ANALYSIS

Why USAID cuts highlight the role of public media

18 March 2025

In the wake of funding cuts for USAID and its impact on journalism around the world, public service media is needed now more than ever.

Ripple effects

Beyond the existential crisis facing the media industry, the funding cut has had ripple effects. Notably, development experts warned that the unchecked exploitation of USAID systems by private sector agents poses a serious data security threat to journalists, with the risk of sensitive information – including the identities and activities of media workers, journalists, and human rights defenders involved in US-funded projects – potentially falling into hostile hands. This concern has already reared its head, with autocratic states being emboldened to request detailed information on previously-funded news outlets and NGOs and to raid civil society groups on spurious allegations of abuse of US funding.

The freeze has also brought with it increased attacks on the work of independent news outlets and media CSOs, and on the critical work these organisations do. For instance, Trump alleged that USAID had improperly allocated taxpayer funds to media outlets, claiming that the agency had given millions of dollars to organisations like Politico and the Associated Press. However, these allegations were debunked, with the funds in question actually being used for standard government subscriptions. For those organisations who did receive USAID funding, they have faced serious attacks on their independence and allegations of “journalism on sale” – with Elon Musk of the Department of Government Efficiency leading the charge. Such rhetoric has consequences. In the Dominican Republic, LatAm Journalism Review reported that unsubstantiated allegations of Dominican journalists receiving USAID funds have led to online harassment.

Meanwhile, the ripples are being seen in other alarming ways. In Namibia, the US Embassy recently raised concerns following its questions to The Namibian on the local newspaper’s affiliations with international news outlets, including the Associated Press and Reuters (both of whom have come under attacks from the Trump administration). The embassy said it was asked “not to subscribe to any media subscriptions that do not align with [US state department] goals, such as making America safer, stronger, and more prosperous, as well as ensuring the safety, security and welfare of the workforce, and fulfilling statutory or treaty obligations”.

Public media’s role in filling the vacuum

Now that the “review” of USAID is completed, it is left to be seen what the long-term impacts will be. This cut comes at a time when the sustainability of media environments is faltering, mis- and disinformation are growing, and threats to democracies around the world are pervasive. Cuts to the funding of independent public interest journalism leaves a vacuum and there are well-founded fears of who will fill this vacuum. The likely candidates are the propaganda machines of the Chinese and Russian states, which raises serious concerns.

It is here that a case for independent and well-funded public service media (PSM) must be made.

The USAID situation underscores the urgent need for strong, insulated, and well-funded PSM. Independent public interest media has long benefited from diverse funding streams, including international grants, direct public investment, and philanthropic support. The removal of one of these funding pillars – or, in USAID’s case, the removal of a significant funder – creates an imbalance that makes public interest journalism more vulnerable to market forces and political pressures and closures.

Public service media serve as crucial counterweights to the ever-growing influence of state-aligned, partisan, or commercially-driven news organisations. PSM organisations bring with them a plurality of voices in the media landscape, helping to underpin democracy.

While independent, donor-funded journalism has played an essential role in supporting press freedom in many regions, the USAID cuts make the presence of stable and publicly-funded media even more necessary – for audiences at home and abroad.

At the same time, other governments must step up their commitments to public service media and independent public interest media. Yet, in some countries, we are witnessing the opposite. In Switzerland, for example, there is a current proposal to cut federal funding for SwissInfo (SWI), and other international services of public broadcaster SRG SSR. These international services are not only critical for audiences within their base country, but for other countries where access to independent news is limited. Similar debates on funding cuts are unfolding in other democratic countries. Such reductions will only create more media vacuums, leaving space for malign actors to push propaganda and disinformation unchecked.

Notably, threats of funding cuts have a chilling effect on journalists, even in longstanding democracies and within newsrooms that have historically maintained a high level of editorial independence. For instance, the US Agency for Global Media (USAGM) has come under the scrutiny of the Trump administration, with an envoy labelling a Voice of America (VOA) – a USAGM entity – journalist’s social media post quoting criticisms of cutbacks at USAGM as “treasonous”. The envoy continued, “You don’t get to work against the official U.S. government policies while being paid by US taxpayers. You should be immediately fired.” The journalist has since been placed on “excused absence” while an inquiry is underway, The New York Times reported. While such pressure can undoubtedly lead to self-censorship, President Trump has now (14 March) issued an executive order to gut USAGM, placing nearly 1,300 employees of VOA on administrative leave and cancelling the contracts of other services such as Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) and Radio Free Asia (RFA), with severe implications for journalist safety, press freedom and the availability of independent news and information for millions.