Patsy Widakuswara and the Struggle to Save VOA: "Trump Wants to Dismantle Us"

Patsy Widakuswara (Jakarta, Indonesia) is one of the most respected international journalists reporting from Washington, D.C. A White House bureau chief for Voice of America (VOA), currently on administrative leave, she has not only reported from the frontlines of U.S. politics but has also become a key figure in the defense of press freedom. In early 2025, Widakuswara joined five colleagues in filing a landmark lawsuit against the Trump administration, following a series of moves to dismantle VOA and undermine its editorial independence.

Her case symbolizes a broader conflict between public media institutions and rising authoritarian tendencies in democratic states. In this interview with her colleague Alex Segura Lozano, conducted just weeks after the upheaval at VOA, Widakuswara shares her perspective on the legal battle, the role of public media, and what it means to resist when everything is at stake.

Can you describe the current atmosphere inside Voice of America, particularly following the recent leadership changes and the ongoing legal uncertainty?

Well, I think a lot of people are anxious. For the most part, I see people somewhere in between feeling very despondent, and others—maybe a little bit delusionally—still believe everything will go back to the way it was. There’s definitely a lot of anxiety, and people cope with it in different ways. Some feel desperate or depressed. Others just hope for the best. And then there’s a core group of us, the ones organizing the lawsuit and pushing the movement forward—we’re trying to make the best out of this situation and help as many people as we can.

Your case has become symbolic of the confrontation between journalists at VOA, or generally speaking, the Trump administration and Trump himself. What led you personally to take legal action? Explain to us a little bit what happened in your particular case and what are you hoping to achieve?

I had already established a relationship with David Seide, our lawyer, back in 2021, during the period when Michael Pack was leading the U.S. Agency for Global Media. Pack, who was appointed by Donald Trump, sought to exert political control over VOA and other public broadcasters, raising serious concerns about press freedom.

At the time, I had asked Secretary of State Mike Pompeo a question during his visit to VOA. Just a few hours later, I was pulled off the White House beat. Worried about retaliation, I reached out to David, who was working as a whistleblower advocate, and he helped me navigate the situation.

We stayed in touch. After the 2024 election, I told him, “If something happens again at VOA, would you be willing to help?” And he said yes. Then in mid-March—around the 14th to the 16th—everything escalated quickly: the executive order, the sudden administrative shake-ups, and the firing of over a thousand contractors. David and I agreed that we had to act, even though we didn’t yet know exactly how.

Why did I do this? Honestly, it was instinct. I saw something clearly wrong—a blatant violation by the Trump administration—and I couldn’t just stand by. I knew we had to organize. David became the driving force behind our legal effort. We reached out to lawyers, secured pro bono support, and got the Yale Law School Media Freedom and Information Access Clinic involved. I was also in close contact with Jessica Jerreat, our press freedom editor, because we were all deeply alarmed about what this meant for the future of journalism.

What were the main legal and constitutional arguments behind the lawsuit filed by you and your colleagues?

There’s a two-pronged legal approach. The first centers on the First Amendment, specifically what’s called “viewpoint discrimination.” We believe the Trump administration violated the First Amendment by attempting to shut down our operations simply because they disagreed with our independent journalism. They saw our reporting as not aligned with their political agenda.

We point to specific evidence: the executive order issued on March 14th, and the following day, a public statement by Kari Lake, who accused VOA journalists of being “terrorist sympathizers,” “spies,” and “radical left-wing.” That kind of language confirms the administration's intent to suppress dissenting or independent media voices.

The second legal argument involves separation of powers and is rooted in the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Our position is that the Trump administration overstepped its executive authority. Voice of America and the U.S. Agency for Global Media were created by Congress through statute, and only Congress has the power to alter their structure, defund them, or dissolve them. The executive branch does not have the authority to dismantle these public institutions unilaterally.

So that’s our legal foundation: one argument based on press freedom and constitutional protections, and the other based on preventing executive overreach under existing federal law.

What risks, in short, do you see for editorial independence at VOA and similar institutions both in the U.S. and abroad?

Press freedom is the heart and soul of a democracy. You cannot have a democracy unless people can make informed decisions—and people cannot make informed decisions without a free press. It’s that simple.

That’s why we believe our case matters. We don’t just protect freedom of the press within the United States—we also promote and provide access to independent journalism around the world, in places where press freedom doesn’t exist. What’s at stake here isn’t just U.S. journalism—it’s a global issue.

The danger of the Trump administration’s attacks on press freedom is that it accelerates democratic backsliding, both at home and internationally. That’s why we’re fighting: because this is not just a policy debate. It’s about defending the very core of what democracy is built on.

How did the appointment of Kari Lake, even if temporary, reflect broader trends in politicizing public media in the U.S.?

Well, from the moment Trump announced that he wanted Kari Lake to be the VOA director, many of us—my journalist colleagues and I—were deeply concerned. She has a track record that raised serious red flags. First, she’s an election denier, which already calls into question her relationship with truth and facts. And how can you be the director of Voice of America if you don’t believe in facts and truth?

That said, we were still open to see what she might bring. We hoped—perhaps naively—that she would respect our editorial independence and journalistic integrity. But from her public statements and social media presence, it was clear she is not a neutral figure. She’s a Trump loyalist, and she’s aggressively antagonistic toward the media and toward press freedom. So yes, her appointment was very troubling.

