3 Sep 2025 | Americas, News and features, United States, Volume 54.02 Summer 2025
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 late April, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt decided to do things differently by holding a new type of press briefing. Instead of fielding questions from credentialled journalists, she held separate briefings specifically for social media news influencers.
“Tens of millions of Americans are now turning to social media and independent media outlets to consume their news, and we are embracing that change, not ignoring it,” Leavitt said at the beginning of the first such briefing on 28 April.
Jackson Gosnell – a college student who runs a popular TikTok news account and sometimes appears on the pro-Donald Trump broadcaster One America News – attended that briefing. He asked about Russia’s war in Ukraine given Trump’s promise to end it quickly.
“I thought it was important to ask questions that people at home wanted to know,” Gosnell told Index. “Not the fluff that others might have given.”
Unsurprisingly, nearly all the 25 people identified by NBC as having attended that week’s briefings at the White House have a history of clear support for Trump. The “fluff” from the other news influencers – dubbed “newsfluencers” or “news brokers” by various academics – included a combination of softball questions, overt praise for Trump, false information and conspiracy theories.
But how did these people make their way into the heart of the federal government? In January, Leavitt announced that “new media” – such as podcasters and social media influencers – would be permitted to apply for credentials to cover the White House. She began reserving a rotating “new media” seat at regular press briefings and giving its occupant the first question. Analysis by The New York Times found that the seat often went to either right-wing media or newer outlets such as digital start-ups Semafor and Axios.
The White House then took over the press pool in February, giving it control for the first time in a century over which reporters were permitted close access to cover the president. It announced it would start inviting “new media” to join the press pool, with most of the invited outlets being conservative or right-wing, according to analysis by the non-profit Poynter Institute for Media Studies.
Historically organised by the independent White House Correspondents’ Association, the press pool is a group of rotating journalists, who cover the president up close every day for a wider group of media, who are known as the press corps.
The rise of citizen journalism in the USA has been a long time coming. But in the months since Trump returned to the Oval Office, the phenomenon has quickly reached a crescendo as the White House embraces pro-Trump newsfluencers in a way that has never been done before.
Former president Joe Biden invited social media influencers to the White House, too. But the current administration openly welcomes, champions and legitimises pro-Trump newsfluencers and other members of the “new media” cohort – many of whom tend to disseminate falsehoods and conspiracies.
The White House has simultaneously used other mechanisms – such as co-opting the press pool – to box out traditional media and make it more difficult for mainstream journalists to cover the current administration.
Multiple academics said that, taken together, these phenomena are concerning for US democracy because they make holding the president accountable a taller order. They also send the message to the rest of the world that the USA doesn’t care as much about championing global press freedom as it once did.
“This is about trying to eliminate criticism and dissent,” Kathy Kiely, chair of free press studies at the Missouri School of Journalism, said. “[It’s] lapdogs versus watchdogs.”
The White House’s spokesperson Anna Kelly told Index over email that the media has enjoyed “an unprecedented level of access to President Trump, who is the most transparent and accessible president in history.”
“Under the president’s leadership, the press office has been more inclusive of new media, whose audiences often dwarf those of legacy media outlets, and local syndicates – ensuring that the president’s message reaches as many Americans as possible,” she added.
The concept of a newsfluencer is relatively new. In the USA, they were once on the fringes of the media ecosystem. But the 2020 election and the subsequent “big lie” narrative – that the election was stolen from Trump – was a major inflection point that accelerated the rise of far-right newsfluencers. False narratives about the Covid-19 pandemic and the 6 January insurrection in 2021 also helped facilitate their ascent.
Many rose to prominence by deliberately differentiating themselves from the mainstream media. But now some of them are on the verge of entering the mainstream themselves, if they haven’t already.
“These Maga [Make America Great Again] influencers see their role not as sceptical journalists but as boosters of the president and his administration,” said Aidan McLaughlin, editor-in-chief of the media news site Mediaite.
