Case Summary and Outcome

The United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted in part a preliminary injunction, holding that executive actions dismantling an independent federal media entity likely violated statutory and constitutional constraints. The suit, brought by employees, contractors, unions, and NGOs, challenged mass terminations, defunding of affiliates, and suppression of programming implemented after a U.S. Presidential executive order by Donald Trump. The Court found a substantial likelihood that the actions were arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act, unlawfully withheld appropriated funds, contravened statutory mandates protecting independent broadcasting, and infringed constitutional provisions requiring faithful execution of the law and respecting Congress’s control over appropriations. Finding irreparable harm to the agency’s operations, personnel, and international broadcasting mission, and determining that the public interest favored lawful agency conduct, the Court ordered restoration of staff, funding, and programming while denying relief related to certain entities pending further proceedings.

---

Facts

On March 14, 2025, American President Donald Trump issued Executive Order (EO) 14238, titled “Continuing the Reduction of the Federal Bureaucracy,” directing the elimination of the United States Agency for Global Media (UNAGM)’s “non-statutory components and functions … to the maximum extent consistent with applicable law”. [p. 5] On March 15, the White House (the U.S. executive office) released an article, “The Voice of Radical America,” stating that the executive order would ensure that taxpayers were “no longer on the hook for radical propaganda” and UNAGM released a public statement on its website declaring the agency “not salvageable” and “irretrievably broken.” [p. 5]

The USAGM is an independent executive agency established by the U.S. Congress, whose mission is to “inform, engage, and connect people around the world in support of freedom and democracy.” [p. 2] USAGM exercises oversight over six federally funded broadcast networks, the largest of which is the Voice of America (VOA). The VOA Charter, codified into law in 1976, provides that VOA “will serve as a consistently reliable and authoritative source of news [that is] accurate, objective, and comprehensive” [p. 2]. In addition to VOA, USAGM has supervisory authority over the Office of Cuba Broadcasting (OCB) and four independent non-profit networks: Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), Radio Free Asia (RFA), Middle East Broadcasting Network (MBN), and the Open Technology Fund (OTF). Collectively, these entities are mandated to promote and advance the values of free speech and press freedom in regions lacking independent media.

All six entities of the UNAGM receive funding from the U.S. government. Congress provides annual appropriations to USAGM and designates specific portions of those funds to VOA, OCB, and the remaining networks. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2024, USAGM was appropriated $857 million, including $260 million for VOA, $60.8 million for RFA, and $100 million for MBN. For FY 2025, Congress maintained this level of funding and the accompanying conditions through a series of continuing resolutions. The Third Continuing Resolution, enacted on March 15, 2025, extended appropriations through September 30, 2025. USAGM’s ability to “reprogram” funds is strictly limited to no more than five percent of any program’s designated allocation and may only be exercised upon providing at least fifteen days’ prior notice to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees.

Beginning on March 15, 2025, USAGM leadership initiated a series of measures affecting its operations. On that date, 1,042 of its 1,147 full-time employees were placed on administrative leave, with the agency specifying that the action was not related to any disciplinary purpose. Also on March 15, all USAGM grantee networks (RFE/RL, RFA, MBN, OTF) received notices terminating their grant agreements, citing that the awards “no longer effectuate agency priorities.” [p. 26] On March 16, 2025, USAGM cancelled contracts with approximately 598 personal services contractors (PSCs) and, although these PSCs were reinstated with full pay and benefits on March 28, 2025, they remained without active assignments. On March 17, 2025, USAGM directed all Foreign Service personnel to deactivate transmitters at their stations and to place locally employed staff on leave. By March 25, 2025, USAGM planned to issue termination notices to 29 of its 32 radio broadcast technicians, effectively abolishing nearly all such positions, and announced its intention to terminate 594 members of the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), including broadcast journalists and technical staff.

These measures had immediate and far-reaching consequences. For the first time in its 80-year history, VOA ceased news reporting; its website remained inactive after March 15, 2025, and international radio stations that relied on VOA programming either ceased broadcasting or aired only music. VOA employees continued on administrative leave, while PSCs holding exchange visitor (J-1) visas faced the prospect of deportation to their home countries, some of which had repressive press freedom. Grants to RFA and MBN remained terminated, and RFE/RL’s grant expired, leaving these networks without congressionally appropriated funds in April. The Office of Cuba Broadcasting (OCB), however, resumed operations on March 26, 2025.

