Voice of America's foreign language services are vital to global peace
The Trump administration has hopefully just learned an important lesson: the strategic importance of Voice of America's foreign language services for U.S. national security.
After Israel launched a full-scale war against Iran — presenting an immediate threat to American troops and vital national interests in the Middle East — Trump officials recalled back to work some VOA Persian Service journalists and broadcasters who had been put on paid administrative leave and threatened with termination.
A few months before Israel's attack to destroy Iran's nuclear weapons capabilities, Trump issued an executive order, at the suggestion of Elon Musk, to scale down the broadcasting services of the U.S. Agency for Global Media to the statutory minimum. Kari Lake, Trump's advisor at USAGM, may have wanted to save more of VOA's foreign language services and broadcasting jobs, but she faithfully carried out the president's orders by proposing to reduce staffing of some key foreign language services, including the Persian Service, to just a couple of web journalists for just a few countries.
I managed the VOA Polish Service when it expanded its audience and contributed to bringing a peaceful end to Communism and Russian colonialism in Poland during the Reagan administration. I sent a message advising Lake that VOA cannot handle international emergencies with only a few journalists fluent in foreign languages.
When the Communist regime in Poland declared martial law in 1981, VOA's Polish Service had 15 full-time employees. We increased our broadcasts from two-and-a-half to seven hours daily almost overnight by hiring temporary help and slowly growing our staff to 25 full-time positions. We did not start from nothing or just two broadcasters. At the same time, Radio Free Europe's Polish Service, also funded by U.S. tax dollars, had over 100 employees and many more hours of daily radio broadcasts to Poland. The two outlets helped to eliminate the Warsaw Pact's military threat to America and brought democracy to the region while avoiding war and violence.
Few Americans know that one of the main reasons for starting the VOA Russian Service in 1947 (and Radio Liberty soon after that) was to convince the Russians that the U.S. did not want war and would never first use nuclear weapons against Russia. We needed a communication channel in case of an emergency as well as a tool for countering disinformation.
Fortunately, when the latest war in the Middle East started, full-time VOA Persian Service employees were still on paid administrative leave. They could return to work immediately after the Israeli strikes in Iran. That would not have been possible, had they already lost their jobs, as they would have soon under the Trump administration's plan — and America would have been left without a critical strategic national security asset.
With Musk out of the picture (at least for now), and with the growing crisis in the Middle East, it is time for Trump officials and members of Congress from both parties to work out a reasonable plan to save and reform Voice of America.
However, I do not favor returning the Agency for Global Media to its previous state. Under the influence of Obama and Biden officials, it has become one of the most bloated bureaucracies in the federal government. USAGM's former leadership hired journalists who engaged in partisan news reporting, allowed a reporter to accompany Biden as his guest to an official ceremony and recruited a Russian freelancer, ignoring signs he was a Russian spy. They created a work environment in which several VOA journalists felt free to post on their social media accounts 'death to Israel' and 'f*ck Trump' memes.
These partisan executives have already resigned or retired. The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform has launched an investigation into charges that former USAGM officials 'routinely and improperly utilized visa programs to employ poorly vetted foreign nationals, including from nations adverse to' the U.S. and awarded grants to entities 'despite major conflicts of interest.' But those journalists in VOA's foreign language services who did nothing wrong should not be punished for the sins of their former bosses. American citizens and permanent residents are more easily vetted and should always have priority in hiring over individuals residing abroad.
Although he was appointed during the Biden administration, VOA Director Michael Abramowitz, who remains on paid leave, had taken steps to curb partisan excesses of some VOA English news service reporters while increasing support for the work of the best and most critical VOA foreign language services. Abramowitz, a former head of Freedom House, is the first VOA director in a long time who understands the crucial role of foreign language broadcasting. I have always believed that it isn't a bad idea to have a competent leader at VOA who is from the opposite party from the one in the White House. This could help prevent partisan bias, although such an arrangement is unlikely in the current political environment.
While reducing the Voice of America to a few journalists is a wholly unworkable proposition, shrinking the USAGM bureaucracy to just a few people and combining its media operations to avoid duplication is an excellent idea that would save millions of dollars — which then can be used for broadcasts to Iran, China, Tibet, Russia, Cuba, North Korea and a few other countries.
