"Recent reports by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (2026) and Article 19 (2026) on the impact of U.S. funding cuts, laid bare some of the most direct consequences of the U.S. funding cuts. They reported that the median grantee of their survey respondents lost about 35 to 40 percent of annual revenue for the year 2025. That number makes sense in light of the fact that the U.S. government cut at least $1.7 billion worth of freedom of expression programmes. This number was reported when some of the terminations were still unfolding.
This is largely in line with our own findings, more than a year after the cuts. Out of the 57 surveyed partners, 37 percent reported budget cuts of 26-50 percent and 26 percent reported budget cuts of more than 50 percent Unfortunately, the abrupt and devastating level of the cuts have also led to media outlets and media support organisations ceasing operations. For this research we have not collected data on this but we are aware of several examples such as the closing of our Ukrainian partner, media outlet Zaborona, caused by the cessation of support of both the US and UK governments. Zaborona was an independent media outlet specialized in long-form, analytical reporting. The long-term political and geopolitical consequences of the U.S. governement funding cuts are still unfolding, but some of the medium-term effects are already visible. In the Philippines for example, disinformation has been able to flow more uncontrolled and narratives that support Chinese claims to the South China Sea have been diffusing more rapidly. Partners in Venezuela reported on how RT Academy provides training in several African countries, Argentina, Mexico and Cuba as an indirect way to approach people who can help amplify pro-Russian narratives in each of those countries, make friends and improve RT’s credibility.
This report lays bare similar worrying but expected developments. Our survey shows unequivocally that where independent media decline, authoritarian interests fill the vacuum. Partners have reported on this dynamic across different continents. The boundary between domestic politics and international relations shows to be thin as well in this regard. In Pakistan for example, our partners report that China’s ability and assertiveness in trying to export its governance model have increased. Pakistani media organizations have been open about their recent collaboration with the Chinese embassy and the China–Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). Authoritarian governments, such as Pakistan’s military elite, are unlikely to push back against these dynamics.
[...] The same political actors who increasingly argue that international cooperation must be more interest driven should recognise that independent media serve precisely those interests. Where independent journalism collapses, corruption becomes harder to expose, authoritarian influence becomes easier to project, disinformation spreads with fewer constraints, and democratic allies become weaker. The vacuum is not neutral: it is filled by actors whose interests often run directly counter to those of the European Union. For Europe, the question is therefore not whether it can afford to support independent media globally. The question is whether it can afford not to. If the EU wants to remain a credible geopolitical actor, preserve its normative influence, strengthen democratic partners, and counter authoritarian interference, then support for independent media must be treated as strategic infrastructure: as essential to democratic resilience as election support, rule-of-law programming, anti-corruption work or cyber defence." (Executive summary, pages 4-5)