On March 21, 2025, Patsy Widakuswara, a USAGM employee as VOA White House Bureau Chief and other USAGM employees, contractors, unions, and journalistic organizations (collectively, “the Plaintiffs”), filed an action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Kari Lake, Senior Advisor to the Acting CEO of USAGM, and Victor Morales, Acting CEO of USAGM, in their official capacities, as well as against USAGM itself (collectively, “the Government”). The complaint alleged that the Government’s actions violated the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (protecting freedom of speech and of the press from governmental censorship and viewpoint-based discrimination), the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (requiring agencies to engage in reasoned decisionmaking and making final agency actions reviewable by courts), the constitutional separation of powers (allocating distinct legislative, executive, and judicial functions to prevent aggrandizement of any one branch), the Take Care Clause under article 2 of the constitution (imposing on the President the duty to faithfully execute statutes enacted by Congress), and several statutory provisions, including the International Broadcasting Act (directing USAGM and VOA to provide consistently reliable and authoritative news abroad) and congressional appropriations acts (statutes governing the allocation and permissible use of funds appropriated by Congress).

On March 24, 2025, the Plaintiffs sought emergency relief in the form of a temporary restraining order (TRO) and a preliminary injunction.

On March 28, 2025, Judge Oetken of the Southern District of New York granted the TRO, concluding that the Government likely violated several APA provisions. The TRO enjoined the Government from further implementing EO 14238, reducing USAGM’s workforce (including employees, contractors, and grantees), terminating grants or contracts, or closing offices.

On April 4, 2025, the case was transferred to the District of Columbia, which issued this memorandum order on April 22.

---

Decision Overview

Judge Lamberth of the United States District Court of Columbia delivered the memorandum and order. The central issue before the Court was whether the conditions for a preliminary injunction to prevent the Government’s dismantling of USAGM through wide staff terminations, ending grants to affiliates and suspending programming were present.

The Plaintiffs sought preliminary injunctive relief on the basis that the Government’s actions following EO 14238 violated fundamental constitutional and statutory principles and inflicted immediate and severe harm. They argued that USAGM’s termination and threatened termination of staff, cancellation of grants, and suspension of programming contravened the First Amendment, the separation of powers, the Take Care Clause, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the International Broadcasting Act, and congressional appropriations acts. Although they raised an Appointments Clause claim, they did not rely on it for emergency relief. The Plaintiffs argued that they established standing through both associational and organizational grounds: associational standing permits an organization to bring a lawsuit on behalf of its members when the members would have standing to sue individually, the claims are germane to the organization’s purpose, and the case does not require the individual participation of each member; organizational standing allows an organization to sue in its own right when it has suffered a direct injury to its interests.

As plaintiffs, the public-sector unions American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), and the American Foreign Service Association (AFSA) argued that they demonstrated direct injury to their members, including the planned termination of over 600 employees and the resulting threat to their representational activities, while Reporters Sans Frontières (RSF) and RSF-USA demonstrated harm to their journalist members operating in repressive environments who rely on USAGM broadcasts for safety and credibility. These organizations also claimed direct injury to their core operations, including lost dues, the undermining of their missions, and the diversion of significant resources to mitigate the shutdown of USAGM. The NewsGuild-CWA, representing RFA employees, highlighted imminent loss of health insurance and the danger of deportation for its members on nonimmigrant visas.

The Plaintiffs also claimed a likelihood of success on the merits of their APA claims. They contended that the Government’s actions, mass administrative leave for over a thousand employees, termination of contracts, elimination of grants, and the planned firing of hundreds of staff, constituted discrete and final agency actions ripe for judicial review. These actions, they argued, were arbitrary and capricious because they lacked any reasoned analysis, failed to distinguish between mandatory and discretionary functions, disregarded decades of reliance interests including VOA’s 80-year history and a global audience of 425 million, and violated both the International Broadcasting Act’s requirement that VOA serve as a “consistently reliable and authoritative source of news” and appropriations statutes requiring notice and adherence to funding limits. [p. 28] By refusing to expend congressionally appropriated funds, the Plaintiffs argued that the Government also violated the Take Care Clause. The Plaintiffs asserted irreparable harm in the absence of relief, describing the wholesale dismantling of USAGM’s operations as an existential threat to their missions, the collapse of grantee networks, the imminent deportation of PSCs to hostile regimes, and the silencing of independent journalism in authoritarian regions. They argued that these harms were certain, imminent, and beyond monetary compensation. The Plaintiffs submitted that the balance of equities and public interest overwhelmingly favored an injunction, as the Government would suffer no legitimate harm from being compelled to comply with binding law, while the public has a vital interest in ensuring that international broadcasting continues in accordance with Congress’s long-established directives.

