The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Trump's Awful Decision to Gut Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty
Trump is destroying a valuable source of American "soft power" and an inspiration to people suffering under authoritarian regimes.

Yesterday, President Donald Trump issued an executive order essentially gutting Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, and other US government-supported media aimed at getting news and information to populations living under authoritarian regimes. The EO has resulted in a freeze of their congressionally allocated funds, and puts all or most staff on leave (presumably in preparation for laying them off permanently).
Trump's order is a blow to America's "soft power" and to dissidents battling anti-American authoritarian regimes. VOA, RFE/RL and other similar media are among the few federal programs whose value far exceeds the money expended on them.
During the Cold War, millions of people living under communist regimes listened to these networks, and got news and analysis that countered regime propaganda. These media helped inspire dissident movements, and the eventual overthrow of communism in the USSR and Eastern Europe in 1989-91. My own parents were among the many Soviet citizens who clandestinely listened to VOA broadcasts, and it helped solidify their opposition to the regime.
In more recent years, VOA and RFE/RL operate on the internet as much or more than on traditional radio. But they continue to be valuable resources for dissidents and others living under authoritarian regimes, such as those of Russia and Belarus. Radio Free Asia and Radio Marti provide similar services for China and Cuba, respectively.
Shutting these programs down is an obvious boon to dictators like Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping. As Russian opposition leader Vladimir Kara-Murza puts it, Trump's EO is "One more champagne bottle opened in the Kremlin." It is, sadly, of a piece with the Trump Administration's increasing estrangement from other liberal democracies, and alignment with despots like Putin.
Nor can it be said that the order will save any significant amount of money. The annual budget of the US Agency for Global Media (USAGM), which oversees all these broadcasters, is only about $950 million, barely a rounding error in the $7 trillion federal budget. For that small investment, we significantly weaken some of America's principal enemies by bolstering internal opposition to their regimes. We thereby also augment the "soft power" of the appeal of American liberal democracy.
Since 2014, I have often been an (unpaid) guest commentator on Russian-language RFE/RL, and a few times on VOA. I was proud to do it, as a small partial repayment of the debt I and others owe to these organizations.
One of the strengths of RFE/RL and VOA is that they have a measure of editorial independence from the administration in power. Thus, they often have commentators critical of various aspects of US policy. For example, in my very first RFE/RL interview, back in 2014, I criticized the Obama Administration for usurping Congress' war powers. In later appearances, I was also critical of Trump and Biden on various issues. Obviously, RFE/RL and VOA often host defenders of the administration in power, as well. When I appeared, it was often together with another expert advocating the opposite view. But the willingness to host critics strengthens these outlets' credibility with the target audience, and provides it with valuable lessons on how a free media operates.
This editorial independence may well be what attracted Trump's ire. A few days ago, he became angry when a VOA reporter (correctly) pointed out that Trump had advocated expelling the civilian population of Gaza. Although Trump denied it, he had in fact previously advocated exactly that. It may be no accident that the EO targeting VOA came just two days later.
Regardless of Trump's motives, the apparent shuttering of VOA and RFE/RL is a blow to people living under oppression and a needless gift to America's enemies. With measures such as this and the betrayal of Ukraine, Trump's foreign policy is making anti-American authoritarians great again.
NOTE: As indicated above, I have been a guest commentator on Russian-language RFE/RL and VOA. As also noted, this is an unpaid role. However, cynics might still argue I am only opposed to Trump's order because it somehow hurts my career. The truth of the matter is that appearing on Russian-language media does little or nothing for my career, because hardly any of the people with influence over my career prospects (mostly other US law professors) follow such media or even know Russian. I appeared on these programs as a (very small) public service because I am one of the few Russian speakers available to them who have relevant expertise on the kinds of law and policy issues they interviewed me about.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Once again, a small agency consuming a tiny percentage of the federal budget is gutted in the name of eliminating "waste, fraud and abuse".
Remember, these same people want to spend your dollars to go to Mars.
I would happily donate some of my money to help send them to Mars.
Good, because at least that is something useful, unlike the stuff they are cutting now.
Once again, government propaganda outlets are desirable as long as they spew the right kind of propaganda.
You should be thankful he wants to eliminate them rather than have them spew the wrong kind of propaganda.
Government propaganda is always evil. Try a little principle once in a while.
A Million here, a Million there is how you get $30,000,000,000,000 in debt, be honest, how many “Conspirators” have listened to VOA or RFE in the last 20 years? I prefer Deutsche Welle, great Wildlife shows
Frank
Oh yeah none of them have actually listened to it. They just want to further the Libertarian Case for More Government Spending.
