Media Assistance in the Age of Authoritarianism

Remarks on September 11, 2025 at the European Commission, Brussels

The first of July marked the official end of USAID. By August 15th, all local staff were laid off, and September 2nd was the last day for foreign service colleagues. It was a stunningly fast collapse for the world's premiere development agency, instigated by the second Trump administration within days of inauguration.

Much attention has focused on the humanitarian cost—14 million projected deaths by 2030 due to cuts in global health and disaster relief. A quieter casualty, however, was USAID's mission to promote "resilient, democratic societies."

There was a recent news story about USAID's final days, focusing on our HIV work in Eswatini. U.S. assistance helped life expectancy rebound from 41 to 60 years and cut in half the number of AIDS deaths. A remarkable success. But the piece raised concerns about USAID creating parallel health systems that let government corruption go unchecked—officials allegedly colluding with drug suppliers on kickbacks, causing shortages and patients scrambling to find drugs at pharmacies.

This story was important—but it was frustrating for democracy specialists like me. Missing from the report was USAID’s long-standing work to strengthen transparency and accountability, and the importance of democracy strengthening programs in helping create or support environments where health and humanitarian work could be more effective. In fact, a major regional investigative journalism program in southern Africa was in procurement as USAID was being killed. Alongside support for civil society and rule of law programming, this support could have tried to address the structural problems of corruption, or at the very least, brought it to light.

Against the "third wave" of democracy starting in Latin America in the 1970s, the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 accelerated democracy promotion as a major diplomatic and developmental focus. A free, indigenous press was integral to this process.

USAID began investing in independent media in newly independent Eastern European and former Soviet states. The Center for International Media Assistance estimates that during the 1990s, U.S. donors spent at least $600 million on independent media overseas—three-quarters in Europe and Eurasia. USAID provided nearly half that amount.

For almost 35 years, the U.S. was often THE strongest proponent of media development, understanding that independent media and press freedom are fundamental to democracy.

But, today, journalism faces unprecedented threats. Autocratic leaders increasingly attack media freedom through censorship, harassment, and imprisonment. Meanwhile, journalism's business model is failing as advertising moves online and outlets close in staggering numbers. The decline of trusted journalism, alongside prolific disinformation, poses profound threats to accountability and contributes to democratic backsliding.

In response, many donors, including the EU and the US, made supporting media a top priority. The Media Freedom Coalition, founded in 2019, grew to 51 states promoting media freedom through funding, diplomacy, and legal support. In 2024, the OECD's Development Assistance Committee committed to six guiding principles for media development.

It’s hard to believe this now, but just a year ago, a consensus seemed to be taking shape: diplomatic pressure would push for meaningful political commitments; stakeholders would find locally-driven solutions; funding and mentoring would help newsrooms innovate; and in authoritarian environments, direct assistance would support exile newsrooms.

The Numbers

According to the Global Forum for Media Development, analyzing 2020-2024 data, the U.S. provided about $130 million annually for media development, or 20% of Official Development Assistance. After January, however, the Trump administration cut 83% of USAID's programs. Recent estimates suggest at least $150 million in media support was cut for this fiscal year, or 25% of total ODA spending. For Europe and Eurasia, that represented about $67 million across State and USAID.

Other donor governments followed with announced cuts, including the UK, Germany, and France. The OECD projects a 9-17% drop in ODA for 2025, on top of a 9% drop in 2024. It notes that “the outlook beyond 2025 remains highly uncertain.” So, what are we losing?

Exile Media

In cases of sudden turmoil—Belarus after the 2020 sham election, Russia after the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, or Azerbaijan's growing authoritarianism—independent media had no choice but to operate in exile. USAID helped exiled journalists keep reporting, from exposing sanctions evasions in Belarus to money-laundering schemes in Azerbaijan to documenting Russia's war crimes.

But working, living, and producing content in exile is incredibly volatile, demanding journalists and managers constantly evolve and adapt. They face digital attacks, transnational repression, legal obstacles, and major business and revenue hurdles. We provided tailored support for these unique challenges, from emergency relocation to longer-term legal aid, professional mentoring, and business training.

Closing Spaces

Press freedom in Georgia and Serbia has decreased precipitously over five years. Media workers face rising violence, political smears, harassment, ownership concentration, and legal restrictions. USAID support was critical for local advocacy organizations, legal aid, safety resources, and core business operations. We also supported robust media literacy and information integrity efforts. Local partners have not only lost funding overnight in these countries, but they now face government investigations seeking criminal charges.

Bright Spots

Our assistance was crucial in countries experiencing democratic openings—Moldova, Armenia, and North Macedonia. All showed progress, even if uneven. USAID's media programs included significant media literacy components reaching diverse audiences across all ages through fact-checking, games, and social media. Programs strengthened financial viability where elite capture was a major obstacle. While some donors decreased funding when countries saw small improvements, we learned the hard lesson that without steady or even increased support, such progress would be hard to sustain.