The Government opposed the Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction by raising a series of arguments centered on jurisdiction, the applicability of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and the nature of the alleged harms. It contested the Plaintiffs’ likelihood of success on the merits under the APA and maintained that the Plaintiffs were improperly challenging the overall dismantling of USAGM rather than a discrete agency action, which would require impermissible judicial supervision of agency operations; it argued that the challenged measures were not “final” because USAGM remained operational and activities were merely paused pending compliance with EO 14238. As to the claim of arbitrary and capricious conduct, the Government initially justified its actions as taken “[i]n furtherance of the OPM Memorandum and the [EO]” which provides that “federal agencies “have the discretion to grant paid administrative leave to employees to help manage their workforces when it is in their best interest to do so” and later refrained from directly contesting the arbitrary and capricious argument, instead stating that USAGM was still determining how best to implement the EO. [p. 26] With respect to claims of unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed action, the Government argued that disputes regarding the withholding of appropriated funds were not ripe and declined to specify the planned use of VOA’s earmarked funds. In response to allegations of a violation of the First Amendment, the Government denied engaging in viewpoint discrimination, submitting that all journalism functions were suspended without targeting any particular viewpoint. On irreparable harm, the Government argued that the Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries largely amounted to adverse employment actions remediable by monetary damages at the conclusion of litigation and therefore did not constitute irreparable harm. It further maintained that the potential deportation of PSCs on J-1 visas did not rise to irreparable harm but merely required those individuals to depart the United States earlier than anticipated. The Government contended that granting injunctive relief would interfere with its ability to comply with the EO, thereby upsetting the balance of equities and undermining the public interest.

The Court outlined the legal standard required for granting a preliminary injunction, relying on Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., which requires the Plaintiffs to establish (i) that they are “likely to succeed on the merits”; (ii) that they are “likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief”; (ii)] “that the balance of equities tips in their favor”; and (iv) that an injunction rendered “is in the public interest.” [p. 13]

The Court highlighted Food & Water Watch, Inc. v. Vilsack in that “[a] party who seeks a preliminary injunction ‘must show a substantial likelihood of standing’,” and evaluated the Plaintiffs’ standing, focusing on whether the organizational Plaintiffs, including public-sector unions (AFSCME, AFGE, AFSA) and NGOs (RSF and RSF-USA), had shown a substantial likelihood of standing. [p. 13] The Court rejected the Government’s contention on associational standing that the alleged harm to union members placed on administrative leave amounted to “nothing more than speculation about future events that may or may not occur.” [p. 14] It noted Kari Lake’s public remarks that the agency was “going to be decreased in size significantly” because there was “too much rot in the agency to salvage it.” [p. 14] Such statements, the Court held, undermined the Government’s position and exposed its “flatly inconsistent” stance in simultaneously suggesting these same actions could be reviewed by the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). [p. 15] The Court also considered the Government’s termination of over 600 union members’ employment, finding that defending the agency’s existence and funding was “certainly germane to the unions’ purpose” and that the relief sought did not require participation by individual members. [p. 15] The Court also found that RSF and RSF-USA had met the standard for associational standing, as the Government did not contest it.

The Court also rejected the Government’s argument on organizational standing that the Plaintiffs alleged only “speculative” injuries and that VOA remains intact and USAGM continues to operate. [p. 15] The Court found that VOA “is not operational, and the Networks are winding down operations,” which constituted an ongoing, concrete harm. [p. 16] These actions, the Court found, impaired the unions’ “core business interests” and their ability to deliver representational services. Similarly, for RSF and RSF-USA, VOA’s silence disrupted their capacity to disseminate broadcasts and advance press freedom initiatives, as VOA had previously served as a frequent conduit for amplifying their work. The Court accepted that the organizational plaintiffs were compelled to allocate significant resources to address USAGM’s obstruction of their ability to carry out their core functions. With respect to The NewsGuild-CWA, which represents employees of RFA, the Court noted that the Government did not dispute its standing and determined that a “substantial likelihood” of standing existed, based on the fact that approximately 75% of its members had been furloughed, had suffered loss of benefits, and faced the risk of deportation to authoritarian regimes.

