Media Scrutiny Takes Toll on Small and Non-profit Newsrooms

A coordinated disinformation campaign has emerged targeting United States Agency for International Development (USAID) programs and their media grantees, exploiting fragile public trust in news organizations across multiple countries in the Global South.

The campaign, which spread across X (formerly Twitter), YouTube, TikTok, and partisan websites between February and July 2025, reframed USAID’s legitimate humanitarian and media sustainability initiatives as “covert bankrolling of foreign interference.” Journalists tracking the phenomenon identified approximately 300 posts linked to this coordinated effort.

High-profile figures including Elon Musk and Mike Benz amplified these misleading narratives, which received additional boost when WikiLeaks released what it called an “exposé” of USAID’s media funding—despite the information being publicly available through official audit reports.

The campaign operated through a self-reinforcing cycle: WikiLeaks’ selective presentation of information validated pre-existing conspiracy theories promoted by Musk, which were then further amplified by commentators like Benz who focus on what they term the “censorship-industrial complex.” These claims subsequently spread through a network of smaller social media accounts that cited the original posts as evidence.

Central to the disinformation effort were strategic half-truths and significant omissions. While characterizing US foreign aid as “wasteful spending of taxpayer money,” the campaign failed to acknowledge how funded newsrooms in developing regions build community resilience through their reporting. The campaign also overlooked that newsrooms typically disclose funding sources for grant-supported projects.

Such funding, typically facilitated by partner organizations like Internews and the International Fact-Checking Network, provides critical support for media resilience and capacity-building in environments where independent journalism struggles financially. These grants fund essential digital tools, data analysis capabilities, and reporting resources that protect information spaces from sophisticated threats, including foreign influence operations.

“These grants aren’t just funding media work—they’re lifelines for the communities we serve, guaranteeing that facts are reported and truth survives in increasingly hostile environments for press freedom,” said one media advocate familiar with the programs.

This pattern mirrors tactics previously employed by state actors to delegitimize critical reporting. A notable example occurred in February 2026, when the Chinese Embassy in Manila launched a similar campaign against the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ) after it published guidance on identifying pro-Beijing propaganda. The embassy labeled PCIJ journalist Regine Cabato and the organization as “tools of U.S. propaganda”—messaging subsequently amplified by pro-Duterte influencers.

The Chinese Embassy specifically targeted PCIJ’s transparent funding from the National Endowment for Democracy to question its editorial independence, employing the same playbook observed in anti-USAID campaigns.

For journalists operating in this challenging environment, the reality is complex. Ellen Tordesillas of VERA Files noted that small, independent newsrooms have few reliable funding options, and that receiving foreign support is not illegal under Philippine law.

“Our objective here in VERA Files is to help promote excellence in journalism and to promote democracy in the country. It is our belief that the media is an important pillar in democracy,” Tordesillas said, urging the public to “analyze if what we are doing is really harmful” before criticizing newsrooms for accepting international support.

Cabato defended the editorial independence maintained despite receiving grants: “What I can categorically say in my particular dealings with the PCIJ is that I was never told what exactly I should write. Never in the whole process did a foreign entity, or whoever the characters were in the imagination of these critics, influence the story.”

Media experts suggest that newsrooms must now proactively contest narratives designed to silence them. Cabato described the demonization of transparency itself as “the ultimate act of gaslighting,” emphasizing that foreign funding represents a “fragile lifeline” for accountability, not a directive for propaganda.

“The online atmosphere is really rigged against us,” she noted, adding that “a lot of inoculation is still needed” to prepare the public against disinformation. “Essentially, we just need to set the record straight.”

This article is part of a cross-border investigation by Southeast Asian journalists examining how disinformation campaigns target media funding and independence across the region.