Kari Lake’s ongoing clash with Michael Abramowitz, the Director of Voice of America (VOA), has reached a new chapter after a federal judge blocked her efforts to remove him. This situation unfolds against the backdrop of a broader campaign aimed at restructuring the agency, which has recently faced criticism for alleged mismanagement and inefficiency.
Lake, who was chosen by Donald Trump to oversee the U.S. Agency for Global Media, has been operating in an interim capacity while navigating these turbulent waters. Abramowitz, currently on paid leave since March, stands firm on his position, arguing that only an advisory board, requiring Senate confirmation, can perform his dismissal. According to reports, Trump previously removed all board members, and replacements have not yet been put in place.
U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth upheld Abramowitz’s stance, citing the law. “To the extent the Board’s current lack of quorum institutes a practical barrier to removing Abramowitz, the Broadcast Act gives the President a straightforward remedy: replacing the removed members,” Lamberth wrote. This ruling underscores the legal complexities surrounding Lake’s ambitions to reshape the agency, further complicating her path forward.
The financial aspect of this saga also raises eyebrows. Abramowitz reportedly earned approximately $380,000 in 2024, highlighting the monetary stakes involved in this power struggle. Lake’s attempt to prune the staff has encountered fierce opposition, as Abramowitz has taken legal action against her regarding those efforts. With ongoing friction, Lamberth has expressed concern, claiming that Lake’s intentions to downsize are “verging on contempt.”
Lake has made it clear that she does not plan to back down from this fight. “We fully intend to appeal this absurd ruling,” she stated, emphasizing her belief in the consequences of elections on such appointments. Her statement reflects an unwavering confidence in her efforts, despite the obstacles she currently faces. “Elections have consequences, and President Trump runs the executive branch,” she added, asserting that the Constitution will be upheld, even if not through the current judiciary.
A key moment in this standoff occurred when Abramowitz was informed by a senior adviser at USAGM about his possible termination. He had declined a position at a North Carolina broadcasting station, which triggered further conflict with Lake. This situation appears emblematic of Lake’s broader objectives, seeking to reshape VOA and its operations, which she has labeled as a “monster” in need of reformation.
Lake’s persistent approach underscores her commitment to cut the agency’s workforce, as she navigates a landscape filled with legal threats. “I’ve got a judge here in Washington, D.C.—I’ve got five cases against me as I try to scale this monster, this beast back and rightsize it,” she remarked. Her determination is evident, and she acknowledges the challenging terrain ahead, citing threats of contempt of court and imprisonment if she does not comply with specific judicial demands.
This struggle is further complicated by the historical context of VOA’s operations. Past reports detail troubling interactions between the agency’s Mandarin service managers and the Chinese embassy, raising questions about the integrity of the organization and the narratives it supports. Lake has highlighted these issues, alluding to a deep-rooted concern about the agency’s direction and objectives.
The confrontation between Lake and Abramowitz is more than just a personal dispute; it reflects larger themes of governance, accountability, and the role of government media in a rapidly changing world. As this legal battle unfolds, one can expect continued scrutiny, both legally and publicly, over the agency’s future and its leadership.
In the face of such challenges, Kari Lake remains resolute. Her fighting spirit and willingness to confront established norms signal that this confrontation is far from over. With potential appeals looming and the political landscape evolving, the outcome of this dispute could have lasting implications for the U.S. Agency for Global Media and, by extension, the narrative it presents to the world.
"*" indicates required fields
