Restrictions on Travel by Voice of America Correspondents

The Secretary of State and Chiefs of Mission may restrict travel by Voice of America correspondents 

in foreign countries in order to protect their safety, but only under conditions ensuring, to the 

greatest extent possible, the independence of VOA correspondents.

September 10, 1999

M e m o r a n d u m O pin io n for t h e D epu ty L eg a l A d v iser

D e p a r t m e n t o f St a t e

You have asked for our opinion whether the Secretary of State and Chiefs of 

Mission may restrict, on grounds of safety, official travel in foreign countries by 

Voice of America (“ VOA” ) correspondents. We conclude that the Secretary of 

State and Chiefs of Mission may impose such restrictions, but only under conditions ensuring, to the greatest extent possible, the independence of VOA correspondents.

I.

The VOA, which broadcasts radio programs to foreign audiences in English 

and foreign languages, is part of the International Broadcasting Bureau of the 

United States Information Agency (“ USIA” ). See National Archives and Records 

Administration, United States Government Manual 1998/99, at 696 (1998). It operates under the supervision of the Broadcasting Board of Governors (“ BBG” ), 

which is also within the USIA and consists of eight members appointed by the 

President with the Senate’s advice and consent, plus the USIA Director. 22 U.S.C. 

§§ 6203(b) & 6204(a)(1) (1994). Under the “ VOA Charter,” as enacted into law, 

VOA news broadcasts are to be “ consistently reliable and authoritative” and 

“ accurate, objective, and comprehensive,” to “ present a balanced and comprehensive projection of significant American thought and institutions,” and to “ present 

the policies of the United States clearly and effectively, and . . . also present 

responsible discussions and opinions on these policies.” Id. § 6202(c)(l)-(3) 

(1994). Although VOA is part of the United States Government, Congress has 

established some protection for its independence: “ The Director of the United 

States Information Agency and the [BBG], in carrying out their functions, shall 

respect the professional independence and integrity of the International Broadcasting Bureau, its broadcasting services, and the grantees.” Id. § 6204(c) 

(emphasis added). The creation of the BBG offered an additional safeguard against 

political control of broadcast content. As the President stated, the BBG “ will 

ensure independence, coherence, quality and journalistic integrity” in services 

such as VOA. Statement on International Broadcasting Programs, 1 Pub. Papers 

of William J. Clinton 857-58 (1993).

192
Restrictions on Travel by Voice o f America Correspondents

Congress was specifically concerned about the extent to which the Department 

of State might interfere with the VOA’s judgments about reporting. Although the 

International Broadcasting Act declares that the Secretary of State, acting through 

the Director of USIA, is to “ provide information and guidance on foreign policy 

issues to the [BBG],” 22 U.S.C. §6205 (1994), the legislative history makes clear 

that, in keeping with the need for independence, this is to be the exclusive channel 

for such guidance, H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 103-482, at 202 (1994), reprinted in

1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. 398, 443, and the Secretary of State is not to be “ involved 

in the management or day-to-day decision-making of the [USIA] or any of its 

operations or programs such as international broadcasting or otherwise.” S. Rep. 

No. 103-107, at 49 (1994).

A statute enacted earlier, the Diplomatic Security Act of 1986, directs the Secretary of State to “ develop and implement” measures for the “ protection of all 

United States Government personnel on official duty abroad (other than those personnel under the command of a United States area military commander).” 22 

U.S.C. § 4802(a)(1)(A) (1994). Chiefs of Mission, who carry out the instructions 

of the Secretary of State, have additional authority under the Foreign Service Act 

of 1980: the Chief of Mission in a country has “ full responsibility for the direction, coordination, and supervision of all Government executive branch employees 

in that country,” and each agency of the executive branch with employees in 

a foreign country “ shall insure that all [of its] employees in that country . . . 

comply fully with all applicable directives of the chief of mission.” 22 U.S.C. 

