- A federal judge voided Kari Lake’s leadership at the U.S. Agency for Global Media for legal violations.
- The ruling reverses mass layoffs of 1,000 journalists and extreme cuts to Voice of America language services.
- Court findings confirm Lake’s tenure violated the Appointments Clause and the Federal Vacancies Reform Act.
(UNITED STATES) — U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth ruled on March 7, 2026, that Kari Lake unlawfully served as acting CEO of the U.S. Agency for Global Media, voiding key actions taken during her tenure at the parent agency of Voice of America.
The ruling wiped out a slate of decisions that included layoffs of more than 1,000 journalists and staffers, contract terminations, and operational cuts that reduced VOA broadcasting from 49 languages to as few as four or six.
Lamberth found Lake’s service violated the Federal Vacancies Reform Act and the Constitution’s Appointments Clause because she was neither Senate-confirmed nor otherwise eligible to exercise that authority. “Lake satisfies the requirements of neither the statute nor the Constitution,” he wrote.
The court voided actions taken from at least July 31 to November 19, 2025, a period the judge linked to delegations that gave Lake de facto control starting July 31, 2025, without proper authority.
The lawsuit was brought by VOA journalists and other affected staff who challenged Lake’s authority to implement the cuts. The case placed the spotlight on how a leadership dispute can quickly translate into structural changes inside a public-facing federal agency.
President Trump appointed Lake as senior advisor in late February 2025, then acting CEO on July 31, 2025. The decision described Lake as a former Arizona gubernatorial and Senate candidate.
The ruling also addressed turmoil at the agency’s top levels after Trump dismissed six of seven USAGM board members, leaving oversight in limbo. Lamberth said VOA Director Michael Abramowitz could not be fired absent a lawful CEO or board.
Before the cuts, VOA broadcast in 49 languages to 354 million weekly listeners, based on 2024 data cited in the case. After the reductions, broadcasting fell to as few as four or six languages, and staffing dropped to what the court record described as a “skeleton staff.”
The practical effects of the ruling on restoring operations remained unclear in the immediate aftermath. The decision invalidated Lake’s actions, but it did not spell out how quickly staffing, contracts, or language services would return.
Lake attacked the decision and said she would appeal. She called the decision “bogus” by an “activist judge” with a “pattern of activist rulings,” and said it blocks Trump’s mandate to cut bureaucracy.
Reporters Without Borders welcomed the court’s decision as a defense of press freedom and a rebuke to the cuts. Clayton Weimers, the group’s North American executive director, said the ruling shows “fighting for press freedom matters.”
Lamberth’s opinion turned on two related limits: statutory restrictions in the Federal Vacancies Reform Act and the constitutional requirement that certain senior officials receive Senate confirmation. The decision found that Lake did not qualify under FVRA provisions that permit temporary service, including categories such as first assistants at the time of a vacancy.
The opinion also addressed the use of delegation to give Lake authority. Lamberth wrote that Lake wielded control through delegations starting July 31, 2025, while lacking proper legal status to perform the “functions and duties” of the office.
The FVRA, codified at 5 U.S.C. §§ 3345-3349d, limits temporary officers in Senate-confirmed roles to specific categories and time periods. The statute can void “functions and duties” performed in violation of its restrictions, a remedy Lamberth applied by wiping out Lake’s actions.
The judge’s reasoning fit within a broader line of court decisions that scrutinize attempts to bypass the FVRA’s limits. Courts have struck similar maneuvers, including creating first assistant roles or using subdelegations to sidestep restrictions, the case record noted.
The decision said no circuit splits were noted in this case, which originated in U.S. District Court for D.C. The ruling left open the prospect of appeals while delivering a blunt message about the legal boundaries on temporary leadership.
The dispute over Voice of America also carried consequences beyond Washington staffing fights because the agency’s work reaches audiences around the world. The cuts, reflected in the shift from 49 languages to as few as four or six, sharply constrained output at one of the United States’ best-known international broadcasters.
The case unfolded at a time when federal agencies tied to international messaging and domestic politics face heightened scrutiny. The ruling underscored how courts can act as a check on executive actions in agency leadership and policy implementation when appointment rules come into dispute.
The decision also connected leadership legality to newsroom independence by emphasizing who can lawfully direct or dismantle operations. By ruling that Abramowitz could not be fired absent a lawful CEO or board, Lamberth signaled that personnel decisions at the top could not proceed through an invalid chain of authority.
For USAGM and VOA employees affected by layoffs and contract terminations, the ruling invalidated the actions that drove the reductions. The decision’s reach was broad, voiding all of Lake’s actions during the period the court found she unlawfully exercised authority.
Lake’s supporters framed the decision as an obstacle to Trump’s effort to cut bureaucracy, while press freedom advocates framed the outcome as a necessary guardrail. Weimers, describing the case as a vindication for journalists affected by the cuts, said it was proof “fighting for press freedom matters.”
