Contents – Truth, trust & tricksters: Free expression in the age of AI
Contents
What the US closure of global media means for freedom of speech in Asia
This article first appeared in Volume 54, Issue 2 of our print edition of Index on Censorship, titled Land of the Free?: Trump’s war on speech at home and abroad, published on 21 July 2025. Read more about the issue here.
Kyaw Min Htun, a Burmese editor and reporter, moved from his home in Myanmar to the USA more than 20 years ago, seeking a place where he could finally report freely. For two decades, the USA provided that, allowing him to secure various roles at Radio Free Asia (RFA), which is based in Washington DC. On 15 March, however, that all changed.
Alongside about 75% of his US-based colleagues, Htun was told not to go into work. His job was one of thousands of casualties of president Donald Trump’s sweeping cuts to government-backed initiatives.
“Our hands are tied and we cannot do our jobs,” Htun, who was deputy director of RFA when he was furloughed, told Index.
At the beginning of May, RFA announced it would be terminating the contracts of more than 90% of its US-based staff and shutting down several language services. Days later, this move was delayed due to an administrative stay from the courts.
On 14 March, Trump had signed an executive order to stop federal funding to the US Agency for Global Media (USAGM), which oversees US-funded international media. It came amid a broader assessment by the State Department of all overseas spending that has so far led to the termination of the country’s support for more than 80% of the global aid projects it had backed.
USAGM financially supports RFA and other media platforms including Voice of America (VOA), Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), Office of Cuba Broadcasting and the Middle East Broadcasting Networks. Its aim – since its inception with VOA in 1942 to counter Nazi propaganda as a form of soft power – has always been “to inform, engage and connect people around the world in support of freedom and democracy”. Collectively, USAGM outlets have created news in 64 languages, reaching 427 million people each week.
In many countries, such outlets are a lifeline, offering a window into what’s happening at home and abroad amid wars and famines, disasters and conflicts.
RFA – which was broadcasting in nine languages in China, Myanmar, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia and North Korea – has been a fixture in Asia’s media landscape since 1996, when it was established to counter propaganda. It has won awards for covering under-reported issues, including the plight of North Korean escapees, the impact of the civil war in Myanmar and the treatment of the Uyghurs.
The Trump administration, however, sees VOA and RFA as “radical propaganda”, and what it calls “anti-Trump content”.
Elon Musk – the tech billionaire and, at the time, a senior adviser to the president – said on his social media platform X that RFA and RFE were made up of “radical left crazy people talking to themselves while torching $1billion [a] year of US taxpayer money”.
While support for some outlets could resume amid several lawsuits that have been lodged against USAGM and the government, many are worried about the ramifications already being felt by journalists, citizens and democracy as a whole in Asia.
The fallout
Aleksandra Bielakowska, director of advocacy and assistance at Reporters Without Borders (RSF), told Index that many of RFA’s regional reporters were journalists working in exile or underground in places such as Cambodia or Myanmar.
Journalists including Mech Dara, who exposed trafficking and scam compounds in Cambodia, and Sai Zaw Thaike, who reported on the mistreatment of inmates inside Myanmar prisons, are being persecuted by their governments. These journalists operate clandestinely to ensure stories from their countries are told, free from state influence.
The funding cut meant RFA had to sever the contracts of most of its local freelancers, exposing them in a region where press freedom is rapidly in decline. Myanmar, China, North Korea and Vietnam are among the top 10 worst countries for journalist safety. Last year, 20 journalists were killed in Asia (up from 12 in 2023) and 30% of global arrests of journalists took place on the continent.
Several efforts are being made to curtail media freedoms in countries across Southeast Asia in particular, said Bryony Lau, deputy Asia director at Human Rights Watch.
Vietnam is one of the world’s worst jailers of journalists; in Tibet, the Chinese government forbids foreign media from entering; and in Hong Kong, since the adoption of Beijing’s National Security Law in 2020, many outlets have been forced to close and their journalists arrested on national security charges.
Bielakowska said there was currently little protection available for journalists in the region, and the situation could get worse when “authoritarian regimes […] don’t see any opposition from democratic countries”.