The months leading up to the 2024 presidential election crystallised the vast reach that newsfluencers now wield. Trump appeared on an array of podcasts and online shows popular with male audiences, including the Joe Rogan Experience podcast. Former vice-president Kamala Harris also turned to “new media” in her campaign.
It’s difficult to measure the extent that newsfluencers impact how people vote or think about societal issues, said Roxana Muenster, a graduate in communications at Cornell University in New York who studies far-right lifestyle movements online. She said the outsized role they played around the 2024 election was undeniable.
Shortly after the election, a Pew Research Centre report confirmed the growing power that newsfluencers hold. Roughly one in five Americans regularly get news from influencers on social media, the report found, and about two-thirds of that group say this helps them better understand current events and civic issues.
No longer on the outskirts of the US media sphere, right-wing TikTokers and podcasters are now welcomed into the White House. Some, such as Laura Loomer, influence Trump himself (her sway has allegedly led to the sacking of several government officials, including former national security adviser Mike Waltz).
Others – including Robert F Kennedy Jr, Kash Patel and Dan Bongino – have even become members of the administration.
To a certain extent, these newsfluencers don’t really need the White House, says Muenster, because they already have significant followings of their own. But they do get something else out of it.
“It bestows them with a certain legitimacy,” she said. “It says that these are reliable sources to get your news from.”
This can pose problems when the newsfluencers aren’t actually reliable or accurate, as is often the case. “They are not as strict with the truth as people in the actual news industry,” Muenster said.
That means false information and conspiracy theories can run rampant, which doesn’t bode well for the health of US democracy.
Disinformation and misinformation can erode trust in institutions and make authoritarianism seem more appealing, according to Mert Bayar, a post-doctoral scholar at the University of Washington’s Centre For an Informed Public.
“In a normal democracy, you want credible sources of information,” he said.
For instance, while in the “new media” seat during an official briefing in late April, Tim Pool – the prominent host of several conservative podcasts, which last year were found to have links to Russian state media – lambasted “legacy media” for “hoaxes” about Trump and asked Leavitt to comment on their “unprofessional behaviour”. (“We want to welcome all viewpoints into this room,” Leavitt replied.)
And at one of the influencer briefings, Dominick McGee – a highly-followed conspiracy theorist on X who operates under the pseudonym Dom Lucre – asked Leavitt whether Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton would ever be investigated for election integrity. Forbes reported that McGee was briefly suspended from X (then Twitter) in 2023 for posting a video of child sexual abuse.
Leavitt said McGee’s question was “refreshing” and that “the legacy media would never ask” it.
In a phone interview, McGee told Index he thought US media was “broken” and had “betrayed the American people”.
He said he considers himself a journalist; but he also said he was more concerned with being “freaking entertaining”.
Like McGee, Gosnell thinks mainstream media is dead and influencers are the future of the media industry.
But compared with other “new media” in the Trump orbit, Gosnell is relatively balanced in how he delivers the news. Even though he welcomes the rise of the newsfluencer, he knows it comes with risks. “It’s a little scary, too, because people on the internet can lie just as much as news hosts – if not [more],” Gosnell said.
Still, he is sometimes tempted to produce more opinionated content, adding: “It seems way more profitable.”
The White House gets something out of its new arrangement, too, according to Bayar. Speaking directly to Maga newsfluencers gives the White House a sympathetic ear to peddle its messages to. Meanwhile, prioritising these voices also limits the ability of journalists from mainstream outlets to ask hard questions that can hold the administration accountable.
To Bayar, the situation in the USA reminds him of his home country, Turkey, where the government picks and chooses which journalists are and aren’t allowed at press conferences with president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.
“It is part of this authoritarian playbook,” said Bayar. “If you don’t get asked tough questions, you can actually control public opinion better because you control your answers.”