The Court confirmed that it did have jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs’ claims concerning the withholding of congressional appropriations from the Networks, and found that their claims were grounded in “constitutional and statutory rights,” not merely contractual obligations. The Court also rejected the Government’s reliance on AFSA v. Trump, where a preliminary injunction was denied on the basis that the claims presented were “archetypal complaints about changed employment conditions” because the agency was “still standing”. [p. 21] The Court found that reasoning unpersuasive, noting that “[i]t strains credulity to conclude the USAGM is “still standing” when its 80-year-old flagship news service, VOA, has gone completely dark with no signs of returning, when USAGM has stopped the disbursement of funds to statutorily created, congressionally funded networks, and when USAGM leadership has called the agency ‘not salvageable’ and ‘a giant rot from top to bottom’.” [p. 22] Applying the framework articulated in Thunder Basin Coal Co. v. Reich, the Court held that “no meaningful review” was available from the MSPB or OSC regarding the “wholesale placement of employees on administrative leave and the silencing VOA”. [p. 22] It added that these administrative bodies lacked jurisdiction over the cessation of congressional appropriations. The Court concluded that the case presented “standard questions of administrative’ and constitutional law, detached from” federal employment issues, thereby confirming its jurisdiction. [fn. 22]

In assessing the likelihood of success on the merits, the Court examined the Plaintiffs’ APA claims. The Court rejected the Government’s argument that the Plaintiffs were attacking a broad dismantling of USAGM rather than a “discrete” agency action, which, the Government argued, would improperly require judicial supervision of all agency operations. The Court found that a rapid “slew of actions” does not preclude review of each action that contravenes statutorily mandated duties. [p. 23] The Court adopted Judge Oetken’s reasoning in Biden v. Texas and held that the “termination of contracts with partner organizations and the dismantling of critical infrastructure leading to the complete halt of agency programming are final agency actions.” [p. 24] It found that the mass placement of employees on administrative leave, together with the expressed intent to dismiss many others, constituted final agency action. The Court explained that “final does not mean permanent” and that these measures “altered their rights and obligations,” producing a “direct and immediate … effect on the day-to-day business of the parties.” [p. 24]

The Court found the Government’s measures to be “arbitrary and capricious” in terms of the APA. Article 706(2)(A) of the APA stipulates that a “reviewing court shall . . . hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be . . . arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” The Court found an “absence of any analysis whatsoever” from the Government showing which components of USAGM were “statutorily required” as per the EO, as the Government had provided no indication that such an analysis was undertaken. [p. 25] The Court found the initial justification of acting under the EO and another memorandum to be “grossly insufficient.” [p. 26] The Government had offered no substantive analysis, declined to press the merits of the arbitrary and capricious challenge at hearing, and conceded that it was “determining how it will best go about complying with [the EO],” which the Court viewed as indicative of action taken without “reasoned analysis.” [p. 27] The Court noted as an example that several Network grants were terminated on the very day President Trump signed the Third Continuing Resolution, which included specific appropriations for the Networks, and that the Government failed to account for reliance interests such as VOA’s 80-year statutory mission, its 425 million listeners, and the Networks’ longstanding dependence on congressional appropriations. The Court concluded that “it is hard to fathom a more straightforward display of arbitrary and capricious actions than the [Government’s] actions here.” [p. 28]

The Court found the Government’s conduct likely to be “not in accordance with law,” citing probable violations of the International Broadcasting Act, VOA’s charter requirement to “serve as a consistently reliable and authoritative source of news [that is] accurate, objective, and comprehensive,” and statutory appropriations laws that prohibit the Executive from refusing to expend congressionally appropriated funds absent rescission. [p. 28] The Court noted that USAGM’s limited reprogramming authority permits only a five percent reduction and requires fifteen days’ advance notice, neither of which occurred, and it concluded these actions likely contravened the Take Care Clause by failing to “faithfully execute” the laws. Emphasizing separation of powers, the Court highlighted that the Executive may not “enact, [] amend, or [] repeal statutes” reiterating Clinton v. City of New York, and that the Government’s refusal to expend appropriated funds was a direct affront to Congress’s “power of the purse.” (Congress’s exclusive constitutional authority to raise, allocate, and restrict federal funds) [p. 30]

The Court found it likely that the Government had “unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed” agency action under the APA, rejected the Government’s ripeness objections because grant terminations to RFA and MBN had already occurred (subject to the March 28 TRO), and that the Government had “declined to make any representation regarding the planned use of VOA’s earmarked funds” while VOA remained “silent indefinitely”, indicating a likely failure to fulfill statutory obligations. [p. 31]