Certain authoritarian leaders celebrated the USA’s abandonment of such publications, said Lau. Cambodia’s leader Hun Sen praised Trump on Facebook for combating “fake news”, while Global Times, part of China’s state media, lauded the cuts, claiming “almost every malicious falsehood about China has VOA’s fingerprints all over it”.
“This just tells you actually how impactful that reporting really was,” Lau said, adding that the US cuts had made the work of restricting media freedoms by these governments much easier.
“Press freedom is definitely on the retreat, and what comes in its place is never anything great,” said Rohit Mahajan, chief communications officer at RFA.
A lack of safety globally
Back in the USA, reporters’ jobs are at risk. RFA has put the majority of its staff in its headquarters on leave and VOA has had to furlough 1,300 staff, the majority of whom are journalists.
Washington-based Htun, although among those affected, considers himself lucky. With US citizenship – he sought political asylum in 2005 – he can remain in the country, but many of RFA’s team come from Asia and their US visas are reliant on their work status. For some, the prospect of returning home – potentially to a country such as Cambodia or China where they may have helped to highlight human rights abuses – is a dangerous one.
“With the current administration’s policies, it is very hard to say they are safe even if they apply for asylum here, because they could be denied any time and they could be deported,” said Htun. “This is an unprecedented, man-made disaster.”
Aside from the threat of deportation, the furloughed staff are now not earning and are scrambling to find work. They are among thousands in the capital who have lost their jobs since the wave of executive orders, which have seen other government departments closed or drastically reduced in size.
This means that competition for jobs is fierce, said Htun. The USAGM Employee Association is collating donations to support journalists affected.
Information black holes
Aside from the impact on the safety of journalists, the shuttering of these media platforms, or even just a reduction in their content, impacts the public, limiting information.
It creates a “black hole of information”, said Bielakowska, who added that this would certainly be the case in countries such as Laos and Tibet, which are more closed. In countries with strict authoritarian regimes, VOA and RFA are often the only accessible forms of information other than state-sponsored or heavily-censored media.
This will lead to “a dramatic turning off of a pipeline of accurate and independent news stories about what is happening within authoritarian states”, said Joshua Kurlantzick, senior fellow for Southeast Asia and South Asia at the Council on Foreign Relations. “There isn’t as good a source in Lao, Khmer, Vietnamese, Tibetan as RFA. People will lose touch with the real world.”
Many in Myanmar – where a civil war has raged since 2021 and the military has shut down internet access in parts of the country – rely on shortwave radio for information on the war and wider events, such as the destructive earthquake in March. While the BBC and VOA are available, only a portion of their content focuses on Myanmar whereas 100% of RFA Burma’s content is focused on the country, said Htun. He explained that a content vacuum gave the Myanmar military junta an opportunity to exploit the situation by sharing their own propaganda and misinformation.
Samady Ou, an American-Cambodian activist and youth ambassador for Khmer Movement for Democracy, cannot go home to Cambodia because his democracy work has put a target on his back. He said that there was no reliable media outlet in the country without VOA and RFA.
“Right now, in Cambodia, we don’t have any news medium left that is independent and not pro-government,” he said. “When there’s unjust goings on like land grabs or Chinese big companies coming in taking away land, [Cambodians] have no voice at all.”
US pro-democracy organisation Freedom House ranks Cambodia as “not free” as a result of a “severely repressive environment” driven by the Cambodian People’s Party which “has maintained pressure on the opposition, independent press outlets and demonstrators with intimidation, politically motivated prosecutions and violence”.
Looking ahead
Experts hope the funding cut is only temporary and the USA will see the value in supporting regional media.
Historically, USAGM has always enjoyed strong bipartisan support from Congress across every administration, explained Mahajan, calling these platforms “unique tools in America’s soft power”.
Most USAID funding in Asia has been directed towards peace and security projects, indicating that this has historically been a vested interest for the USA.