While the White House’s embrace of Maga newsfluencers appears to be bad news for democracy in the “land of liberty” and the home of the First Amendment, it also has implications for the rest of the world.
The USA has historically championed press freedom globally. But the administration’s simultaneous embrace of pro-Trump influencers and attacks on critical media signal that Washington doesn’t really care about independent journalism anywhere in the world, according to Kiely. “It sends a very strong signal to dictators elsewhere,” she said.
Some authoritarian countries appear to have already been emboldened by Trump’s actions. As part of the Azerbaijani government’s crackdown on independent media, authorities in May imprisoned Voice of America contributor Ulviyya Guliyeva. Press freedom experts and her colleagues believe the Trump administration’s campaign to gut VOA emboldened Baku to target the reporter.
As McLaughlin says, “this has a bad ripple effect on the rest of the world”.
26 Jun 2025 | Americas, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Czech Republic, Europe and Central Asia, News and features, Russia, Ukraine, United States
A version of this article was originally published in the British Journalism Review.
Let me tell you about four brave journalists. One morning last May, Farid Mehralizada was arrested by masked police. The Azerbaijani financial reporter later described how the officers put a bag over his head, handcuffed him and forced him into a police car. They accompanied him home, where they searched for incriminating evidence as his pregnant wife watched. He was charged with smuggling and money laundering. Mehralizada has been in prison ever since and missed the birth of the child his wife was carrying. His only crime was exposing Azerbaijan’s overreliance on its reserves of oil and gas. “90% of Azerbaijan’s exports and 50% of its budget revenues depend on the oil and gas sector, which poses significant risks for the country,” he told a Baku court in April. Earlier this month, Mehralizada was convicted and sentenced to nine years in prison following a trial his employer called a “sham”.
Belarusian journalist Ihar Losik was detained in June 2020 in advance of the rigged elections in his country and accused of “organising mass riots” and “incitement to hatred”. In December 2021, he was sentenced to 15 years in prison. Losik was transferred to a labour camp in June 2022 and added to a terrorist watch list. He has since used hunger strikes to protest against his detention but is currently incommunicado.
Ukrainian Vladyslav Yesypenko left Crimea after the Russian annexation of the peninsula in 2014, but he kept returning to his homeland to report on Vladimir Putin’s illegal occupation. He was arrested in March 2021 on suspicion of collecting information for Ukrainian intelligence and later charged with the “possession and transport of explosives”. In February 2022, he was sentenced to six years in prison. He was finally released on 22 June 2025, after more than four years of detention and separation from his family.
In November 2024, Russian freelancer Nika Novak was sentenced to four years in prison on charges of “confidential collaboration” with a foreign organisation. Earlier this year, she was placed in a detention centre usually reserved for prisoners at risk of escape, violent inmates or members of extremist organisations. At the end of March, the court of appeal in Novosibirsk in the far east of Russia upheld her sentence, fined her 500,000 roubles ($6,380) and made her pay prosecution witnesses’ expenses.
What these journalists have in common – apart from their courage and determination to report on authoritarian abuses – is that they all worked for the US Congress-funded broadcaster Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) before their detention.
In February, Richard Grenell, presidential envoy for special missions, posted on X [now deleted] that “state-owned” broadcasters such as RFE/RL were “a relic of the past”. Elon Musk, the billionaire former head of Donald Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) responded: “Yes, shut them down. Europe is free now (not counting stifling bureaucracy). Nobody listens to them anymore. It’s just radical left crazy people talking to themselves while torching $1B/year of US taxpayer money.”
It’s hard to imagine a more ill-informed statement about the state of liberty in eastern Europe. It would be laughable to describe Mehralizada, Losik, Yesypenko and Novak as “radical left crazy people”, if the consequences of Musk’s words weren’t so catastrophic.