And to your question about the broader significance: this is part of the Trump administration’s playbook. You identify loyalists and place them in leadership positions across federal agencies. Their role is not to lead, but to dismantle—to break down norms, traditions, and the rule of law. It’s about turning politically neutral institutions into tools for political power. That’s a strategy we see in authoritarian regimes. It should never happen in the United States, a country founded on rule of law and institutional checks.

In the case of USAGM, this is exactly what we’re fighting against. It comes back to the core of our lawsuit: defending freedom of the press and preventing executive overreach. If Congress, through the proper democratic process, decides to defund us or restructure how we operate—that’s one thing. That’s the system working. But if the executive can simply dismantle a public institution unilaterally, then we’re no longer functioning like a democracy.

Then we’re just like a banana republic—or any other authoritarian country that follows the whim of the leader.

In your view, what’s the role of Voice of America today, both domestically and globally, amid growing concerns about misinformation and authoritarianism?

Well, we’re talking about Voice of America while we were still operating—because right now, technically, VOA as we know it is no longer functioning in full.

But VOA’s mandate has always been clear: to tell America’s story to the world. And that doesn’t mean the administration’s story. It’s not the Republican story, or the Democrat story. It’s the story of how America works—how policies are made, how they’re debated, how they’re criticized. It’s about reflecting the diversity of thought and the complexity of decision-making in a functioning democracy.

We also have the mandate to provide news that is factual, objective, balanced, and comprehensive. And that’s key to democracy. That’s also part of what we export—we don’t just export American values or culture; we export the very idea of press freedom, of truth-seeking journalism. We show the world that real journalism includes not just the good, but the whole story, reported as truthfully and comprehensively as possible.

The hope is that people watching from abroad will see that and recognize the value in it. That in a system where you can report honestly, question power, and seek the truth, society becomes healthier. You reflect, you fix things, you work for the good of everyone—not just the ruling class.

And right now, with all the misinformation out there, that function is more important than ever. Unfortunately, we’re not in a position to counter that anymore. You’ve probably heard the stories—China, Russia, and Iran are already filling the void left by VOA. At our peak, we were reaching 360 million people a week. That’s gone. And it’s a huge loss—not just for journalism, but for American soft power. That’s why we’re fighting.

How has this period impacted your work personally, both as a reporter and as someone fighting to defend press freedom?

Well, first of all, I don’t have a job right now. So everything related to the lawsuit, the movement, making sure people are informed, organizing calls, running the social media campaign, coordinating fundraising... that’s become a full-time job. Honestly, I’m busier now than I was when I was White House bureau chief. I’m working 12 to 14 hours a day just to keep everything organized.

At the same time, I’m also trying to figure out what’s next for me, professionally and personally. And that takes time too.

How has it affected me personally? It’s draining. I never set out to be a leader in any kind of resistance movement. But as I told you, this is something I felt very strongly I had to do. I was in a position where I could do something—and so I did.

And despite everything, I feel good about that. I feel good that I’m doing something that’s aligned with my moral conviction. There was never a question in my mind. For me, this was a clear calling—like the universe said, “You have to do this.” And so I’m doing it. I feel good in the sense that I’m fighting the good fight. I really do.

I try to stay in control. Whatever happens, including the risks, I try not to think about that. I mean, obviously, I take precautions. If you notice, I’m off social media. I’ve taken physical security precautions to protect myself and my family.

It’s a big undertaking, but I feel very certain that this is the right thing to do. And so, I feel good about that.

Despite all this uncertainty and these personal challenges, is there any hope, in your opinion, for the future of independent journalism in the United States—and perhaps globally?

There’s always hope. When there is no hope, there is no movement, and there is no progress. Without hope, VOA in particular would face a huge step backward. So I do believe this lawsuit gives us a fighting chance.

From my point of view, we’re dealing with a sinking ship. The Titanic has hit the iceberg—there’s a big hole. What my colleagues and I are doing with this lawsuit is basically moving furniture to plug the hole, to give people a chance for an orderly evacuation, and to start looking for life rafts—whether you’re J-1, PSC, or FTE.

The idea that everything will return to how it was—that all VOA colleagues will go back to work under the same conditions, with full editorial independence protected by the VOA Charter—that’s almost impossible. Even if we win the lawsuit, even if the Supreme Court rules in our favor, even if the administration is forced to comply, the damage is done. This has been a deeply traumatizing experience for journalists.

I can’t imagine doing the kind of fearless journalism we once did without this hanging over us. There will be pressure. There will be self-censorship. In fact, we were already seeing signs of that before all of this. There’s no doubt: VOA has changed. It will take a very long time to rebuild—if the conditions ever return to what they were.

As for independent journalism more broadly: it’s a constant battle. It has to be fought—not just by activists and journalists—but by everyone. If people don’t see how crucial a free press is to democracy, then by the time it affects them personally, it may already be too late.

So if there’s one message I hope comes through in this interview, it’s this: you must support and fiercely protect independent journalism if you have it in your country. And if you don’t have it—you must fight to establish it. Because it’s the surest way to have a democracy that works for the many, not just the few.