“I think there’s a consensus inside of the Congress, even right now, that China and authoritarian regimes are one of the biggest challenges of the USA, and without the right information, freedom of the press and access to reliable information, we’ll have no updates about these countries, and these countries will also manage to spread their model of information inside of Asia, which is a direct threat to the USA itself,” said Bielakowska. Whether the new administration can be convinced of this is yet to be seen.
In the meantime, RFA has filed a lawsuit, claiming the government is unlawfully withholding funds and that only Congress can fund or defund an organisation it has created.
“We are trying to keep RFA afloat as we pursue a legal challenge to the termination of our grant, which we believe is unlawful,” Mahajan said. RFE and the Middle East Broadcasting Networks have also filed lawsuits.
In April, the US District Court for the District of Columbia granted an injunction to restore funding to USAGM, but the government is yet to release the funds. Htun predicts that the legal process will wage on for months to come, potentially escalating to the Supreme Court.
“This drama could take longer than expected – probably two or three more months,” he said.
During that time, journalists will remain out of work and exposed while citizens across Asia will be far less informed.
But there is always a chance that other funders could be found for these media platforms.
“Other states and entities and private organisations could fill some of the gaps in funding for media outlets,” said Kurlantzick, who called on powerful countries in the region to stand up for media freedom by committing more funds.
Lau said it was in the interests of other concerned governments to have access to reliable information, as well as to the private sector operating in some of these countries.
Such is the public support for these media sources that Ou believes the public in Asian countries may also crowdfund to keep them functioning.
In the meantime, Bielakowska is confident that RFA and VOA are used to operating in fragile situations.
“Even with this blow, I still hope that they can continue working on the ground and find ways to support themselves.”
The arrest of Graham Linehan is a cop and ball story
There have been two stories this past week which could be read as incitement to hitting men in the bollocks. One of the perpetrators was met with five armed officers at Heathrow Airport, the other was lauded as a have-a-go hero. One involved the comedian Graham Linehan, and the other involved the Queen. Only one of them actually carried out the act (admittedly several decades ago), but she wasn’t the one who found herself in a police cell.
The story about a teenage Camilla Shand who, in her own words “whacked a man in the nuts” when he groped her on a train, is told in a new biography of the Queen. It has been used to explain why the Queen became an advocate for women’s rights in later life. Linehan, the creator of the acclaimed series Father Ted, The IT Crowd and Black Books is also a campaigner. As the introduction to his articles on the blogging platform Substack states: “I write about the current all-out assault on woman’s rights.” While Camilla’s campaigning has only served to burnish her reputation, Linehan was cancelled after his gender-critical views brought him into direct conflict with the trans rights movement.
In December he announced he was moving to Arizona as a result of this cancellation. But on Sunday he returned to the UK, only to be arrested, held in a prison cell for hours and questioned about his posts, as he documents in his Substack. While the Met police have not named Linehan, they have confirmed his account of events.
Which brings us to the offending posts. According to Linehan, they are as follows. One, posted on 19 April, shows an image of a trans-rights protest with the comment “A photo you can smell”. This is followed up with “I hate them. Misogynists and homophobes. Fuck em”. These are indeed offensive and intended to be so. But it is difficult to see how they could be interpreted as incitement to violence. The third tweet posted the next day is more problematic. But only the second half has been quoted in most of the media coverage of the arrest. The whole tweet reads: “If a trans-identified male is in a female-only space, he is committing a violent, abusive act. Make a scene, call the cops and if all else fails, punch him in the balls.”
Whether or not you agree with his definition of an abusive act he is making precisely the same argument as the cheerleaders for the young Camilla, although she whacked her groper in the nuts before she called the cops.
This is not Graham Linehan’s first run-in with the police over his anti-trans stance. On Thursday he will appear at Westminster magistrates court accused of the online harassment of 18-year-old transgender activist Sophia Brooks and damaging her phone at a public event last year. He denies all charges.
Linehan’s arrest is further evidence of a faultline in the free speech landscape where the trans debate is concerned. As Helen Lewis writes in The Atlantic, there have been several instances of trans allies calling openly for violence against those whose views they disagree with and who have not been dealt with in this way. A genuinely pluralistic society cannot have two-tier justice in this area.