Partisan reporting at Voice of America primarily occurred in the VOA English newsroom rather than in the foreign language services. VOA English newsroom reporters and editors were the ones who, at first, did not report that Biden's performance at his pre-election debate with Trump was in any way diminished. Some VOA English reporters refused to call Hamas 'terrorists' after the Oct. 7, 2023 attack.
By law, VOA cannot duplicate the work of private media, and there is no major English-speaking foreign country that threatened the U.S. or lacks a free press. Voice of America does not require a large team of journalists to prepare news reports in English that duplicate the work of CNN, The New York Times or Fox News. A small team producing a roundup of American news from multiple sources without ideological censorship is more than sufficient.
What VOA needs are foreign language services that use the best technology to deliver uncensored news otherwise unavailable from private outlets to countries that may pose a threat to America's security and to international peace. Congress and the Trump administration should preserve VOA to help prevent the U.S. from becoming entangled in foreign wars.
Ted Lipien was Voice of America's Polish service chief during Poland's struggle for democracy and VOA's acting associate director. He served from 2020 to 2021 as the president of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Miami Herald
27 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Support for renewables shrinks as fossil fuel interest grows
Support for renewables shrinks as fossil fuel interest grows Republicans and Democrats alike are less likely to support renewable energy than they were five years ago, according to a survey released June 5 by the Pew Research Center. Floodlight examines the survey results, which mirror growing pockets of opposition to solar farms, reignited political support for coal plants and moves by President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans to kill federally funded clean energy projects. This shift in opinion dates back to when Democratic President Joe Biden took office, said Brian Kennedy, Pew senior researcher and one of the study's authors. "This isn't a new trend," he said. Still, Kenneth Gillingham, professor of environmental and energy economics at the Yale School of the Environment, was surprised. "I see this shift … as a successful effort to link climate change and renewable energy to broader culture war issues," Gillingham said. He added that in the past, "prominent" Republicans supported renewables and sought solutions to climate change, but those stances could now be seen as "disloyal" to Trump. The survey of 5,085 U.S. adults taken April 28 to May 4 revealed that while 79% of Americans favored expanding wind and solar production in 2020, that number has dropped to 60%. And 39% of Americans today support expansion of oil, coal and natural gas - almost double the 20% that supported it in 2020. Combustion of fossil fuels - in transportation, energy generation and industrial production - is the No. 1 cause of climate change. Much of the change in opinion is driven by Republicans, whose support of oil and gas grew from 35% in 2020 to 67% today. But Democrats also indicated less support for renewable energy and more for fossil fuels than five years ago. While many results reflect Trump's policies opposing most renewables and boosting fossil fuels, Pew found a few notable exceptions: 69% of all respondents favor offshore wind - a technology Trump has specifically targeted. Both Democrats and Republicans indicated stronger support for nuclear power, with Republicans' favorable opinions increasing from 53% in 2020 to 69% in 2025. Democrats' support rose from 37% to 52%. The Trump administration has signaled support for a nuclear renaissance, despite its high cost. There were wide partisan splits on several topics. In March, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced it would scale back environmental regulations. Pew asked whether it was possible to do that and still protect air and water quality: 77% of Republicans said yes and 67% of Democrats said no. Pew didn't ask the respondents why their attitudes have shifted. But Kennedy said in Pew's past surveys, Republicans have expressed concern about the economic impacts of climate change policies and transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources. Mike Murphy, a Republican consultant and electric vehicle backer, said when the environmental benefits of clean technologies are touted, it polarizes Republicans. Instead, Murphy said messages should be about pocketbook issues - like lower fuel costs - and jobs. "It's hard for pro-climate people to understand," said Murphy, who has advised dozens of state and national GOP campaigns including John McCain's 2008 presidential bid. "(They think) we just need to shout louder and hit people over the head about climate, climate, climate. The key is you want to talk about jobs and national security and other events that naturally resonate a lot more with right-of-center people." That's what Murphy's groups, the EV Politics Project and the American EV Jobs Alliance, are trying to do to depoliticize electric vehicles. "Whenever electric cars are seen through a climate lens," Murphy said, "their appeal