No I haven't listened to them in the last 20 years. But I haven't been to Russia or Belarus in the last 20 years either. The whole point of those VOA and RFE is to provide a source of truthful information in places where it isn't otherwise available.
Except VOA tends to be full of shit...
The problem with VOA is its mission was poisoned by hypocritical nd ridiculous caterwauling by the Democrats about "foreign election interference".
Here is just one example:
"US Secretary of State Antony Blinken has announced new sanctions against the Russian media channel RT, accusing it of being a "de facto arm of Russia's intelligence apparatus".
The network, he said, has also sought to influence Moldova's politics in coordination with Russian intelligence ahead of presidential elections in October 2024.
The US had already indicted two RT employees for allegedly attempting to interfere in this year's presidential election, but US officials said on Friday the state broadcaster played a bigger role in Russia's efforts to undermine democracies."
The top US diplomat told reporters on Friday that RT is part of a network of Russian-backed media outlets which have sought to covertly "undermine democracy in the United States".
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvglrrz95zzo
Its either normal and OK, or its sanctionable foreign election interference, it can't be both at the same time. And no its not different because we are the good guys.
Yes, and it's awesome. $950 million is a big chunk of change, especially for tax payers. We keep doing that and it adds up to a big portion of the budget.
Hope Trump keeps cutting!
Why, that's almost $3 for every man, woman, and child in the U.S.!
Dan, a Billion here and a Billion there and pretty soon you are talking real money. And it IS a Billion Dollars -- $950 M rounds to $1B as the 5 pushes the 9 to 10.
Bear in mind that there is nothing preventing VOA from becoming a 501(c)(3) and if people like you and Ilya want to pay for it, go for it.
"Once again, a small agency consuming a tiny percentage of the federal budget is gutted in the name of eliminating "waste, fraud and abuse"."
Yes, cutting BIG things will be MUCH easier than cutting tiny things. No chance you'll bitch about that.
Dan,
Tell me, what "big, expensive, agency consuming a large percentage of the federal budget" shall we gut to eliminate fraud, waste and abuse?
I don't know that eliminating VoA is the right thing to do, but I marvel at the gymnastics of those defending every small program that few citizens even know about, as if we are going to magically find some way to eliminate the trillion-dollar deficit by eliminating some big program no one likes.
The Cold War ended 35 years ago.
Only disciples of Dr. Francis Fukuyama believe that. It never ended and the world is a far more dangerous place today than it was in 1989.
Disputes with Russia only continue because deep state cold warriors need the cold war to justify their existence.
This goes back long before the Cold War. Go back and read Tocqueville's Democracy in America:
"Alexis De Tocqueville in his Democracy in America, first published in 1835, wrote: 'There are, at the present time, two great nations in the world which seem to tend toward the same end, although they started from different points: I allude to the Russians and the Americans."
It is just the nature of the world's major powers to oppose one another. You don't get to be at our level of economic, diplomatic, and military power and retain the luxury of withdrawing from being a dominant force.
To shamelessly paraphrase Leon Trotsky:
"You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you"
That's a pretty severe distortion of the DeTocqueville quote. If you read the rest of that section, you'll see that the only comparison he is making is that "All other nations seem to have nearly reached their natural limits, and only to be charged with the maintenance of their power; but these are still [in the early 1800s] in the act of growth."
There is nothing in DeTocqueville's quote to suggest that he thought the US and Russia would inevitably end up opposing one another.
Nor would anyone else have -- not in the 19th Century.
Russia was Westernizing, and he was contrasting the existing Russian civilization and the new American civilization.
Remember that it was "Workers of the World Unite" -- not "Farmers of the World" -- Marx was a German and Communism was expected in an industrialized country, not a backward agrarian one.
Remember that Russia lost the Russo-Japanese War which led to the 1905 revolution which weakened the Tsar -- and set the stage for the 1917 revolution after Russia's involvement in WWI.
But this was a century later...
Really I probably should have referenced Samuel P. Huntington's Clash of Civilizations. There is no better modern piece that explains the world situation.
Didn’t expect you to take the Obama line on this.
Considering the Democrat caterwauling about Russia, even Obama didn't actually believe it. More likely he saw them as a useful means to further destabilize America and the world.
Haha so you, at this late date, are going with the Obama as trying to destabilize America as President?
Was he a Muslim Brotherhood mole?
Good lord you'd think you would be a bit embarrassed.
You can't really think he's capable of embarrassment.
Disputes with Russia only continue because deep state cold warriors need the cold war to justify their existence.