On 15 March, barely a month after Grenell and Musk’s statements, RFE/RL was informed by the US Agency for Global Media (USAGM) that its grant from Congress had been terminated. Lawyers acting for the broadcaster immediately challenged the decision to terminate the funding and Judge Royce Lamberth of the US District Court for the District of Columbia granted the application. He concluded that closure would cause “irreparable harm” and added “in keeping with Congress’s longstanding determination… the continued operation of RFE/RL is in the public interest”.
Despite the ruling, USAGM at first refused to release funds for April, forcing RFE/RL to furlough staff to keep the organisation afloat. Then, on 29 April, Judge Lamberth concluded that USAGM’s refusal to pay the grant on the same terms as the previous month was “arbitrary and capricious”. He rejected USAGM’s argument that it could withhold the funds until a new grant agreement had been signed with amended working conditions. The judge concluded that the actions of the agency could “threaten the very existence” of RFE/RL.
RFE/RL president and CEO Stephen Capus said the ruling meant his journalists could “continue doing their jobs holding dictators and despots accountable”. The organisation will continue to fight for funding to be restored in full.
Meanwhile, at the time of going to press, the future of its 1,300 journalists and support staff hangs in the balance. The fate of its imprisoned staff is even more precarious.
One peculiar and surreal aspect to the Trump administration’s attacks on RFE/RL is that the organisation was traditionally seen by the “radical left” as a propaganda arm of the US government, along with its sister broadcaster Voice of America (VOA), which also faces closure. The soft-power value of these institutions seems lost on those surrounding the US president.
It was not lost on Ronald Reagan. As a young actor in the 1950s, the future Cold War warrior recorded an advert for RFE that recognised its ideological worth in the battle against communism. “This station daily pierces the Iron Curtain with the truth, answering the lies of the Kremlin and bringing a message of hope to millions trapped behind the Iron Curtain,” he said.
It is perhaps not surprising that Musk has conflated the various Congress-funded broadcasters as they are often mixed up in the public imagination. But they have very specific origins and functions. VOA was founded during the Second World War to counter the fascist ideology of Nazi Germany, while RFE was a post-war response to communist propaganda in Soviet-occupied countries. RL had the specific task of broadcasting inside Russia. VOA was designed, as its name suggests, to speak for the US government and the American people, whereas RFE/RL began by representing dissident views from within Soviet-occupied countries. As a mark of its significant role during the Cold War, the Czech president Vaclav Havel, himself a former dissident, invited RFE/RL to move its headquarters from Munich to Prague in 1995.
RFE/RL now operates in 27 languages across 23 countries, with specialist services in Iran and Afghanistan. In recent years, it has made the case for independent journalism in the countries where it operates, part of the reason it is so despised by Putin and other authoritarian leaders across Europe, Central Asia and the Middle East. In February 2024, it was designated an “undesirable organisation” in Russia, forcing many of its journalists to move into exile and operate remotely from Lithuania and Latvia. In April this year, the US government shut off a satellite that transmitted its Russian-language service into Russia.
The move against RFE/RL came as a surprise to the organisation’s management, who had no inkling that it was a potential target. No one within the organisation was consulted and no warning given.
Nicola Careem, vice president and editor in chief of RFE/RL, said: “In some of the places we work, we’re not just one voice among many – we are the media. When every other outlet has been silenced, taken over or driven out, our journalists stay. They keep reporting, often at great personal risk, just to make sure the truth still gets through. I’ve seen what that means on the ground. For millions of people, we’re their only source of trusted news. If RFE/RL disappears, so does independent journalism in those countries. That’s the reality. There’s no safety net – except us.”
One tragedy among many in this miserable saga is that RFE/RL had begun to find a new role for itself in the Putin era. This was especially true after the full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Its Russian-language channels reached a peak of 400 million views on YouTube in February 2022 as the invasion began. This is why the recent blocking of the Russian-language satellite takes on such a sinister edge.