Innovative Solutions

As threats evolved, our programming evolved too. The Balkan Media Assistance Program (BMAP), which USAID co-designed with GIZ, provided tailored expertise to 15 major outlets across five countries, helping diversify revenue and expand audiences. Notable achievements: grantees were the first reporters from their countries covering Ukraine's invasion; two outlets avoided bankruptcy and potential Kremlin-connected buyouts; and in Serbia, for every US dollar in grants, outlets earned 1.5 times that in new revenue. In 2024, USAID seeded an investment fund that would have helped move outlets in the region from being revenue-ready to investment ready, meaning, they would have had access to low-interest financing, and equity funding. When we talk about the need for public-private partnerships, embracing new stakeholders like technologists and start-ups, and impact investing, this would have been the gold standard for evolving our approach.

Reporters Shield, launched in 2022, created a global mutual defense fund helping outlets combat strategic lawsuits. In Bosnia-Herzegovina, journalists told Administrator Samantha Power that it was harder to report now than during Sarajevo's siege due to legal harassment. Harder to report than during a war.

Finally, USAID's investigative journalism support helped foster elite, fearless watchdog reporters. USAID viewed corruption as development in reverse by scaring away investors, deepening inequality, and fueling conflict, so we supported the journalistic infrastructure to expose it. From 2009-2025, we funded the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP), which earned nearly 200 awards and contributed to seizing $10 billion in assets and nearly 800 arrests. OCCRP also helped grow local investigative centers from 6 to almost 25. For every $1 in U.S. funding, OCCRP returned $100 to taxpayers in fines paid to the US Treasury and Securities and Exchanges Commission.

And then, there is Ukraine

Since 1991, Ukraine's democracy progress has been uneven, but partners made significant strides reshaping the media climate. Successes between 2014-2019 in particular, included privatizing state-owned print media, ownership transparency laws, creating public service broadcasting, and fostering a robust local community that is at the core of coordinating, mobilizing, and sustaining momentum for continuing media reforms.

During the full-scale invasion, USAID supported more than 500 independent outlets with core funding, provided thousands of bulletproof vests and first aid training, and supported passage of the Law on Media—meeting a major EU candidacy criterion. Local outlets’ investigative reporting tracked thousands of kidnapped children, exposed a $4 billion corrupt deal for the Kyiv metro, and revealed $200 million in Defense Ministry procurement corruption, leading to resignations and new transparency laws.

The Way Forward: Lessons and Recommendations

We need to remember that this is an ecosystem of support. First, we have the nexus of defense, diplomacy, and development. Think of it as a three-legged stool that wobbles if one leg is taken away or weakened too much. Then, there is also the ecosystem of supporting international broadcasting like Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, alongside public diplomacy and strategic communications efforts. A free, resilient, and pluralistic media and information environment is not a luxury—it protects donors’ core investments in health, education, and disaster relief, and it is as essential to security and stability as any investment in defense and diplomacy. And while media assistance alone won’t secure democracy, democracy cannot exist without a free press. Russia and China know this well, and they have vocally and eagerly ramped up disinformation efforts, so-called “cultural” houses, and corrosive capital, debt-trap projects.

Still, at a time when funding is likely trending downward because it’s being shifted to defense, then that means increasing meaningful donor coordination at the country level, building on models like the media donor coordination group in Ukraine, and across capitals and headquarters like the one that the Baltic Centre for Media Excellence has helped organize. For such groups to really work, we need dedicated resources for a secretariat. Volunteer and ad hoc coordination groups don’t work in the long term.

We must meaningfully localize, moving from rhetoric to action. While an OECD report noted that only 8% of funds appeared to reach local organizations directly, deeper research from DWA and GFMD found that when considering pass-through grants, hiring local experts, and co-design approaches, it was closer to 30-40%. If we consider that perhaps one-third of USAID’s support in this region did in fact reach local outlets and media workers directly, this is a more realistic gap to bridge through entities like the European Endowment for Democracy, the Prague Centre, the U.S.-German Marshall Fund, and the International Fund for Public Interest Media.

Media assistance must evolve as threats evolve, rethinking funding models and designing support combining donor resources with public-private partnerships, impact investment, loan guarantees, innovative business models, and community-centered media.

Ultimately, this requires a systemic approach supporting the supply side (high-quality, competitive news), demand side (media-literate public understanding press's watchdog role), and enabling environment (a level legal playing field and safe working conditions).

We should use the OECD Principles for Relevant and Effective Support to Media and the Information Environment as our guide—not as ends themselves, but as baselines for action and accountability. Media assistance should not be fragmented, reactive, or symbolic, but dynamic, forward-thinking, highly localized, and agile. It must be fit for purpose in an era of rising authoritarianism and disinformation.

The task before us is matching words with sustained, strategic support that press freedom—and democracy itself—requires.