Linehan’s case raises serious questions about how we police speech online. We know there are consequences when posts go viral and incitement to violence is a reality. But in many cases there are no consequences except to the author of the posts. We may not approve of Linehan’s call to vigilante action against abuse of women’s spaces, if that is what it was. But the suppression of his free expression rights may be more damaging in the long run.
Index on Censorship was founded as a response to the repression of writers and academics behind the Iron Curtain. Advocacy for dissidents remains the priority of the organisation. Some would argue that Linehan is a dissident. It is questionable whether it is ever possible to be a dissident in a country where freedom of speech has genuine legal protections – it is a strange kind of police state where ministers intervene to suggest officers have been too heavy-handed. The real concern is whether Linehan’s arrest is evidence of the erosion of those protections. JK Rowling condemned the action as “totalitarian”, while commentator Piers Morgan said “Britain’s turning into North Korea.” Although this is perhaps overstating it, what happened to Linehan at Heathrow airport this week certainly looks like police overreach. It also seems odd that Linehan has been instructed not to post on X while on bail, surely an unnecessary restriction of his rights.
It is tempting to see this as a comedy arrest by bumbling cops. But a genuinely open society does not police speech with the tactics of an authoritarian state.
What to expect from Trump and Putin’s special relationship
This article first appeared in Volume 54, Issue 2 of our print edition of Index on Censorship, titled Land of the Free?: Trump’s war on speech at home and abroad, published on 21 July 2025. Read more about the issue here.
In April 2022, two months after the invasion of Ukraine, a bill designating the USA as “the main enemy of the Russian Federation” was submitted by several deputies of the Russian Duma (the lower house of the Russian parliament). It was political scientist Ekaterina Schulmann – deemed to be a foreign agent by the Russian authorities – who told Index about this “strange bill”, as she described it. It was meant to amend the law on countermeasures in response to hostile acts by foreign states, which was passed in 2018.
In July 2024 – four months prior to US president Donald Trump’s election victory – six of the seven deputies who had submitted the bill withdrew their signatures.
“Usually this happens when [legislators] realise that their initiative is not going to pass, or that the timing is bad – or that it is politically risky,” Schulmann said.
It seems that the deputies got wind that “the outcome of the election would be such that the US would no longer be [Russia’s] foe – but a friend, if not the best friend”, she added.
In April 2025, the Council of the Duma, an organisational body within parliament, suggested dismissing the bill.
“The political situation changed – and the [bill’s] initiators were nowhere to be found,” said Schulmann.
Trump and the Russian narrative
The re-election of Trump was also pivotal in shaping the Kremlin’s rhetoric. In July 2022, Dmitry Kiselyov, host of Russian political show Vesti Nedeli (News of the Week), dedicated a whole segment to then US president Joe Biden’s poor health, speaking of his “cognitive problems”, according to independent news outlet Verstka.
And in February 2025, the host praised the new US president, saying: “Putin perceives in Trump his own quality – restraint.”
Vladimir Putin himself called Trump a “courageous man” after his victory. As for Trump, he publicly refused to call the Russian president a dictator (he had said Putin was “genius” and “savvy” on other occasions).
What’s more, Trump seems to be repeating the Kremlin’s claims about Ukraine’s responsibility for the aggression. “You don’t start a war against someone 20 times your size and then hope that people give you some missiles,” he said in April.
And when he called Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelenskyy a “dictator without elections” in February, he was echoing rhetoric from the Kremlin.
Trump’s criticism of the Ukrainian government is, in turn, used in Russian propaganda, which brainwashes people into supporting Putin’s politics. For example, in February, Kiselyov called Zelenskyy “a mediocre comedian”, according to Verstka, which mirrored Trump’s words about him being “a modestly successful comedian”. Kiselyov reportedly said that Trump “tolerated Zelenskyy for a long time, but now his disgust is obvious”.
Not only does Trump give credit to Putin’s official narrative but, since he took office, the White House has been debating lifting sanctions on Russian organisations and oligarchs, according to Reuters.