In assessing the second factor of the preliminary injunction, irreparable harm, the Court rejected the Government’s arguments that the Plaintiffs’ asserted injuries were merely “adverse employment actions … that can be remedied by money damages” and that the potential deportation of PSCs on J-1 visas amounted only to leaving the country “earlier than scheduled.” [p. 32] The Court reiterated that alleged injuries must be “certain and great,” “actual and not theoretical,” and of “clear and present” imminence. [p. 31-32] Adopting the March 28 TRO’s conclusion, the Court found that the “dismantling of USAGM would clearly cause employees, contractors, and grantees irreparable harm.” [p. 32] It noted the administrative leave of roughly 1,300 VOA employees, widespread furloughs, and planned terminations of some 600 additional staff, which “unquestionably make it more difficult for the [plaintiff] to accomplish [its] primary mission.” [p. 32] While ordinary economic losses are typically insufficient, the Court noted that financial injury may be irreparable where it “threatens the very existence of the movant’s business”.  [p. 32] The Court concluded that silencing VOA, terminating Network funding, and shutting down transmitters constituted a dismantling of the human infrastructure required to operate USAGM, harms that “cannot be remedied with mere money damages.” [p. 33] The Court likewise dismissed the Government’s characterization of the J-1 issue, finding that the immediate termination of contracts “virtually ensure[s] that [two of the individual PSC Plaintiffs] will be subject to deportation immediately” without adequate notice, which is irreparable. [p. 33] It also credited the “uncontested” allegations of irreparable harm for RSF Plaintiffs, who would lose trustworthy news sources in dangerous countries, and for TNG-CWA members, who faced loss of health insurance and possible deportation to hostile regimes. [p. 33]

On the third and fourth factors of the preliminary injunction, the balance of equities and the public interest, which merge when the Government is a party, the Court found the Government’s principal contention that an injunction would impede its ability to comply with the EO unpersuasive, given that the Government was “apparently still in the process of determining how to comply with the EO” and had “likely violated it by reducing USAGM’s activities to levels far below the constitutional and statutory minimums.” [p. 34] The Court concluded that the Government would suffer no cognizable harm from the issuance of preliminary relief requiring adherence to applicable statutes and constitutional provisions. By contrast, there exists a significant public interest in ensuring that governmental agencies adhere to federal law, and Congress’s “longstanding determination” that international broadcasting serves the public interest weighed in favor of relief. The Court therefore held that the balance of equities and the public interest supported a preliminary injunction. The Court also refused to require a bond, finding that it would effectively deny the Plaintiffs judicial review by holding them ‘hostage” to the Government’s alleged unlawful withholding of funds, and that public policy favors allowing challenges to improper administration without such a barrier. [p. 35]

Accordingly, the Court granted in part the Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, finding a likelihood of success on the merits for their claims that the Government’s actions were arbitrary and capricious and not in accordance with law under the APA. Specifically, the Court concluded that the dismantling efforts likely violated the International Broadcasting Act, congressional appropriations acts, the Take Care Clause, and separation of powers principles. The Court therefore enjoined the Government to restore USAGM employees and contractors to their status prior to the EO, reinstate FY 2025 grants for Radio Free Asia and Middle East Broadcasting Networks, and restore VOA programming. The Court denied injunctive relief related to RFE/RL and OTF at that time, noting that RFE/RL’s grant termination had already been rescinded and that OTF’s March funding had been processed. The Government’s subsequent motion for a partial stay pending appeal was denied, with the court finding that a stay of the personnel-related provisions would effectively prevent VOA programming from resuming.

After the preliminary injunction, allegations of the Government’s noncompliance with the injunction arose, and the Court held a hearing on June 23, 2025, on motions for an order to show cause, expressing dissatisfaction with the Government’s lack of evidence regarding VOA’s operations and future plans. The Court ordered supplemental filings on June 27 and again on July 8, 2025, highlighting serious deficiencies, including an intended reduction-in-force of staff cited as essential to resumed programming, vague staffing figures, unexplained use of the $260 million appropriated to VOA for FY 2025, a narrow broadcasting focus on only four languages, and the absence of any plan for Africa. It also noted conflicting statements regarding the Edward R. Murrow Shortwave Transmitting Station and the omission of Michael Abramowitz’s removal as VOA Director on July 8. A July 18, 2025, supplemental memorandum failed to cure these deficiencies, and on July 22, 2025, Kari Lake stated that her objective was to “shut the entire agency down as per the instructions of President Trump…and so I’m working to eliminate the agency.” [p. 9] On July 30, 2025, the Court granted the Plaintiffs’ motions for an order to show cause and directed the defendants to produce a concrete plan to comply with the injunction’s requirement to restore VOA programming. The case is still ongoing.

---