§§ 3927(a), (b) (1994). See 1 Foreign Affairs Manual 013, Exhibit 013.2 (Sept. 

16, 1994) (text of President Clinton’s Letter to Chiefs of Mission) (“ I charge 

you to exercise full responsibility for the direction, coordination, and supervision 

of all executive branch offices and personnel in [country] . . . except for personnel under the command of a U.S. area military commander, under another 

chief of mission in [country], or on the staff of an international organization.” ); 

see also 1 Foreign Affairs Manual 010 (Sept. 23, 1981) (letter of Instruction from 

President Ronald Reagan to Ambassadors). Pursuant to these provisions, the 

Department of State ordinarily requires that United States Government employees 

seek its clearance before they enter a foreign country on official business 

(“ country clearance” ).

The question here arises from the intersection of VOA’s independence, which 

enables it to present broadcasts that are “ reliable and authoritative” and 

“ accurate, objective, and comprehensive,” and the Secretary of State’s authority 

to protect United States Government employees abroad. The State Department 

takes the view that the Secretary of State and the Chiefs of Mission may impose 

travel restrictions on VOA correspondents when necessary for their protection. 

See Letter for Richard L. Shiffrin, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of 

Legal Counsel, from James H. Thessin, Deputy Legal Adviser, Department of 

State (June 27, 1997) (“ First Thessin Letter” ); Letter for Dawn E. Johnsen,

193
Opinions of the Office o f Legal Counsel in Volume 23

Acting Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, from James H. 

Thessin, Deputy Legal Adviser, Department of State (Oct. 20, 1997) ( “ Second 

Thessin Letter” ). The BBG, on the other hand, believes that such restrictions 

amount to unlawful interference with VOA’s independence. Letter for Dawn 

Johnsen, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, from John 

A. Lindburg, Legal Counsel, Broadcasting Board of Governors (July 31, 1997) 

(“ First Lindburg Letter” ); Letter for Dawn Johnsen, Acting Assistant Attorney 

General, Office of Legal Counsel, from John A. Lindburg, Legal Counsel, Broadcasting Board of Governors (Sept. 19, 1997) ( “ Second Lindburg Letter” ).

It has long been recognized that, at least as a matter of policy, the Department 

of State should limit its control over travel by VOA correspondents. In 1978 the 

State Department issued Guidelines and Operating Procedures for VOA’s Foreign 

Correspondents. Guidelines and Operating Procedures for VOA’s Foreign Correspondents (1978) (“ Guidelines” ). In addition to protecting the reportorial 

independence of VOA correspondents, the Guidelines left the State Department 

only a relatively narrow authority to restrict VOA correspondents’ travel. These 

correspondents were not subject to “ country clearance” by the State Department. 

Instead, the Guidelines declared that “ [t]he VOA correspondent has a general 

obligation to inform the [State Department] of his/her presence in the country, 

and of the general nature of his or her assignment(s).” Id. at 3. Moreover, “ should 

a story require travel in a war zone or other dangerous area, VOA correspondents 

will consult in advance with VOA Washington and will keep the Embassy 

informed of their plans.” Id.1

After Congress passed the Diplomatic Security Act in 1986, the State Department apparently began to take the position that VOA correspondents, while not 

required to obtain the usual “ country-clearance,” needed approval from the State 

Department before entering “ war zones” or “ dangerous areas.” See Memorandum from James H. Thessin, Deputy Legal Adviser, Department of State, Re:

Applicability o f Department of State Travel Restrictions to Voice o f America Correspondents at 3 n.l (June 27, 1997) (“ Attachment to First Thessin Letter” ). On 

April 15, 1993, the VOA asked the State Department to “ lift the restriction placed 

on [VOA] on sending correspondents to Afghanistan and similar locations of combat or civil strife.” Letter for J. Brian Atwood, Under Secretary for Management, 

Department of State, from Joseph B. Bruns, Acting Associate Director for Broadcasting, VOA, at 2 (Apr. 15, 1993) (“ Bruns Letter” ). There appears to be a disagreement between the BBG and the State Department whether this request, in 

effect, acknowledged the lawfulness of the restrictions. First Lindburg Letter at 

4. In any event, at the time, the State Department concluded that VOA correspond1 Under the Guidelines, just as VOA correspondents did not have to follow procedures otherwise applicable to 

government employees, they did not receive some benefits that might otherwise come with government service. 