You realize a tyrant from the former Soviet Union is currently rolling tanks through Europe, using the same argument Hitler did, the need to protect ethnic nationals, right?
And?
I'm gonna frame this and put it up on the wall, it's so precious!
A dictator in the mold generations have fought against has again reared its head in Europe.
"And?"
Precious!
Not relevant. If Congress wants to get rid of VoA, they can, but until they do, VoA must continue
IMHO they became useless the day they ceased international shortwave broadcasts and went completely internet and satellite. The internet can be blocked and satellite dishes are difficult to conceal in the sorts of places we want to reach if they aren't entirely out of reach for the average person in the 3rd World.
Ever since we made that decision we've been throwing money into a hole.
IIUC they never stopped shortwave generally, only in places where people had access to uncensored internet (because people generally prefer the internet , if available, to shortwave. As censorship tightened in e.g. Russia that have resumed some shortwave.
I wonder how common shortwave receivers are now vs back in the day. I mean, you can buy them off amazon, but how common are they in Russian villages?
Sorry, I don't have the details other than they never stopped shortwave altogether.
There is some service to Africa, but unless things have very recently changed there is no service to Russia.
As to availability Russians have just as much access to Ali Express as we do and there are quite a few receivers on there. Actually two of the most revolutionary recent receivers are from Russia. The Malahit is about the size of a deck of cards and covers everything from Longwave to lower Microwave frequencies. It has a great 4 or 5 inch display that has a full waterfall and even decodes things like Morse Code and Radio Teletype right on the screen
The other is the Belka which is tiny, fits in the palm of your hand but had excellent DSP circuitry.
Hmmm...seems like folks chipped in to retransmit VOA from commercial stations for the benefit of Russians. Now they won't have content to transmit.
"he became angry when a VOA reporter (correctly) pointed out that Trump had advocated expelling the civilian population of Gaza"
As he should. A US government employee cosplaying as a left wing journalist asking a gotcha question.
It is telling that the MAGAs believe that it is a betrayal when a journalist accurately reports facts.
But he's not a journalist, he's a propagandist on the government's own payroll cosplaying a journalist.
Building his audition tape for when he seeks a better job. "I challenged Trump"
This is telling.
The idea behind the VOA is that America was different, we had independent journalists, not just propagandists. So many Europeans would see the difference.
But conservatives like Brett really can't imagine someone who works along professional standards instead of partisan, political propaganda ones. It's like asking a color blind person to understand certain hues. They think "those guys are up to something!"
If you think government employees of a government propaganda outlet are non-partisan and objective, you probably think private media outlets are also non-partisan objective truth machines.
The point is no matter who the President is, or what party is in power VOA, RFE, and RL aren't supposed to be an independent journalistic voice, they are the official voice of the United State Government and should represent the positions taken by the US Government. That's literally the only reason they should exist. This goes back to their founding in 1942.
Truly pathetic. American Exceptionalism, RIP.
It's literally in the mandate given them by Congress:
§6202. Standards and principles
"United States international broadcasting shall—
(1) be consistent with the broad foreign policy objectives of the United States...
(b) Broadcasting principles
United States international broadcasting shall include—
(3) clear and effective presentation of the policies of the United States Government and responsible discussion and opinion on those policies;...
(c) Voice of America broadcasts
(3) VOA will present the policies of the United States clearly and effectively, and will also present responsible discussions and opinion on these policies..."
"To be effective, the Voice of America must win the attention and respect of listeners. "
Is that so if it's just an obvious propaganda voice?
Look, all government broadcasts, even relatively benign ones, are a form of propaganda. We'd be very remiss if we don't get our message out when all the other competing nations are.
I seriously don't intend this as an insult but I'm going to assume you probably don't own a shortwave radio. It's OK, hardly anyone but geeky hobbyists like I still do.
I'd seriously recommend one, though. They aren't all that expensive. $50 these days will get you something pretty good quality.
If you sit down on any given time of day and spin the dial you will find Radio China International, for example, on in dozens of languages on hundreds of frequencies designed to reach every corner of the globe.
Although far less countries do it today as compared to 20 or 30 years ago that is irrelevant. The major powers do except for the US. China is blasting out their message promoting Belt and Road to all the poorer nations most susceptible to fall under their control.
Regardless of the Administration, that is obviously not in our, and frankly not in their interest. It is necessary for the United States to get our message out as well. You can call that propaganda if you like, but there is nothing wrong with promoting our message and viewpoint. It's why we have an entire Diplomatic Corps.
