The Trump administration has taken a significant step that has raised concerns among supporters of press freedom. On March 15, the administration put journalists at government-funded broadcasters, including Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFERL), on leave. This action came as the administration froze their funding, prompting RFERL to file a lawsuit against the government.
In the lawsuit, RFERL argues that the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM) has violated the Constitution and federal laws by withholding funds that Congress allocated for the broadcaster. USAGM is responsible for distributing money to international networks like RFERL, which provide news in regions where a free press is not guaranteed.
Stephen Capus, president of RFERL, expressed strong sentiments against the funding freeze. He stated, "This is not the time to cede terrain to the propaganda and censorship of America’s adversaries." Capus emphasized that the network serves around 47 million people weekly across 27 languages and 23 countries, including areas like Afghanistan, Hungary, and Ukraine.
The lawsuit names USAGM and two officials, including Senior Adviser Kari Lake, who has been vocal about the need for reform within these networks. The agency has not yet commented on the lawsuit or the freeze on funding.
Former USAGM general counsel David Kligerman noted that the network had no choice but to pursue legal action. He explained that entities like RFERL typically prefer to work cooperatively with the government, given their reliance on federal funding.
The legal battle comes at a time when Congress passed a stopgap spending bill that included continued funding for USAGM and its networks. However, the White House issued an executive order limiting USAGM’s activities to those required by law, which has raised eyebrows among critics.
RFERL’s lawsuit highlights the importance of its mission and argues that the agency is legally obligated to allocate the funds as intended by Congress. The lawsuit states that the refusal to provide these funds is an infringement on Congress’s authority.
The situation has drawn attention from various quarters, including international diplomats and some members of Congress, who have criticized the administration’s actions. Meanwhile, supporters of the administration have praised the moves, viewing them as a necessary step towards reform.
As this legal battle unfolds, it raises questions about the future of U.S. government-funded journalism and its role in promoting democracy and free speech abroad. The outcome may set a precedent for how such organizations operate in the face of political changes.