The Guidelines provided that they were to travel on regular, not official or diplomatic, passports, to enter countries 

with journalist visas, to be subject to all local laws applicable to foreign journalists; to have no access to classified 

information; and to use commercial, rather than United States Government, communications. Guidelines at 2.

194
Restrictions on Travel by Voice o f America Correspondents

ents would not “ be excepted from restrictions that apply to all [United States 

Government] employees” and denied the request as a general matter, but 

attempted to speed up case-by-case review of individual requests to travel into 

Afghanistan by delegating approval authority to the United States Ambassador 

to Pakistan. Letter for Joseph B. Bruns, Acting Associate Director, VOA, from 

J. Brian Atwood, Under Secretary for Management, Department of State (May 

10, 1993). The matter continues in dispute, particularly with regard to Afghanistan, 

and you have asked us to review the legal authority for the State Department’s 

restrictions.

After you made this request, Congress reorganized some agencies engaged in 

the conduct of foreign relations, including the USIA. See Foreign Affairs Reform 

and Restructuring Act of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-277, tit. XIII, 112 Stat. 2681- 

761, 2681-776 (1998) (“ Reform and Restructuring Act” ). The reorganization, 

insofar as is relevant here, becomes effective no later than October 1, 1999. Id.

§ 1301. At that time, the USIA will be abolished (except for the BBG and the 

International Broadcasting Bureau, which will remain in existence), and its functions will be transferred to the State Department. Id. §§1311-1312. Congress, 

however, reaffirmed that the Secretary of State is to “ respect the professional 

independence and integrity of the International Broadcasting Bureau, its broadcasting services, and the grantees of the Board.” Id. § 1323(i) (to be codified 

at 22 U.S.C. § 6204(d)).

II.

The question here is exceptionally close and difficult. On one hand, Congress 

has provided for VOA’s “ professional independence” as a guarantee that VOA 

will be a “ consistently reliable and authoritative source of news” and that its 

broadcasts will be “ accurate, objective, and comprehensive.” On the other hand, 

Congress granted the Department of State wide authority over the protection of 

civilian employees of the United States while abroad. If potentially conflicting 

statutes can co-exist, they should be read, “ ‘absent a clearly expressed congressional intention to the contrary,’ ” in a manner that treats “ ‘each as effective.’ ” 

Vimar Seguros y Reaseguros, S.A. v. M/V Sky Reefer, 515 U.S. 528, 533 (1995) 

(quoting Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535, 551 (1974)). To explain the basis 

on which we believe that these statutes can be read together, we must first set 

out and evaluate, at some length, the arguments in favor of the outcome sought 

by each agency in this matter.2

2 We cannot resolve the issue by turning to the principle that, absent a clear intention to the contrary, a specific 

statute controls a general one Crawford Fitting Co v. J T Gibbons, inc., 482 U S 437, 445 (1987) Although 

the statutes on which the State Department relies are the more specific ones on the question of safety, they are 

less specific on the question of VOA’s freedom to report the news.

195
Opinions of the Office o f Legal Counsel in Volume 23

A.

There is no dispute that, in general, the Department of State may restrict federal 

employees’ official travel abroad. The Secretary of State’s authority comes from 

her statutory mandate to develop programs for the ‘ ‘protection of all United States 

Government personnel on official duty abroad (other than those personnel under 

the command of a United States area military commander),” 22 U.S.C. § 4802(a), 

and from the statute vesting the Chiefs of Mission, subject to the Secretary’s ultimate control, with “ full responsibility for the direction, coordination, and supervision of all Government executive branch employees in that country (except for 

employees under the command of a United States area military commander).” 