Just because you may not like who is currently sitting in the Oval Office doesn't mean we have no policies or interests. Believe it or not, 5 years from now the US will still be here.
Except they aren't and haven't been anything close to that for decades.
It is even more telling what your reaction would be if the propaganda they spew were of a different nature. You partisan hacks can't imagine your own weapons ever being turned against you.
Government propaganda is evil, period.
VoA is mandated under 22 CHAPTER 71—6202. Trump has not authority to dismantle it. Just another example of Trump violating federal law and the Constitution.
Let's take a look 22 CHAPTER 71—6202.
"be consistent with the broad foreign policy objectives of the United States"
Do broadcasts critical the the Administration reflect that goal?
"be designed so as to effectively reach a significant audience"
How does restricting it's broadcasts to the internet, which evidence has shown can be quickly be shut off by foreign powers in times of crisis achieve that goal?
"adequate transmitter and relay capacity to support the activities described in this section"
How exactly does a quarter billion dollar lease on a building in the District with no broadcast facilities further that goal?
"The long-range interests of the United States are served by communicating directly with the peoples of the world by radio. To be effective, the Voice of America must win the attention and respect of listeners. These principles will therefore govern Voice of America (VOA) broadcasts"
VOA has terminated virtually all radio broadcasts, so how are they fulfilling that mandate again?
It is the responsibility of the presidential administration to properly administer VoA and fix the problems you mentioned. What the president can not do is shut down the VoA.
From Lake's statement:
"I look forward to moving forward with modernizing the core mission of telling America’s story throughout the world in a meaningful, impactful and effective way,"
Despite how the media is characterizing it, that doesn't sound as if it is being shut down to me.
That statement is a lie. They put all the staff on leave. That is destroying VoA, not modernizing it.
Awesome news! Hope they learn to code!
This who claim to be happy about DOGEs latest are always so angry sounding.
I'm not angry. Passionate yes, but not angry.
I think you're very, very wrong.
But you're not one of those posting 'Awesome news!' where I can read the gritted teeth.
Again, that is not true. What little radio service that still exists is currently broadcasting music, so all the broadcast engineers are obviously still on the job. Let's let this shake out over the next few days and see where this is headed.
You can see from my other posts I am a big proponent of VOA. I just think they have strayed from their mission. The world doesn't need another CNN or BBC World. American needs a cheerleader right now to make the case for the significant changes that are happening.
I am hoping that Trump finds a way to cut funding for PBS TV and NPR radio. They are propaganda.
If my family couldn't afford groceries, I would not buy movie tickets.
So the federal government, which can't afford anything, should not be spending money (tax dollars) on any 'arts and entertainment', Including the Kennedy center, PBS, NPR, whatever, until the debt is cleared.
The culture war has become a war on culture.
And no, we're able to afford things just fine. Unless you want to cut the Pentagon and raise taxes, you're just lying to try and rationalize something not even you are sure why you want it.
People like Roger and "Longtobefree" would be great conductors of an American Cultural Revolution.
You think they'd be dumb enough to ape the woke's war on culture? No, that's your garden.
"war on culture"
No, its war on government programs and funding. Cleveland has a world class orchestra at 2 nice venues without any federal money. So can DC with the Kennedy Center.
NPR and PBS are just duplicate to many, many outlets. Leftt dinosaurs.
Next they'll point out how tiny the fed contribution is, as in the first comment above, overlooking the obvious rebuttal that if it is so insignificant, then why do they insist on keeping it?
Cleveland Orchestra receives a lot of money in grants from federal agencies. They also received 10 million dollars in federal pandemic stimulus money. The venues also receive significant amounts of federal grants.
One thing you wrote is true. It is a world class orchestra.
Partisan hacks have been waging war on culture since Hammarabi. It didn't start with Trump.
Yes because the culture is rotten.
There is no Libertarian Case for Funding Arts.
What represents good, non rotten culture?
If you are asking in the context of VOA, one of the best ambassadors we used to have was Jazz. During the Cold War the information we got from defectors, escapees, and what little survey information we could glean from behind the Iron Curtain was that out most popular broadcasts, the ones that most symbolized and embodied "freedom" was our Jazz programming.
We would do well to resume this sort of cultural programing.
Here's a little 2 minute piece about Willis Conover and the role he played at VOA.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysiv4mQ7AO4&pp=ygURdm9hIGNvbGQgd2FyIGpheno%3D
I was more interested in the 'war on culture' types above wanted to say. The one who called our culture rotten, what would he replace it with? I figure that'd be a telling response.
But as to your take...