In an interview with the independent media outlet Zhivoy Gvozd in April, 83-year-old dissident-in-exile Lev Ponomaryov said that if the sanctions on the Kremlin’s officials were lifted during peace talks, it would allow for the “semi-fascist” regime to remain in place after the war ended. In fact, he is worried that the repression “will only become more severe” when the war is over, because Putin will need to reinforce his position domestically.
An end to Russia’s pariah status?
Talking to Index from Russia, independent politician Dmitriy Kisiev said that, for him, “it’s hard to imagine things getting worse” than they are today. He was the head of the team which stood behind the campaign of Boris Nadezhdin, the pro-peace candidate barred from running in the presidential election in March 2024.
According to Kisiev – and he admitted this might sound surprising – Trump’s presidency could ultimately benefit Russian civil society. He argued that Trump established “some sort of dialogue” with the Kremlin, which could eventually result in Russia becoming more integrated with the rest of the world. In that case, its civil society would be “freer and more protected”. He is concerned about Russia potentially “heading in the wrong direction”, like North Korea, which he described as “a very closed country and a totalitarian state”.
He used the example of Western companies, the majority of which left Russia at the beginning of the war. Their presence acted “as a kind of limiting factor” on the government and helped to deter the creation of overly harsh laws or regulations. This also applied to student exchange programmes and international tourism, which are no longer there either, he said.
Kisiev added that when Trump began talking about peace, speaking about it became safer in Russia. Whereas previously “peace politics” were supported by less than half the population, “today it feels as though more people are for peace”.
In a recent survey by the independent Levada Centre, more than half the respondents said they were in favour of peace talks. The number of people who believed peace negotiations “should definitely begin” (30%) has never been higher. The survey was conducted with 1,617 adults across Russia.
Kisiev underlined that Trump brought hope for peace to people in the face of despair. The pro-peace stance being voiced by more people, he said, could eventually lead to the end of the “special military operation” in Ukraine. When that happens, he believes Russia could evolve in a more “humanistic direction”.
“Some laws would be revised as there would be no more need for such harsh punishments,” he said, referring to legislation passed when the war began – the censorship law which criminalises “discreditation” of the Russian armed forces.
He tries to remain optimistic, saying that if he didn’t believe things could change for the better then he wouldn’t be taking the risk of being an opposition politician in Russia today.
When asked whether Russia’s repressive legislation could be amended or even abolished if the war ends, political scientist Schulmann said the Russian state system was “flexible”, which is “one of the main features of modern autocracies, [making] them different from the totalitarian systems of the 20th century”.
“They are the ones setting the norms,” she said. “A change in the political context can result in changes in the legislation … even though I don’t think that the system would want to get rid of such a convenient instrument as the war censorship law.”
Faint hopes for peace
An independent parliamentary deputy from Moscow, who requested anonymity, spoke to Index about the “faint hope” for peace raised by Trump, echoing Kisiev. But, alluding to the difficult peace negotiations, he said it was “hope which rises and falls, again and again”.
He highlighted that it was not only the public and the opposition in Russia who were fatigued by the war but also deputies from the Kremlin’s United Russia party.
He hopes that a peace agreement would allow his country to “go back in time to a more democratic era”.
But he said that repression remained as severe as it was at the beginning of the war and pro-democracy movements were still being crushed.
One recent example was the request by the Ministry of Justice to liquidate opposition party Grazhdanskaya Initsiativa (Civic Initiative) in May.
The same month, Grigory Melkonyants, co-founder of the election watchdog Golos (Voice), was sentenced to five years in prison after he was found guilty of working for an “undesirable organisation”.
Meanwhile, Trump’s politics continue to affect Russian refugees and opposition movements abroad.
Index spoke to LGBTQ+ activist Nadezhda Shchetinina, who fled Russia for the USA after the LGBTQ+ movement was labelled extremist in November 2023. “Since Trump took office, the [Customs and Border Protection] programme that allowed me to get to the United States safely is no longer operating,” she said.
Trump’s war on immigration and international aid
The second Trump administration has implemented harsh anti-immigration policies. One of its executive orders states that admitting refugees is now considered “detrimental” to US national interests.