Id. § 3927. Ordinarily, therefore, a government official in Pakistan, for example, 

could not travel to Afghanistan on official business, if the State Department 

prohibited the travel on security grounds.

The BBG argues, however, that “ both the U.S. International Broadcasting Act 

of 1994 . . . and the so-called VOA charter . . . provide a reasonable basis for 

exemption from the authority relied upon by the Department of State.” First 

Lindburg Letter at 2. According to this argument, by requiring the Director of 

USIA and the BBG to “ respect the professional independence and integrity” of 

VOA, 22 U.S.C. § 6204(c), and by directing that VOA broadcasts be “ authoritative,” “ objective,” and “ balanced and comprehensive,” id. § 6202(c)(1), (2), 

Congress placed beyond the control of the Secretary decisions about the travel 

that VOA correspondents might undertake to gather the news.

The BBG contends that freedom from travel restrictions cannot be separated 

from VOA’s independence in reporting:

It simply makes no sense to prohibit the Department of State from 

interfering with the content of news, and yet allow interference with 

the gathering of it. For this reason the Broadcasting Act requires 

respect of the professional “ independence” as well as integrity of 

the broadcasters.

First Lindberg Letter at 6. According to this argument, to be a “ consistently reliable and authoritative” and an “ accurate, objective, and comprehensive” source 

of news, 22 U.S.C. § 6202(c)(1), the VOA must be able to dispatch its correspondents to those locations where the news is being made. First Lindburg Letter at

4. A limitation on news gathering is, BBG contends, a limitation on what VOA 

is able to report, as well as a detriment to its credibility as a news organization. 

Id. at 10-11.

196
Restrictions on Travel by Voice o f America Correspondents

In our view, travel restrictions that are not applied to all United States citizens, 

or even to all United States reporters,3 are an exercise of control potentially undercutting the “ professional independence” of the VOA and limiting its ability to 

carry out its statutory duty to present “ authoritative” and “ comprehensive” news 

broadcasts. Without a correspondent in a country, VOA could not even confirm 

for itself, let alone ascertain, the local conditions. See e.g., Chalmers M. Roberts, 

The Washington Post: The First 100 Years 373 (1977) (“ THE POST deserved 

criticism for its delay in covering the Vietnam War. Not until mid-1964, long 

after the New York Times, did the THE POST open a Saigon bureau.” ). Nor 

could it obtain face-to-face interviews with local leaders or develop sources outside official channels. See e.g., A.M. Rosenthal, How It Felt to Be Kicked Out

o f Poland, in The Working Press 161,164 (Ruth Adler ed., 1970) (1966) 

(describing protection of sources by reporter living in totalitarian country). To 

give a specific example, it would have been hard to credit a broadcast news 

organization that claimed to be reporting “ authoritative[ly]” and 

“ comprehensive[ly]” on the unification of Germany if its correspondents did not 

at least have the opportunity to speak to Germans outside official channels.

Travel restrictions limit the range of what VOA can report and thus may intrude 

on its “ professional independence.” Its reports cannot be “ authoritative” if they 

are second-hand and cannot be “ comprehensive” if they exclude on-the-ground 

news gathering. The same statutory language that guarantees VOA’s freedom in 

selecting the content of its broadcasts also protects its freedom in gathering the 

news.4

“ Fresh news,” Justice Holmes wrote, “ is got only by enterprise and expense.” 