narrows." It's a strategy also being used by the Electrification Coalition, a left-of-center pro-EV group. Ben Prochazka, the coalition's executive director, echoed Murphy's strategy, adding that EVs have "become overly politicized and caught in the culture wars, impacting markets and ultimately hurting our ability to realize their many benefits for all Americans." Prochazka noted that once introduced to EVs, consumers support them: "EV drivers love their vehicles, with more than eight out of ten reporting that their next car will also be electric." Perhaps those practical messages are getting through. In the Pew survey, electric vehicles were the one item that saw an uptick in support - 4 percentage points in the past year. But popular support might not be enough to stop Congress from killing a $7,500 electric vehicle credit, which Murphy said would be "policy disaster." Republicans, he said, are in a "real squeeze," because "they don't have enough money for the tax cuts the president has promised." Murphy said: "It's easier for Republicans to cut Biden electric cars … than it is for them to cut more Medicaid." Gillingham is still optimistic that solar, wind and other greenhouse gas-reducing technologies will move forward - because they are the cheapest. "The continued decline in the price of renewable energy and battery technologies, as well as other new technologies, is a reason to continue to have hope that the worst impacts of climate change can be addressed," he said. Published by Canary Media, Renewable Energy World Floodlight is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates the powers stalling climate action. This story was produced by Floodlight and reviewed and distributed by Stacker. © Stacker Media, LLC.
San Francisco Chronicle
31 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Trump calls for special prosecutor to investigate 2020 election, reviving longstanding grievance
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump on Friday called for the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate the 2020 election won by Democrat Joe Biden, repeating his baseless claim that the contest was marred by widespread fraud. 'Biden was grossly incompetent, and the 2020 election was a total FRAUD!' Trump said in a social media post in which he also sought to favorably contrast his immigration enforcement approach with that of the former president. 'The evidence is MASSIVE and OVERWHELMING. A Special Prosecutor must be appointed. This cannot be allowed to happen again in the United States of America! Let the work begin!' Trump's post, made as his Republican White House is consumed by a hugely substantial foreign policy decision on whether to get directly involved in the Israel-Iran war, is part of an amped-up effort by him to undermine the legitimacy of Biden's presidency. Earlier this month, Trump directed his administration to investigate Biden's actions as president, alleging aides masked his predecessor's 'cognitive decline.' Biden has dismissed the investigation as 'a mere distraction.' The post also revives a long-running grievance by Trump that the election was stolen even though courts around the country and a Trump attorney general from his first term found no evidence of fraud that could have affected the outcome. The Department of Homeland Security's cybersecurity arm pronounced the election 'the most secure in American history.' It was unclear what Trump had in mind when he called for a special prosecutor, but in the event Attorney General Pam Bondi heeds his call, she may face pressure to appoint someone who has already been confirmed by the Senate. A Justice Department spokesman declined to comment Friday. The Justice Department in recent years has appointed a succession of special counsels — sometimes, though not always, plucked from outside the agency — to lead investigations into politically sensitive matters, including into conduct by Biden and by Trump. Last year, Trump's personal lawyers launched an aggressive, and successful, challenge to the appointment of Jack Smith, the special counsel assigned to investigate his efforts to undo the 2020 presidential election and his retention of classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida. A Trump-appointed judge agreed, ruling that then-Attorney General Merrick Garland had exceeded his bounds by appointing a prosecutor without Senate approval and confirmation, and dismissed the case. That legal team included Todd Blanche, who is now deputy attorney general, as well as Emil Bove, who is Blanche's top deputy but was recently nominated to serve as a judge on a federal appeals court. ___
Newsweek
31 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Is Donald Trump Considering Tactical Nukes Against Iran? What We Know