Shchetinina said that Russians arriving in the USA have not been welcomed, especially since the invasion of Ukraine. And with Trump as president, “there is less hope that this situation will improve”.
“Everything is being done to prevent Russian political refugees from getting here, even though we have every right to [seek political refuge],” she said.
Many Russian immigrants – including those who have fled to the USA for political reasons – are kept in detention centres, she added. People are deported back to Russia despite the risks of being arrested as soon as they cross the border.
On top of this, the Trump administration has tried to dismantle multiple pro-democratic media outlets through funding cuts, such as Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, which are funded by the federal government. These outlets historically broadcast to countries behind the Iron Curtain during the Cold War. Since then, they have continued reaching and covering authoritarian states, including Russia, countering state propaganda. Although some funding for these media outlets has been restored, their future is bleak under Trump amid his administration’s attacks, cuts to services and the resulting mass staff layoffs.
The president’s shuttering of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) also severely affects campaign groups, NGOs and independent media that oppose Putin abroad. Those impacted include Kovcheg (The Ark), which supports Russians who have fled because of their anti-war position; international human rights organisation Memorial; and also Golos, whose co-founder was jailed in May.
The human rights non-profit Free Russia Foundation has also had its funding heavily impacted, according to independent media outlet Meduza. Founded in the USA in 2014, FRF supports Russian political prisoners, refugees and civil society.
In 2024, it was labelled an “extremist organisation” by the Russian government. Its vice-president – dissident and former political prisoner Vladimir Kara-Murza – was released in the prisoner swap between Russia and the West in 2024. He became one of the key figures of Russian opposition abroad. In his speech in April at the opening of an exhibition in Paris dedicated to Russian political prisoners, Faces of Russian Resistance, he stressed that discussions between Trump and Putin had centred on economic issues rather than human rights.
“We hear [Trump and Putin] talk about minerals, [frozen] assets; American businesses coming back to Russia; direct flights – anything but the people,” he said.
He stressed the importance of releasing hostages of war, including children kidnapped in occupied Ukraine, and Russian political prisoners. “The only reason they [political prisoners] are imprisoned is that they spoke against this criminal war,” he said.
Olga Romanova, director of civil rights organisation Russia Behind Bars, recently said in an interview that Trump was not concerned about Russian political prisoners – including minors.
Dozens of teenagers have been imprisoned for their anti-war actions or words, such as 16-year-old Arseny Turbin, who was sentenced to five years in a correctional colony for “participation in a terrorist organisation”.
In May, Ukraine and Russia exchanged 1,000 prisoners of war each. But Russia’s commissioner for human rights, Tatyana Moskalkova – a key interlocutor in the swaps – does not work with independent human rights defenders, few of whom are still in Russia, Ponomaryov told Zhivoy Gvozd.
Moskalkova has also promoted the Kremlin’s narratives – including that the Russian armed forces are “successfully fighting neo-Nazism” – and has rejected the term “political prisoners”.
The USA on the global stage
Ponomaryov and other members of the Council of Russian Human Rights Defenders wrote an appeal in April, highlighting that human rights are not being prioritised in the current peace talks. Recognising human rights as “the necessary condition” for world peace and security was an important breakthrough of the post-World War II era, the appeal reads, referring to the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The statement acknowledges how the USA has played a key role in this “movement towards progress”. But today, Ponomaryov says, “the US no longer sets an example for democracy, human rights and so on – and that is a catastrophe for the entire world”.
The Trump administration has created chaos for Russians opposing Putin abroad and reinforced the Russian leader’s position at home. At the same time, Trump’s relationship with Putin has raised a faint hope for peace.
But, even if the war ends it might not lead to the loosening of the Kremlin’s iron grip. As the human rights defenders’ appeal stresses, an unjust peace would “give a green light” to further aggression – and to even more repression in Russia.
In the face of this new reality, where the US president aligns with Putin rather than acting as a counterpower to him, there is a need for global unification. As Ponomaryov says, rights defenders across the world must come together around the issue of human rights and “start influencing what’s happening in the world arena”.