International News Serv. v. Associated Press, 248 U.S. 215, 247 (1918) (separate 

opinion) (“ INS” ). As the Court recognized in INS, news organizations may be 

free to rely on each other’s reports to point toward the stories that need to be 

reported, but the means for gathering the news — the “ elaborate organization” 

and the “ money, skill, and effort” that allow for “ novelty and freshness, the 

regularity of the service, its reputed reliability and thoroughness, and its adaptability to the public needs” — are a distinctive element essential to the individual 

voice of each provider of news. Id. at 238. We believe that the VOA’s statutory 

protection is best read to offer substantial protection to the kind of news gathering 

at issue here, along with the ultimate content of the VOA’s broadcasts that this 

news gathering does so much to shape.

3 We do not address the government’s ability to limit the access of alt media during hostilities, for example, 

c f The Nation Magazine v United States Dep t o f Defense, 762 F. Supp. 1558 (S D.N Y 1991) (raising claims 

about limitations on access dunng Persian Gulf War), or the government’s authority to impose travel or other restrictions on United States citizens generally

4 Furthermore, when carrying out its duty to offer “ programming to meet needs which remain unserved by the 

totality of media voices available to the people of certain nations,” 22 U.S.C. §6202(b)(4) (1994), the VOA necessarily will be the only news organization reporting fully within those nations on the subjects of its stones In 

such circumstances, it is all the more important for the VOA to be able to offer first-hand coverage

197
Opinions o f the Office o f Legal Counsel in Volume 23

This interpretation is consistent with the view that President Carter took in 

transmitting to Congress Reorganization Plan No. 2 in 1977, which he said aimed 

at “ [k]eeping the . . . news gathering and reporting functions [of VOA] independent and objective.” S. Rep. No. 95-606, at 81 (1977) (emphasis added). It 

is also consistent with the legislative history of recent amendments that will 

abolish the USIA. There, too, Congress took the view that the statutory safeguard 

of “ professional independence” extends to news gathering as well as reporting. 

Recognizing that the Secretary of State would take over functions of the Director 

of USIA, Congress replaced the reference to the Director with one to the Secretary 

in the provision directing “respect [for] the professional independence and integrity” of the broadcasting services like the VOA. Reform and Restructuring Act, 

§ 1323(i) (to be codified at 22 U.S.C. § 6204(d)). The relevant committee report 

states:

Although the [BBG] will be a federal agency, the work performed by the international broadcasting entities under it can hardly 

be described as a typical government function. Cynics may deride 

their work as “ propaganda,” but in fact the broadcasters are 

journalists, reporting the news of the United States and the world 

to foreign audiences. The news gathering and reporting functions 

of the broadcasters must continue to be independent and objective.

H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 105-432, at 127 (1998) (emphasis added).5 Whatever weight 

this committee report deserves,6 it is consistent with the conclusion that news 

gathering, as well as reporting, is entitled to protection.

Even if news gathering is entitled to protection, however, there are strong arguments for the State Department’s authority to impose at least some limitations 

on travel by VOA correspondents. Because the Diplomatic Security Act requires 

the Secretary to “ develop and implement” measures for the “ protection of all 

United States Government personnel on official duty abroad (other than those personnel under the command of a United States area military commander),” 22 

U.S.C. § 4802(a)(1)(A), the Secretary’s inability to exercise any control over travel 

by VOA correspondents would conflict with the statutory assignment of responsi5 This committee report addressed H.R. 1757, rather than H.R 4328, the bill actually enacted; but the Chairman 

of the committee with jurisdiction over H R. 1757, in “ apprising the House and the public concerning the legislative 

history” of the relevant “ Division” in H R . 4328, noted that “ Division G consists — with but minor changes — 

of Divisions A and B of the Conference Report on H.R 1757 of the 105th Congress, House Report 105-432 ” 

144 Cong Rec. HI 1,667 (daily ed. Oct 20, 1998) (statement of Rep Gilman).

6 Insofar as the committee report deals with the existing law (“ must continue to be independent and objective” ), 

it might be dismissed as a statement about the action of an earlier Congress See Consumer Product Safety Comm 'n

v. GTE Sytvama, Inc , 447 U.S 102, 117-18 & n.13 (1980). Insofar as it deals with a new statute possibly intended 

only to maintain existing law, the legislative history might also be dismissed as an attempt to go beyond a legislative, 

and to assume an interpretive, function See Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U S. 552, 566-67 (1988). Still, the committee 

report may carry some degree of authority, since Congress did not just reenact but amended the earlier language 

and since the language echoed President C arter’s words.