Jazz was ages ago. It's an example of something that's done and dusted.
The Cold War's cultural battlefield was won with "blue jeans and... pop music" (and whiskey and Hollywood movies.)
Nowadays probably some new stuff. Maybe video games.
But a single cultural silver bullet isn't going to be the key. Though rotate out the really old stuff like Jazz. I like Louie Armstrong just fine, but it's not a cultural touchstone it was.
There's a wide variety of audiences and given the goal it is indeed short-sited to give up a channel because we think there's another one we like more.
That's like saying Mozart is irrelevant because he's been dead for 200 years. Some culture endures, most of it is commercial drek.
200 years from now, I suspect you'd still be able to hear Dave Brubeck, Sinatra, and perhaps The Beatles; whatever is on the Top 40 pop list today? Not so much.
My point was if we are going to rebuild and reimagine the sort of message we are going to put out there to represent ourselves, let's put our best foot forward.
I've got 7220 Khz on right now. It's Radio Romania's international broadcast. They are playing some sort of Romanian folk on an English language broadcast aimed at Western Europe and North America.
So I'd say Jazz, Folk, Bluegrass, etc. Things that are purely American. Nobody wants to listen to a clone of NPR.
Culture that endures is not necessarily the best ambassador, though.
"purely American" seems subjective nationalism. It is a bad standard.
I see very little chance we're going to rebuild our image; this administration isn't interested in that kind of soft power. We're gonna be world mobster for a while.
I know "Nationalism" has taken on bad connotations, but I honestly don't find anything wrong with recognizing you have a distinct culture and to have enough national pride to want to show it off a bit.
I also wouldn't consider it to be a "world mobster" to insist our allies and partners live up to their obligations and do some of the heavy lifting like they are supposed to. One need only look at the disparity in military spending between Eastern and Western Europe. Poland is rapidly building one of the largest militaries in Europe while the UK doesn't have enough personnel to put both of their carriers to sea at the same time.
Last year, before Trump was even elected we asked Denmark to send troops to help patrol the border of Greenland along the GUIK Gap. They sent 8 men and two unarmed coastal patrol boats. That either an insult or an embarrassment, I don't know which.
Don't get me wrong, I would like to see Russia driven back to the 91 borders as much as the most fervent Ukraine supporter, but sadly those horses ran out of the open barn door the day Obama and Europe did nothing when Russia seized Crimea. The massive influx of arms, with no restrictions on range and accuracy should have started then. By the time we started seeing trucks with big Z's painted on them driving all over the place it was too late.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with recognizing we have a distinct culture.
Deciding on what that is, That's challenging.
Insisting we only broadcast stuff that's purely that? That's a big and needless constraint.
There are no NATO obligations; there are goals. Collective security isn't a zero sum game anyway.
But the way Trump is treating Ukraine, NATO, Mexico, and Canada is as an economic and military sales bully.
Except I suppose he's not being very clear what he wants to extract.
I don't think a NATO made up of EU only is good for the US or the world. And if you haven't noticed, they don't trust us to do FMS with anymore.
A taste of the MIC and that independence might be good for Europe (and only Europe) in the long run, but certainly not for the next couple of years!
If you're an acquisitive power like Russia or China or maybe North Korea or Armenia, this is going great.
Gaslighto exists on the Federal Largess -- some of us don't.
A War on culture?
What is the last thing of any cultural relevance art has produced? The last play. The last piece of art. The last piece of music.
Art is dead and the "Artists" killed it dead.
Let those who like it fund it.
If your parents could get better jobs and earn more money, they could afford luxuries. We as a nation can get more money, but we choose not to increase taxes on the Uber wealthy. It is a policy choice. Or we can reduce subsidies to large corporations andenforce current tax collections moe effectively. Again, itis a choice.
You are ignorant if you think even confiscating all the private wealth in this country would make a dent in the federal debt.
United States net worth is about $180 trillion. United States debt is less than $40 trillion.
OK, bright boy, now consider what all that wealth is.
It's property. Houses, cars, stocks and bonds, jewelry, art, yachts, airplanes. It's not cash.
How are you going to turn it into cash? You can't sell it, because everyone who could have bought it is trying to sell theirs.
I repeat: you are ignorant if you think you can confiscate all that wealth and pay off the national debt.
Why do you think you need to "pay off the national debt"? Countries aren't like individuals; they don't have the same lifetime budget cycle that people do.
Ask Katall, just above, bright boy number two.
Then ask yourself why interest payments last year were $1.2 trillion and if you can think of any better uses for that money. Or maybe you believe in the Magical Money Tree.
