The second Trump administration’s approach to soft power, particularly regarding China, has been opaque and counterintuitive toward its own strategic objectives in the Indo-Pacific. Rather than leveraging valuable tools like Radio Free Asia (RFA) and Voice of America (VOA) to counter Beijing’s authoritarian influence both domestically and internationally, the administration has essentially chosen to dismantle these institutions by terminating the federal funding supporting them, thereby weakening America’s ability to promote independent journalism in restrictive environments. This move raises significant concerns over the long-term consequences for US foreign policy and global information warfare.
The US Agency for Global Media (USAGM), which oversees outlets such as RFA and VOA, has historically played a pivotal role in providing independent reporting in and on authoritarian states like China, North Korea, and Myanmar. Yet, the White House has shown a gravely deep misunderstanding of these organizations and overlooked their purpose, which in theory could actually align with Trump’s goals of increasing trade and enhancing cooperation as a soft power tool, thus encouraging allies to work with the administration’s economic initiatives.
On one hand, the administration’s decision to list USAGM itself among “unnecessary” elements of the federal government reflects a broader tension toward media organizations that are perceived as failing to align with Trump’s goals. During his first presidency, Trump made attempts to change VOA, as Michael Pack was tasked with bringing in staff that moved away from past narratives and remits. However, the courts ruled that such actions violated the First Amendment. VOA pieces critical of Trump have been softened since he has taken office. Though legislation from previous decades exists to shield VOA from an inquisitive US government, thus allowing it to maintain editorial independence, for Trump, this is seen as a negative aspect that requires correcting, or, in this case, total shutdown.
Meanwhile, the billionaire Elon Musk who is the de facto head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), has called for the axing of USAGM entities, dismissing them as “radical left crazy people talking to themselves,” and revealing a profound failure to understand the actual purpose and activities of these outlets. In fact, sources and journalists in-country send information to an outlet like RFA, for instance, which is based in Washington, DC, which then publishes and disseminates the content in both English and local languages. Thus, RFA is essential in covering local news in an independent fashion and is frequently the only source able to do so that is available in countries with authoritarian governments. VOA and RFA are also some of the only outlets of their kind to use TV and radio—not just internet—to reach Chinese audiences, for example. Their existence is therefore not just about promoting the US interests and messaging beyond its borders, but even more importantly about supporting local journalists to actually tell the truth about what is happening on the ground in ecosystems characterized by a severe lack in transparency and press freedom.
The dismantling of RFA is being called a gift to dictators. The fact that the North Korean government executed a man in front of his peers for listening to RFA—that the regime would view the broadcast as that dangerous—underscores its potency as an independent source of information. China in particular has long viewed VOA and RFA as existential threats, branding them as propaganda machines that undermine its grasp on power. Beijing has responded gleefully to the decision to cut funding for these outlets, with state-run media publications like the Global Times declaring that the “so-called beacon of freedom” has been discarded by its own government “like a dirty rag.”
The optics here speak for themselves: as part of its identity and outreach, the US has branded itself as a defender of free speech and independent journalism, but the closure of RFA contradicts this stance and provides authoritarian regimes with rhetorical ammunition to dismiss any US criticism as hypocritical.
That editorial even goes on to list the specific grievances China has regarding VOA in a litany of issues that underscore the importance of the outlet’s pioneering reporting: “VOA has an appalling track record. From smearing human rights in China’s Xinjiang to hyping up disputes in the South China Sea, from supporting ‘Taiwan independence’ forces to backing Hong Kong rioters, from fabricating the so-called China virus narrative to promoting the claim of China’s ‘overcapacity,’ almost every malicious falsehood about China has VOA’s fingerprints all over it.”
RFA has played an absolutely vital role in exposing the CCP’s human rights abuses, particularly in Tibet and Xinjiang. The outlet was among the first to report on China’s mass detention of Uyghur Muslims back in 2017. Oftentimes, when researchers and journalists are gathering first-hand information and anecdotes from local Tibetan contacts and sources for a story, it is quite typical that RFA is usually the first—and only—outlet to be covering related issues in the English language online. Without RFA, independent reporting on these regions will diminish, allowing China to further obscure its actions from the international community in atmospheres that are already some of the most highly censored and opaque in the world. Moreover, the outlets have been able to give both a domestic and global voice to vulnerable communities who may otherwise struggle to share their stories in their own respective environments and beyond, such as Tibetan and Afghan women.
However, these organizations and journalists who work for them are refusing to go down without a fight. Already several lawsuits have been filed against the Trump administration in an astonishing case of one government entity suing another.
The motivation for the ill-advised decision to terminate funding for USAGM seems to stem from Trump’s disdain for perceived criticism of his policies. More generally, his friendly attitude toward strongmen like Putin could also be factored into the equation as having some kind of influence. In circumstances that grow increasingly dystopian by the day, it appears that the US president is making active strides to please and placate tyrants in totalitarian states that are considered hostile to the United States.
Elon Musk’s business interests in China also raise concerns about whether his stance is influenced by the Chinese government’s preferences. The CCP of course has a history of pressuring foreign companies to align with its political priorities. Thus, Musk’s support for shutting down RFA and VOA, both of which highlight China’s human rights abuses, could be interpreted as an attempt to curry favor with Beijing.
The Trump administration has repeatedly emphasized China as a strategic rival, stressing the need to effectively compete with Beijing and prioritize the Indo-Pacific region when it comes to foreign policy. However, dismantling RFA directly contradicts and undermines this rhetoric and reflects a broader disinterest in and misunderstanding of soft power. If the US genuinely seeks to challenge Beijing’s growing dominance in Asia and beyond, eliminating one of the only outlets that has the ability to do so is counterproductive. The maneuver also demonstrates an inconsistency when compared to the approach of cabinet members like Marco Rubio, who has a history of calling out Beijing’s coercive tactics. Considering his recent tour in Latin America—one of whose stated aims was to counter China in the battle for influence—it is difficult to imagine a figure like the Secretary of State endorsing this move.
In terms of more pressing consequences, RFA and its sister outlets rely on a vast network of local contacts who provide information from within restrictive states, and with the collapse of these organizations, such contacts may be left vulnerable to crackdown by their respective governments. Some journalists employed by RFA for example face potential imprisonment if forced to return to their home countries, as they are currently protected by their employment status. Rebuilding the extensive networks RFA has cultivated over decades would take years, and the damage done in terms of lost contacts and broken trust will not be easily reversed.
The closure of RFA and similar outlets will have major ramifications for global press freedom and human rights advocacy more broadly. With RFA and VOA weakened, media controlled by autocrats will face even fewer challenges in shaping narratives both at home and abroad. In particular, outlets like RFA are crucial when it comes to both local- and English-language reporting, especially on the persecution of minorities in authoritarian states like China. Terminating them effectively enables such regimes to wipe out these communities without anyone knowing.
Whether motivated by Trump’s antagonistic relationship with the press, or business considerations tied to figures like Musk, the move to terminate USAGM’s funding represents a major strategic misstep. The fallout will be felt for years, with authoritarian regimes emboldened, independent journalism debilitated, and the ability to expose human rights abuses suffering a devastating blow.
From:https://www.geopoliticalmonitor.com/voa-rfa-shutdown-a-strategic-own-goal-for-us-indo-pacific-policy/