198
Restrictions on Travel by Voice o f America Correspondents

bility for the safety of all federal employees abroad with the sole exception of 

those under military command. The authority to “ develop and implement” measures for the protection of VOA correspondents must entail an authority to impose 

effective measures, including when the State Department believes that the only 

effective measure is a travel restriction.

The State Department’s authority is reinforced by the letter of instructions that 

the President sends to all Chiefs of Mission. This letter directs Chiefs of Mission 

to “ protect all U.S. Government personnel on official duty abroad (other than 

those personnel under the command of a U.S. military commander).” 1 Foreign 

Affairs Manual 013, Exhibit 013.2, at 3. Moreover, shortly after enactment of 

the Foreign Service Act of 1980, President Reagan issued letters of instruction 

stating that the Secretary of State “ has the responsibility . . . to the fullest extent 

provided by law, for the overall policy direction, coordination, and supervision 

of the United States Government activities overseas.” 1 Foreign Affairs Manual 

010, at 3. Congress endorsed this assignment of responsibilities in the Diplomatic 

Security Act of 1986. See Second Thessin Letter at 2; 1 Foreign Affairs Manual 

010. While we understand all of these directions to incorporate the concept that 

President Reagan’s letter made explicit — that the State Department has the 

authority “ to the fullest extent provided by law” and thus subject to legal constraints that may be imposed by the statutory grant of VOA’s “ independence” 

in presenting “ authoritative” and “ comprehensive” broadcasts — the letter of 

instructions calls for an interpretation that gives substantial effect to the State 

Department’s broad control over all United States personnel abroad.7

Furthermore, although the International Broadcasting Act protects VOA’s 

“ independence,” the statute plainly does not use that term in the same sense 

in which it would apply to news organizations not affiliated with the United States 

Government. VOA’s activities, for example, must “ be consistent with the broad 

foreign policy objectives of the United States,” may not “ duplicate the activities 

of private United States broadcasters” or of “ government supported broadcasting 

entities of other democratic nations,” and must present “ programming to meet 

[the] needs which remain unserved by the totality of media voices available to 

the people of certain nations.” 22 U.S.C. §§ 6202(a)(1), (3), (4) & (b)(4). Private 

broadcasters would be under no such limits in choosing stories. Thus, VOA’s 

“ independence,” far from being absolute, does not match the independence of 

news organizations in the United States.

7 In the year before passage of the International Broadcasting Act, VOA acknowledged that “ [rjules established 

in the Department [of State] several years ago require any VOA correspondent to obtain cabled permission 

from the Bureau of South Asian Affairs for . . travel” to Afghanistan and asked the State Department to ‘‘lift 

the restriction” as to lhat country and similar scenes of conflict. Bruns Letter at 1' 2 (emphasis added) Thus, the 

VOA arguably conceded the State Department’s authority. Attachment to First Thessin Letter at 3 n.l. We are reluctant to read the letter as a concession, however, because it does not address the legal basis for the travel restrictions. 

Indeed, the letter could be no more than a statement of fact about the State Department’s rules, rather than a concession about the validity of those restrictions.

199
Opinions o f the Office o f Legal Counsel in Volume 23

Finally, the International Broadcasting Act, which provides for the VOA’s 

“ professional independence and integrity” and which, as amended, now sets out 

the VOA charter, states that

[t]he provisions of, and authorities contained in or transferred 

pursuant to, this chapter are not intended to repeal, limit, or otherwise derogate from the authorities or functions . . . available to 

. . . the Secretary of State under law, reorganization plan, or otherwise, unless such provision hereof—

(A) specifically refers to the provision of law or authority 

existing on the effective date of this chapter, so affected; or

(B) is in direct conflict with such law or authority existing on

the effective date o f this chapter.