I submit that we have debt because US spending is greater than US revenue, and has been since WWII, at least. The last president to put a dent in that was Clinton.
We have to either raise trillions in revenue, or reduce spending by trillions. There are only two places to realisticly to reduce: medicaid and defense (and, maybe, the VA). All the other stuff is a rounding error.
Trumps tax cuts will only increase the deficit, no matter what he does, other than reduce payments for Medicaid or defense. And he will not do that.
Social Security is basically paid from the trust fund and FICA, so it is revenue neutral (although, without immigrants or more American youth, or a higher cap on FICA, it, too, will be a drain).
I don't know the answer. What I do know is that cutting VOA and all the other cuts proposed by DOGE will do next to nothing to solve the problem. In fact, by driving the country into a recession, it will likely increase the deficit.
The Voice of America has been nothing but taxpayer-funded left-wing propaganda for many years now. Just looking at who's mourning its demise will give you an idea about how much of a "voice of America" it has become. Good riddance. Hopefully CPR and PBS won't be far behind.
left-wing propaganda
What about it do you find left-wing?
Switch it to Trump propaganda and watch you howl, that's what shows it is left wing.
Wow, that's even lame by your standards.
Oooh, way to rebut it.
What a load of TDS garbage.
1. It's just nostaliga for Somin. He acknowledges that VoA operates mostly on the internet now, where people can get any info they want.
2. As others have said, he rolls out the old funding is "just a drop in the bucket" trope to avoid any cost/benefit considerations.
3. He thinks its independence from administration policy is a good thing, but it undermines his entire premise.
Ilya is just a synaptic reflex at this point.
Why should the United States, a solid member of the US-Turkey-Russia-India-China-North Korea axis of Great Civilizations with Great Leaders who stand united in opposition to this European liberal democracy crap, be hosting enemy liberal propaganda about all this “liberty” and “free Europe” nonsense?
Some of these radio “journalists” are such far-left nutcases that they support a free press, a commitment to truth, and other highly dangerous ideas that are completely against everything the United States stands for.
It’s scary how it’s so hard to be sarcastic without some people taking you at face value and cheering.
I think that's called the Poe effect.
I don't know who this Ilya chick is, but she strikes me as an angry tranny who hates President Trump. I recommend she reads the US Constitution (it only takes 20 minutes) then comes back to this site, apologizes, then gets back to serious comments. Look forward to having you back, hun.
Here's a clue:
Professor of Law at George Mason University
Oh, no! She's infecting students? Sounds like a DEI hire, don't you think?
Apparently they let any person off the street to become a Professor of Law, because Illllllya couldn't understand a traffic law.
Harvard Law does -- https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0813384281/reasonmagazinea-20/
What a nasty post.
Thank you! Longtobefree has been stalking me.
Don't like copycats, do you?
I thought, "isn't it Trump who structured the current USAGM in the first place?" - was half correct: yes, the BBG was abolished in 2018, but under Obama-era NDAA.
I think the President has to spend the money Congress appropriates, unless Congress itself allows otherwise.
I would like there to be a line-item veto in the Constitution, but there isn't.
The weapon he has to block misguided spending it to veto the entire bill in which the spending is included. Which needs to start happening with big-budget items as well as these "it's not even a billion!" propaganda outlets.
Time saving tip for Reason readers:
Here is every Ilya article ever; Trump's Awful !
Time saving tip for Reason readers:
Longtobefree is a conservative tool
He is not; he's a MAGA tool. MAGA are not conservative.
Longtobefree actually longs to be under Trump's boot.
Yup. He's not even close to being a libertarian. I don't mind reading the oppositions views, but I can do that on slate. We don't need a fascist here telling us more war and more government spending is libertarian.
Google, YouTube, Facebook, Apple, Microsoft, Taylor Swift, Cardi B, Snoop, that's American soft power that makes a difference. VOA's cost-to-listener ratio is insanely high (just like PBS). Also $950M 100 1/2 times is a trilly, and this is how you get there.
Math wasn't your strong suit in school, was it?
Nor debate in yours, or even conversation.
A couple of anecdotes are not evidence of effectiveness and they are certainly not evidence that these programs are effective enough to justify the cost in the face of VPN-protected social media and other communication alternatives. In case you've forgotten, we're broke! We can't afford to keep funding every minor program on the chance that it has some incremental benefits.
We are not broke.
We are very much broke.
There is no definition of broke by which we are broke. (Unless "we" refers to something other than the U.S.)