When I spoke to Patrick Boehler, head of digital strategy for RFE/RL, in the summer of 2022 for Index on Censorship, he was full of optimism: “We have fantastic teams serving Russia. And I think it’s really one of those moments where you see our journalists living up to the task and the challenge that they face. And it’s really inspiring.” That optimism has been torpedoed by the news from Washington.
The reality is that in parts of Central Asia, where independent journalists find it difficult to operate, RFE/RL is there to provide an important check on Russian and Chinese misinformation. As a result, its affiliates have been periodically blocked across the region.
Careem said: “Make no mistake – we’re in the middle of an information war. Authoritarian regimes in Russia, China and Iran are standing by, ready to take over any space RFE/RL is forced to leave behind. They will spend billions to capture our audiences, flood the region with propaganda, and fuel instability. This is not the moment for the free world to look away, or to leave the field open. If we step back, they step in. It’s that simple.”
But the picture is complicated. The organisation has not been without its critics, even before the arrival of Trump in the White House. Journalists in the region already expressed their concern in 2023 when the broadcaster announced its Kazakh service (Radio Azattyk) would move away from broadcasting in Russian. The US organisation argued that a combined service operating across Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan would pool resources and produce better journalism. Local journalists, some of whom had been critics of REF/RL for years, were not convinced.
Asem Tokayeva, who worked at Azattyk for 14 years, has been calling for reform of the organisation since she left in 2017. Speaking to The Times of Central Asia in April in response to the grant cut, she said: “The organisation has long had an opaque management system and a culture of mutual protection. Real control over the content and personnel decisions rests with mid-level managers, vice presidents, and regional directors, who actively resist reforms. The leadership shields its own from accountability, allowing the system to remain unchanged.”
RFE/RL’s critics in Washington are not motivated by these criticisms and are unlikely even to be aware of them. The drama playing itself out in the US District Court for the District of Columbia is existential. On 22 April, Judge Lamberth ruled that the decision to require VOA to stop broadcasting was illegal. He ordered the administration to restore VOA and two other independent networks operated by the USAGM – Radio Free Asia and Middle East Broadcasting Networks. He did not make the same order for RFE/RL.
The uncertain situation at RFE/RL raises unsettling questions for the future of independent journalism across Central and Eastern Europe, not least for the exiled journalists who could find themselves stranded and jobless in Prague or the Baltic countries.
As the future of the broadcaster hangs in the balance, the Czech government has led the way by pledging to support RFE/RL’s continued presence in Prague. Prime minister Petr Fiala told the Financial Times in March: “We will do everything that we can to give them the chance to continue in this very important role.” He also emphasised the historical significance of the organisation. ‘‘I know what it meant for me in communist times,” he said. At the same time, Czech foreign minister Jan Lipavský celebrated its relevance to the present global situation on X: “Radio Free Europe is one of the few credible sources in dictatorships like Iran, Belarus, and Afghanistan”.
The Czech government has led calls for the European Union to step in to fill the hole left by USAGM. That is likely to face resistance from the so-called “hybrid democracies” of Hungary and Slovakia, where the leaderships are sympathetic to Russia and independent media are under attack. The UK government has so far not commented on developments, but Index on Censorship has called on the Foreign Office to make representations on behalf of the stranded journalists.
Could there also be a role for the BBC World Service, a historical competitor? There are certainly parts of Eastern Europe and Central Asia where the BBC’s coverage could benefit from the expertise of RFE/RL journalists. Careem is exploring all possibilities: “We’re facing real financial and political uncertainty, but one thing is clear: anyone who values democracy, press freedom, and truthful information has a stake in ensuring RFE/RL survives. We’ve been deeply gratified by the support from our European partners as we work through a range of solutions that would allow us to continue this critical work.”
Meanwhile, the exiled journalists at RFE find themselves in the bizarre position of being double dissidents: in their home countries and now, effectively, in the USA too.
To see Index’s coverage of these broadcasting institutions, click here.
SUBSCRIBE[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]