Skip Navigation
Analysis

Congress Should Strengthen Laws Outlawing Domestic Government Propaganda

Vigorous congressional oversight is critical to ensuring the government doesn’t use covert propaganda to mold U.S. public opinion.

October 21, 2019
broadcast booth
Jitalia17/Getty

The piece was origin­ally published in The Hill

News has been a cent­ral preoc­cu­pa­tion for Pres­id­ent Donald Trump, who closely follows the cable chan­nels, tweets his reac­tions many times a day, and has berated media outlets — even Fox News — for report­ing he does­n’t like. Now, Trump may have his sights on a medium with a global audi­ence of 345 million people that provides a new, multi-lingual mega­phone: the U.S. Agency for Global Media, the govern­ment-funded inter­na­tional news agency.

A legacy of the Cold War, the agency broad­casts news from a U.S. perspect­ive abroad. It was foun­ded on the prin­ciple that promot­ing free­dom of the press around the world requires balanced, object­ive news cover­age — includ­ing report­ing crit­ic­ally on the U.S. and its foreign policyTo do its work, the agency must remain inde­pend­ent from the White House.

But now vigor­ous congres­sional over­sight is crit­ical to prevent the agency from devolving into an inter­na­tional Trump propa­ganda machine and dissem­in­at­ing its news directly to Amer­ican audi­ences in viol­a­tion of a long­stand­ing law.

The Senate has begun hear­ings on the nomin­a­tion as agency CEO of Michael Pack, a conser­vat­ive film­maker, Trump fan, and close collab­or­ator of former Trump advisor Steve Bannon. The Trump loyal­ist would take the reins of an agency with an $808 million budget and that over­sees five news networks with 3,500 journ­al­ists broad­cast­ing on radio, tele­vi­sion, and the inter­net in 61 languages. Pack was asked during his nomin­a­tion hear­ing in mid-Septem­ber whether he would be able to resist pres­sure from the pres­id­ent to promote favor­able cover­age, and Pack replied that he thinks he can.

That’s hardly reas­sur­ing. Recent legis­la­tion concen­trated author­ity with the agency’s chief exec­ut­ive, giving the new CEO unpre­ced­en­ted control over the commu­nic­a­tions appar­atus, and no law — only decades of norms — stops a pres­id­ent from direct­ing what the agency dissem­in­ates.

Career employ­ees have already voiced concerns about the agency’s “Breit­bar­tiz­a­tion,” even without a Trump appointee at the helm. Most notably, the agency’s office in Cuba produced a multi-part broad­cast in May 2018 promot­ing anti-Semitic conspir­acy theor­ies about George Soros. (Full disclos­ure: The Bren­nan Center receives fund­ing from Soros’ Open Soci­ety Found­a­tion.) In a speech on Octo­ber 3, Trump called for “our own network [to] put some real news out there because they [CNN] are so bad,” express­ing interest in further under­min­ing the agency’s balanced and inde­pend­ent report­ing.

To make matters worse, Trump-approved news may also be targeted at Amer­ic­ans, which would be illegal. The Smith-Mundt Act of 1948, the domestic propa­ganda ban, prohib­ited the global news agency from dissem­in­at­ing its program­ming within the U.S. The ban stemmed from lawmakers’ fear of the propa­gand­istic power of govern­ment messaging to unduly influ­ence U.S. public opin­ion and discourse.

However, a 2013 amend­ment to the law intro­duced several excep­tions to the ban, includ­ing that the agency’s mater­i­als can be made avail­able in the U.S. “upon request,” for example to research­ers, although it tech­nic­ally still prohib­its using agency funds to influ­ence U.S. public opin­ion. The amend­ment sought to modern­ize the ban for the inter­net age, when much of the agency’s content can be found online, but the agency is still not permit­ted to create or dissem­in­ate mater­i­als specific­ally target­ing Amer­ic­ans.

In appar­ent viol­a­tion of the domestic propa­ganda ban, one of the U.S. Agency for Global Media networks — Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty — bought advert­ise­ments on Face­book in July 2018 specific­ally aimed at Amer­ic­ans, the New York Times repor­tedOne ad, which ran imme­di­ately after the pres­id­ent criti­cized numer­ous NATO members at a summit in Brus­sels, included a chart high­light­ing NATO’s unpop­ular­ity. A subsequent House Foreign Affairs Commit­tee review of the agency’s advert­ising uncovered that another network, Voice of Amer­ica, bought at least six ads that exclus­ively targeted audi­ences in Wash­ing­ton, D.C., in viol­a­tion of the ban.

The 2013 amend­ment also enables the admin­is­tra­tion to covertly spread the media agency’s mater­i­als within the United States. Private entit­ies, such as news stations, can subscribe to the agency’s mater­i­als — and then rebroad­cast the content in the U.S. The main restric­tions are that the govern­ment-produced program­ming can’t be used to “develop audi­ences” within the U.S., which remains undefined, and that the program­ming must not be covert — that is, it must be attrib­uted to its govern­mental source — unless the agency has been given author­iz­a­tion from Congress. Viol­a­tions of this covert propa­ganda restric­tion are diffi­cult to prove and unlikely to spur mean­ing­ful reper­cus­sions.

Accord­ingly, govern­ment news and advert­ise­ments can be craf­ted to be indis­tin­guish­able from speech by private broad­casters, seam­lessly integ­rated into a broad­cast, and presen­ted to Amer­ican audi­ences covertly, without attri­bu­tion. The Bush admin­is­tra­tion did just that in the early 2000s through its Depart­ments of State, Defense, and Health and Human Services, among others. These federal agen­cies produced and distrib­uted hundreds of video news releases designed to be indis­tin­guish­able from inde­pend­ent news segments in support of invad­ing Iraq and other govern­ment object­ives, which were broad­cast anonym­ously by local news stations across the coun­try. The Obama admin­is­tra­tion’s Envir­on­mental Protec­tion Agency was simil­arly found to be promot­ing covert propa­ganda on social media in 2015.

Now, the U.S. Agency for Global Medi­a’s target­ing of Amer­ic­ans through social media ads under the Trump admin­is­tra­tion demands robust and ongo­ing over­sight for compli­ance with the domestic propa­ganda ban and with the mission of the agency to serve as a beacon of the free press around the world. We need to strengthen laws to impose disclos­ure require­ments for govern­ment messaging to prevent the use of covert domestic propa­ganda to mold U.S. public opin­ion. A healthy demo­cracy depends on the public’s abil­ity to hold the govern­ment account­able for its messages, and govern­ment news must be unmis­tak­ably recog­niz­able for what it is.