Current USA debt to GDP is 122%
Federal debt is $36 trillion
2024 federal government revenue amounted to $4.92 trillion (or equal to approximately 14% of current debt meaning if every penny was dedicated to debt repayment it would take seven years to repay)
2024 federal debt was $1.8 trillion.( Meaning the deficit was greater than 1/3 total revenue)
2025 deficit was projected at $1.9 trillion in October at the start of the fiscal year.
When the debt is over seven times as much as annual income and grows by over a third as much of annual income you are either broke or well on the way to being so.
The "annual income" of the U.S. is roughly $28 trillion.
The annual income of the federal government last year was $4.92 trillion.
That's total GDP, not federal revenues. Total GDP also has to pay for all personal expenses (food, clothing, housing, etc) - it is not all magically "available" to pay down federal overspending.
But even if you did suck up ever available dollar from the economy, you still wouldn't be able to pay off the federal debt.
Our government is living on credit. We have no savings. Your "we're not broke" claim is no better than those people who say "I can't be out of money because I still have checks". The fact that other people are still willing to let you spend yourself further into debt does not change the fact that you're already broke.
According to people like Nieporent believe all money and property belongs to the government. They just allow us to keep it until they want it
I mean, I can't pay off my mortgage in a single year, either, but I don't think that means I'm "broke."
No but owing over 7x your annual income while also having deficit spending of 1/3 your annual revenue does. Right now you are maxing out all of your credit cards and driving towards a wall at 120 mph. The longer you wait to deal with the spending issues the more painful that they will need to be.
When you're spending more than your income and you have no savings, you're broke by anyone's definition.
The fact that you might in some hypothetical universe be able to increase your income in the future does not make you less broke now. Increasing revenue and cutting costs are how you get out of being broke - but whichever path you choose, you have to actually face reality and do it.
We are not broke. There is plenty of money in the US. The government is underfunded because of the tax policy. I much prefer tax and spend Democrats to borrow and spend Republicans.
Oh. I forgot. Trump hasn't s raising taxes through tariffs.
We are broke. The government is spending tax payers money, that we don't have and neither does the government.
Who is 'we'? The citizens of the US have the money.
And that money belongs to the citizens.
No doubt. But how the citizens choose to use the wealth is their collective choice. They can hoarder it and the country will go bankrupt, I guess.
Or the government can spend less.
So you think citizens should voluntarily choose to give up their wealth to pay off the country's debts. Tell us - how much of your personal wealth have to you transferred to the US Treasury so far? How much do you think your taxes should be increased to pay for Congress' lack of discipline?
Fuck off commie. You can donate any shortfall you see from your own money and leave me the fuck out of priorities that I openly despise.
What is your definition of communist?
Honestly, I am not on favor of cutting VOA, but the government is not underfunded. It is overspending. It spends based not on rational analysis but on how much it can borrow as a fraction of GDP, so it can lavish. We'll skip astonishing bank accounts for now.
In the late 90s, it found itself in the black thanks to the Internet boom, so quickly increased spending to get back into the red because it could.
There is no underfunded government, just chronic borrowing according to a formula they can get away with.
If we go back to 2019 levels of funding, deficit goes away immediately.
Now --- who will oppose returning to 2019 levels of funding? What party is most likely to say no to that, calling it draconian?
" only about $950 million, "
$950 million here, $950 million there - pretty soon we're talkin' real money. These people have no shame.
I keep waiting for the usual suspects who routinely wail about Josh "flooding the zone" around here to say the first word about this spate of angst from Ilya. Nah, just kidding -- I knew they wouldn't say squat.
It's gonna be a long [blissfully so, don't get me wrong] 4 years.
In Northern Saudi Arabia Dec 1990/Jan 1991 we listened to the Iraqi version of VOA “Radio Baghdad” the “Voice of Peace” 1: Their signal was stronger than A-Farts, 2: They had an eclectic play list, Ramones, Animals, and “Bagdad Betty” did have a sexy voice telling us how stupid we were to be risking our lives for the Homo Saudis (She was right) unfortunately the first night of the Air War they underwent a “Format Change”
It's not soft power for America: It's spreading anti-democratic, anti American propaganda.
The VOA used to be entertaining when I was flying C130's around - we could pick it up on the HF radio. But that was the 1980s
What anti-democratic, anti American propaganda, specifically?
Although I don't entirely disagree with prof Somin, it is strange to see someone advocating government controlled media on a libertarian site.
Idealistic doesn’t mean dogmatic.
You can spot the dogmatic folks by their short and repetitive posts.
