statements during the Biden administration, and even Secretary Pompeo did so during Trump’s first term. Those statements are important because they send a message to U.S. embassies worldwide, who then reinforce them. Notably, strong statements have often been issued concerning Russia. But not this year. Rubio remained silent.
The Trump administration is enacting sweeping changes—some possibly legal, some clearly not—including dismantling global media organizations that had enjoyed strong bipartisan support: Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, Radio Free Asia, and Middle East Broadcasting Networks. These outlets were designed and funded by Congress to deliver independent news to countries lacking press freedoms. After 9/11, the bipartisan 9/11 Commission recommended the creation of a network specifically for the Arab world, which led to the Middle East Broadcasting Networks. Their work includes counteracting extremist messaging from groups like ISIS.
Radio Free Asia, created in the 1990s with bipartisan support, serves countries such as China, Myanmar, and North Korea. It has successfully reported on the Uyghur genocide and the Chinese government’s cover-up of the COVID-19 outbreak. It has also been crucial in covering the crisis in Myanmar.
But the Trump administration began dismantling these outlets—slashing staff and suspending grants. As a result, the organizations sued and won temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions in district court. The administration appealed to the D.C. Circuit, which initially issued an administrative stay—temporarily halting the district court’s orders while the court considered next steps.
Interestingly, that Thursday order preserved one piece of the injunction: reinstatement of Voice of America staff. Carrie Lake, Trump’s appointee overseeing these agencies, even sent out a letter welcoming the staff back. But just two days later, on World Press Freedom Day, the D.C. Circuit reversed course in a 2–1 decision—effectively erasing the district court’s orders. The majority consisted of two Trump appointees, Judges Katzas and Rao, with Judge Pillard dissenting.
Judge Pillard’s dissent is powerful. The legal fight involves the Impoundment Control Act, which holds that the President cannot simply refuse to spend money appropriated by Congress. That would be equivalent to a line-item veto, which the Constitution does not permit. Congress created and funded these media organizations for a reason, and the Executive Branch must implement that intent.
The court also weighed whether halting the injunctions would cause irreparable harm. The majority argued that the administration would face harm due to foreign affairs powers, but that’s an oversimplification. They also cited the allocation of $15 million—arguing the funds might not be recoverable—which is minuscule in the federal budget.
Meanwhile, the harm to the media outlets is enormous. The court acknowledged the “possible collapse” of MBN and RFA but dismissed the risk by saying remedies might exist later, such as trying to recover withheld grant funds. But that’s not practical. These organizations could collapse before any remedy is possible.
Judge Pillard emphasized the need to preserve the status quo during litigation. She wrote:
“Voice of America, Radio Free Asia, and Middle East Broadcasting Networks face severe and irreparable harm absent injunctive relief. Voice of America has gone dark for the first time since 1942. Radio Free Asia and MBN face imminent collapse if they do not receive the funding Congress directed to each of them by name.”
That’s a stark warning.
There’s also a peculiarity: while the court removed the requirement to reinstate Voice of America staff, it left in place the mandate that Voice of America fulfill its statutory duty to be a “consistently reliable and authoritative source of news.” But how can that happen if staff aren’t reinstated? It’s unclear.
The broader theme here is twofold. First, these organizations were created to counter propaganda—from Nazi Germany to ISIS. Their collapse has global implications. Second, the legal system doesn’t always reflect the full harm. Courts focus on whether staff have standing to sue, rather than recognizing the broader collapse of Congress’s global press freedom efforts.
In the end, the D.C. Circuit didn’t rule that the Trump administration was right on the merits—it just claimed the district court lacked jurisdiction. The case may still be decided elsewhere. It’s hard to predict how it will end. But this entire episode highlights a deliberate policy choice to undermine global press freedoms. And Marco Rubio’s silence only underscores the stakes.
Share this post