On Saturday (March 15), the U.S. government ordered a suspension of funding for multiple broadcasting organisations, including Radio Free Asia (RFA) and Voice of America (VOA). An RFA journalist told The Photon Media that they still had to work on Monday (March 17) but were prepared to be “laid off at any time.” The journalist expressed concerns that the loss of this platform would silence the voices of vulnerable communities, particularly Chinese human rights activists they had covered for years. Another journalist, while not facing immediate expulsion from the US, was concerned that being previously named by the Hong Kong Security Bureau meant they had already violated local laws. They believed returning to Hong Kong would result in arrest, making RFA’s closure a “journalistic humanitarian disaster.”
Trump Administration Cuts Funding, RFA Employees Uncertain About the Future
U.S. President Donald Trump signed an executive order last week that reduced funding for the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM). RFA later confirmed it received notice that its federal funding had been officially terminated. Meanwhile, VOA placed all of its employees on paid leave for one week.
Amy (a pseudonym), a Hong Kong journalist working for RFA, described the past few days at the company as chaotic. An email sent on Sunday instructed staff to report to work on Monday, but it was unclear whether they would be required to work the next day. She and her colleagues including those on vacation, prepared to return to the office, knowing it might be their “last day.”
Speculation about possible VOA-RFA mergers or mass layoffs have circulated since Trump took office, but with funding termination confirmed, RFA’s destiny remained uncertain. Amy had mentally prepared herself for sudden unemployment.
While she was not concerned about her residency status, she pointed out that many of her colleagues from China, Xinjiang, Tibet, and Myanmar relied on work visas to stay in the U.S. “If they lose their jobs and cannot find new ones fast, they may be forced to return to their home countries. That would be a humanitarian disaster!” she said.
RFA Director: Funding Cut Is a Gift to Dictators
Last week, RFA President Bay Fang released a statement condemning the budget cut as a “reward for dictators and authoritarian regimes,” including the Chinese Communist Party. She emphasised that RFA had played a crucial role in helping U.S. policymakers grasp the realities of China and other closed-off nations.
Losing RFA Would Mean Fewer Voices for Human Rights
Amy spent years reporting on human rights activists in China, including the annual June 4th commemorations and other advocacy efforts. She regretted that mainstream Hong Kong media had abandoned such topics. “Chinese activists and overseas Hong Kongers fighting for human rights—RFA and a few other overseas media outlets are their last remaining platforms.”
Compared to smaller independent media, RFA had more resources to continue reporting on persecuted activists and overseas pro-democracy Hongkongers. Amy followed story of groups like Tiananmen Mothers, covering how they faced state surveillance and suppression every year around June 4th, National Day, and the Two Sessions. She also wrote about families seeking justice for loved ones killed in political crackdowns, amid relentless harassment from authorities.
“The Tiananmen Mothers have been in pain for over 30 years. When the Hong Kong Alliance was still active, their events felt like routine rituals. However, following the National Security Law, just a few outlets continue to cover them. With U.S. financial cut to RFA and VOA, these vulnerable voices will fade even further—perhaps perish totally.”
She recalled a day years ago when she called a Chinese activist she had been following, and he quickly responded with, “You finally called.” After years of tracking their struggles, she felt personally attached to them. “I wrote as much as I could. Even if it didn’t change anything, their persistence deserved to be seen,” she explained. “As long as they want to talk, I will keep writing. But this year, I may have to break my promise.” It was a commitment, as much as to her sources.
Hong Kong Journalists Relocated Overseas Fear Returning Home
The U.S. government’s decision to cut RFA funding could endanger Hong Kong journalists. The Hong Kong Security Bureau had previously named RFA at least twice, as a “foreign force” that “receives U.S. government money to spread anti-China rhetoric.” This means RFA’s Hong Kong-based staff may not only lose their jobs, but they may also be seen as “endangering national security” and arrested if they return home.
Zoey (a pseudonym), a Hong Kong journalist who moved from RFA’s Hong Kong office to an overseas location, believed the Hong Kong government already had records of her employment with the company. She believed that returning to Hong Kong could lead to immediate arrest. “I’ve always wanted to go back,” she said. “But the Hong Kong government is likely waiting to take action against us.”
Despite the risks, Zoey had no regrets about working for RFA and moving abroad. “At least I got a few more years in journalism than some of my peers, many of whom can no longer work as journalists or continue reporting in a place with press freedom.” She stated that she has no plans to return to Hong Kong. For colleagues who would be forced to leave their current locations owing to visa issues or return to their home countries, RFA’s closure was nothing short of a “journalistic humanitarian disaster.”
She also remarked that with the implementation of the National Security Law and Article 23, “It’s already too late to leave.” Her family had pushed her to resign, but she stayed determined to report. Now, with U.S. funding pulled, she sighed, “I never thought I’d survive the Hong Kong government’s crackdown, only to see it end this way.”
RFA Labeled a “Foreign Force” by Hong Kong Security Bureau
In February last year, Hong Kong’s Secretary for Security Chris Tang publicly denounced RFA, accusing it of spreading “false claims” that Article 23 legislation targeted the media. He claimed that if a “foreign force” attempted to mislead Hong Kong citizens, even if it was not illegal, the government had to refute it. Shortly after RFA announced the closure of its Hong Kong office, citing concerns for the safety of its staff and journalists.
Tang singled out RFA again in June, criticising an article titled “Hong Kong Government ‘Threatens’ Residents to Renew ID Cards—Will Overseas Hongkongers Face Consequences for Not Complying?” He accused RFA of “taking U.S. government money” to disseminate anti-China rhetoric and fabricating accusations against the government through anonymous interviews.
Tang said, “Why did they (RFA) leave? At first, I couldn’t understand. Now I do. Because our new law specifically targets those who endanger national security and Hong Kong’s security.” He claimed that RFA’s reporting was based on “inaccurate information” and employed a “seditious approach” to turn Hongkongers against the government, accusing it of “wearing the mask of a media organisation while harming national security.”
The Legacy of RFA: A Platform for the Silenced
Following the 1989 Tiananmen Massacre, bipartisan U.S. lawmakers proposed the establishment of a dedicated broadcaster to cover human rights issues in China. In 1994, the U.S. Congress passed the International Broadcasting Act, signed by then-President Bill Clinton, allocating $30 million to launch RFA. The station began broadcasting in 1996, initially in Mandarin before expanding to Cantonese, Uyghur, Burmese, and seven other languages.
Source credit: Photon Media