Hmmm... Prof. Somin's posts on the topic of immigration are so repetitive, I no longer bother reading them. You could say he's thoroughly dogmatic on that topic...
VPN and social media, thats how people get their news today, even in China. VOA was a waste of money.
Remind me again how many North Koreans are carrying around Iphones? VPN's are useless if your country cuts the data pipe to the rest of the world completely. Look at the last Iranian riots, or during the crackdown in Burma, or the unrest in Bangladesh a year or two back. In every one of those cases the 1st thing governments do is cut off the Internet to the outside world. Even data in and out of Russia is getting slower and more tenuous.
Sometimes the low tech way is the best. 500KW worth of broadcast, spread on too many frequencies to jam.
"how many North Koreans are carrying around Iphones?"
About the same number as have shortwaves?
(I agree with your point, though. I think NK is kind of the exception in its severe restrictions on radio. Anywhere that tunable radios are allowed you can listen without being traced)
That was my main point, unlike modern internet and cellular data, radio waves can't be stopped at the border.
FWIW I am hearing radios with actual working tuners are crossing the river from China. Guards can be bought for a price.
This is VOA from around 6 hours ago:
https://packaged-media.redd.it/qa1ab0efi2pe1/pb/m2-res_888p.mp4?m=DASHPlaylist.mpd&v=1&e=1742173200&s=d7b3ed14287d392382f971ba44b6d1abe5f737d4#t=31.088726
Arguing that nearly a billion dollars isn't significant government spending isn't a very convincing argument.
There are bigger issues here though. Trump doesn't understand soft power or international politics. He does understand using executive power for petty retribution. Topping it off are that so many people in our country are just as ill informed and petty as our president.
I think the bigger issue though is the way Trump uses EO as fiat laws and no one blinks an eye. An EO should be little more than an office memo carrying out a congressionally directed action. The president is not the source of power in our system.
That ended with Obama's "I've got a pen, and I've got a phone. And I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions that move the ball forward"
Trump is destroying a valuable source of American "soft power" and an inspiration to people suffering under authoritarian regimes.
But Krasnov supports the authoritarian regimes and isn't interested in inspiring those suffering under them,
Linking to news coverage and not the text of the EO is bad practice. Such omissions are often a red flag for dishonest reporting (though not, apparently, in this case).
Oh okay, this makes more sense. I thought Trump had decided to gut the REM song.
What's the Frequency, Kenneth?
Libertarians used to cry about big government; now they cry about small government. It is as pathetic as it is unsurprising.
Mmm yes, I love me some state media. As any good libertarian does.
A very puzzling reaction.
These organs are supposed to be advertising and supporting US foreign policy. Are they currently knee deep in shows backing higher US tariffs, "grow up and pay up you Europussies" NATO policy, "you haven't got the cards, Zelensky - make a deal" Ukraine policy, send the illegals home, and so on ? I'd certainly be expecting major positive items on Trump's deal with the El Salvador guy, and Rubio sending the South Africam ambassador packing. Or do they whine a lot about these things ?
It's hard to see why Trump would be trying to turn them off if he thinks they're effective propagandists for current US foreign policy. So he presumably doesn't think they are, so the best thing to do is send them home, so they at least don't propagandise against US foreign policy.
IMHO the best way to get Trump to change his mind is to send him a long list of these joints' post 20 Jan output, which actively and enthusiastically backs current US foreign policy.
Good luck with that.
I would oppose the elimination of Radio Free Europe if its target audience was not the people of the Russian Federation (the former Soviet Union) but the Western democracies, who live under the yoke of the European Union, governed by the tinhorns in Brussels.
I heard a lady this morning on NPR, from the VOA, with a lovely British accent being asked why it's important to keep VOA on the air. Especially, said the host, after the years long accusations of VOA being just another lefty outlet. British lady said it was VITAL that VOA keep broadcasting. She didn't address the accusation of VOA being a lefty cesspit, just repeated that it was a VITAL service.
I disagree. Not our government's job to broadcast to the world.
Let VOA go private or get rid of it. Or let the EU do VOEU or whatever.
I am never surprised by liberal's overreaction to things that really don't matter to the everday blue collar worker. Attorneys need to remember they are not the majority, and their feelings about some issues need to be kept in check.
Ilya is out of touch and should leave school grounds to talk to every day Americans.
Lindsay M. Chervinsky, author of "The Cabinet" and a new book on John Adams as well as someone with a dog named after John Quincy Adams, had a good discussion about soft power:
https://imperfectunion.substack.com/p/soft-power
Just another Cold War relic that is a completely useless anachronism, just like you Mr. Somin.