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The Trump administration has not taken anything "off the table," including the use of tactical nuclear weapons, if it decides to take military action against the underground Iranian nuclear facility at Fordow, Fox News reported, citing a White House official. It followed a report in The Guardian that the president "is not considering using a tactical nuclear weapon on Fordow." The Pentagon declined comment to Newsweek, instead referring to a statement by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who said on June 16 that he had directed "the deployment of additional capabilities" to the Middle East. "Protecting U.S. forces is our top priority and these developments are intended to enhance our defensive posture in the region," Hegseth said. President Donald Trump speaks to the press in the Oval Office of the White House on June 18, 2025 (left) and a retired U.S. B61 thermonuclear gravity bomb, a type of tactical nuclear weapon still... President Donald Trump speaks to the press in the Oval Office of the White House on June 18, 2025 (left) and a retired U.S. B61 thermonuclear gravity bomb, a type of tactical nuclear weapon still in service, shown in 2021. More BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP/Jon G. Fuller/GETTY/AP Why It Matters No nuclear weapon has been deployed in war since the U.S. dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan in 1945, and any use of such weapons against an Iranian facility would be extremely controversial in the U.S. and worldwide. On Thursday, the White House said Trump would decide "within the next two weeks" whether the U.S. will join Israeli military action that began on June 13 against Iranian nuclear sites. Israel claims that Iran is working toward building a nuclear weapon, while Tehran insists its nuclear program is entirely peaceful. What To Know One of Iran's most important nuclear sites is the Fordow nuclear enrichment facility, which is believed to be buried about 80 meters deep into the side of a mountain. Experts have suggested Israel doesn't have any conventional bombs capable of destroying the site, though on Thursday Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that "we have the capability" to "hit all of their nuclear facilities." Unlike Israel, the U.S. possesses 30,000-pound GBU-57s "bunker buster" bombs that are specifically designed to reach targets buried deep beneath the surface and can be deployed by B-2 Spirit heavy bombers. On Wednesday, citing people "familiar with the deliberations," The Guardian reported that Trump "does not appear to be fully convinced" that GBU-57s bombs can reach the Fordow facility. It said the effectiveness of GBU-57s against the Fordow facility was "a topic of deep contention" within the Pentagon, citing two defense officials, with some reportedly believing that only a tactical nuclear weapon could destroy the site. It added that Trump was "not considering" the option and said it hadn't been presented by Hegseth or Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Dan Caine. Tactical nuclear weapons are smaller than strategic nuclear weapons and are designed to be deployed for limited strikes or on the battlefield, rather than against whole cities. The U.S. maintains a large arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons, though none have ever been used in combat. Fox News senior White House correspondent Jacqui Heinrich said she was told by a White House official that The Guardian report was "false." According to Heinrich, the official "has no doubt about the efficacy of bunker busters in eliminating the site at Fordow" adding they also denied "that any options [including tactical nukes] have been taken off the table." Israel has been attacking Iranian military and nuclear sites since June 13. On Thursday, the Washington-based group Human Rights Activists said that at least 639 people had been killed in the attacks, though the figures have not been independently verified. In response, Iran has fired ballistic missiles at Israel, killing 24 civilians, according to Israeli authorities. On Friday the British, French and German foreign ministers were slated to meet their Iranian counterpart in Geneva, Switzerland, in a bid to resolve the conflict. U.K. Foreign Secretary David Lammy said that "a window now exists within the next two weeks to achieve a diplomatic solution." What People Are Saying Fox News senior White House correspondent Jacqui Heinrich: "There have been a lot of headlines this afternoon including one from The Guardian that claims that the U.S. military has doubts about whether the 'bunker-buster' bombs could get the job done, further claiming only a tactical nuke maybe could finish it and it further stated that the president is not considering a tactical nuke, that it was not one of the options presented to him. "I was just told by a top official here that none of that report is true, that none of the options are off the table and the U.S. military is very confident 'bunker busters' could get the job done at Fordow." Fox News host Jesse Watters, on Thursday: "The Guardian reported Trump was getting cold feet worried about the effectiveness of 'bunker busters' and not willing to use tactical nukes. But the White House tells Fox that's not true, everything's on the table, even tactical nukes." Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov, on Friday, referring to possible U.S. tactical nuke deployment, according to Russia's TASS news agency: "This would be a catastrophic there are so many speculations that, in fact, it's impossible to comment on them." What Happens Next It is not yet known whether the U.S. will launch strikes against Iran and, if so, what weaponry it will use. Deploying a tactical nuclear bomb, the first use of a nuclear weapon since World War II, would be a controversial move.