22 U.S.C. § 6209(f)(7) (1994) (emphasis added).8 This provision “ ensure[s] that 

no legal authorities available to . . .the Secretary of State on the date of enactment of the Act are inadvertently repealed, modified, or otherwise adversely 

affected.” S. Rep. No. 103-107, at 53, reprinted in 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 360. 

By stating that the Secretary’s authorities are preserved except in cases of direct 

conflict, the statute indicates that the State Department may impose incidental 

and indirect burdens on VOA’s activities. Only a direct intrusion on VOA’s 

“ professional independence” is ruled out.

B.

Our task is to give effect to both the VOA’s “ independence” and the State 

Department’s authority for the safety of “ all” civilian employees of the United 

States Government while abroad. If we were to conclude that the State Department 

could never forbid VOA correspondents from entering dangerous areas, we would 

deny effect to the State Department’s authority. At the same time, unless the exercise of that authority is tightly constrained, the statutory mandate “ to respect the 

professional independence and integrity” of the VOA will not be observed. We 

conclude, therefore, that the Department of State may restrict travel by VOA correspondents on grounds of safety, but only if in doing so it “ respect[s] the 

[VOA’s] professional independence and integrity” to the greatest extent possible. 

We believe that we can identify standards to give practical application to this 

conclusion.

The State Department may act only in order to protect VOA’s correspondents 

from physical danger. Because decisions about sending a correspondent to the

8This provision is repealed as of October 1, 1999. Pub. L. No. 105-277, § 1323(1)(2), 112 Stat. 2681-780 (1998).

200
Restrictions on Travel by Voice o f America Correspondents

place where a story is unfolding can profoundly affect a news organization’s 

capacity to cover the story “ authoritative[ly]” and “ comprehensive[ly],” the 

VOA’s “ independence” means that the State Department may not make any judgments about the importance of a story or the need for a VOA correspondent to 

be in a particular location to cover it.

This principle suggests a strong presumption that the State Department may 

not bar VOA correspondents from entering an area to which any other United 

States Government employees may travel, absent a threat specifically directed 

against the VOA correspondents.9 Any other rule would require the State Department to balance the danger to VOA correspondents against the value of their 

reporting. Such case-by-case balancing would intrude upon the core of VOA’s 

editorial control over its broadcasts, by allowing the Department of State to make 

its own editorial judgments about the importance of particular stories or particular 

information. It would insert the Department of State directly into news decisions.

The presumption against barring VOA correspondents from areas to which any 

other employees may go could be overcome only for the most compelling reasons. 

For example, if the only United States Government employees who enter a country 

are accompanied by bodyguards (a precaution that could not be extended to VOA 

correspondents), there likely would be a substantial reason for distinguishing 

between the employees permitted to enter and VOA correspondents. But the 

presumption could not be set aside without some such compelling ground.

Our conclusion, therefore, recognizes the State Department’s authority for the 

safety of all civilian employees of the government while abroad, but acknowledges 

that the authority may not be exercised where it would directly conflict with 

VOA’s “ independence,” as that term is used in the statute. The State Department 

may not substitute itself for the VOA in making news judgments. By treating 

VOA correspondents (as to travel restrictions) on an equal footing with the most 

favorably treated employees of the government, absent some very compelling reason for doing otherwise, the State Department will ensure that it is not invading 

VOA’s reportorial independence.

RANDOLPH D. MOSS 

Acting Assistant Attorney General

Office of Legal Counsel

9 Because the State Department lacks authority to develop or implement measures to protect the safety of “ personnel under the command of a United States area military commander,” 22 U S C § 4802(a)(1)(A), and because 

the military has a unique mission, the entry of United States military personnel under military command would 

not typically give rise to this presumption

201