Follow us on social

google cta
Shutterstock_638265058-scaled

Purges and propaganda in the Trump administration

Trump’s attacks on VOA for allegedly being biased in other ways do not square with the network’s actual output.

Analysis | Washington Politics
google cta
google cta

Purges of personnel as a technique for enforcing political loyalty have become a hallmark of the Trump administration, affecting vast swaths of the federal government dealing with both domestic and foreign policy.

Now that technique has been applied to a government agency that is supposed to present an objective face to the rest of the world: the U.S. Agency for Global Media, which controls the broadcasting resources of the Voice of America, Middle East Broadcasting, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio Free Asia, and the Open Technology Fund.

Michael Pack, a conservative filmmaker and close ally of former Trump political adviser Stephen Bannon, recently took over the agency and on his third day on the job fired all the remaining heads of the component broadcasting networks. The director and deputy director of Voice of America resigned on Pack’s first day on the job. There was no apparent reason, and none was cited, for the firings in terms of the performance of the officials involved.

There is no reason to expect that this purge will be any different from others under the current administration, which have subjugated the missions of governmental components to the political cause of not producing anything of substance that Trump would dislike. The possible variation in this case is that the Trumpian line will have a Bannonite twist, making the agency’s output sound a little more like the Breitbart network that Bannon used to run.

Any such development would violate the legal requirement that Voice of America and the other outlets practice objective journalism, untainted by political slant. It would mean losing much of their foreign audiences, for whom the main attraction of VOA and the other networks involved is their objectivity and adherence to truth. For audiences in countries with media heavily controlled by governments, it would mean less opportunity to access unbiased reporting and genuine journalism. It would mean lowered respect for the U.S. broadcast networks, inviting cynicism toward them as just another bunch of propaganda outlets, no different from what any authoritarian regime might use.

Trump’s attacks on the VOA for allegedly being biased in other ways do not square with the network’s actual output. A journalistic practice as simple as the use of a wire service story about China gets depicted by the White House as “promoting foreign propaganda.”

My own interactions with the government broadcasters have shown them to be observing their required standard of objective journalism. Inquiries I get from VOA reporters sound the same as any that might come from an independent commercial news organization.  When I am quoted in the resulting story, there are usually also quotations from those with different viewpoints, including ones supporting policies of the administration.

I frequently have been a guest on a weekly public affairs talk show on Alhurra, which is Middle East Broadcasting’s Arabic-language television channel. The program strives to incorporate contrasting viewpoints. The most recent version of the show’s format is explicitly billed as a debate, with guests recruited for their differing opinions on current policy issues involving the Middle East. My sparring partners on the show have typically included hardliners from places like the Heritage Foundation, about whom the current administration would have no qualms.

Among the other guests who have appeared with me on the program are Fred Fleitz, an acolyte of John Bolton when Bolton was still national security adviser and in favor at the White House. Another is Sebastian Gorka, yet another alumnus of the Trump White House and a proud wearer of the Hungarian Vitezi Rend medal, who is rumored to be a possible choice of Pack to head VOA.

Viewers in the Middle East see such clashes of views on a program funded by the U.S. government and are witnessing first-hand what a free and open political system is all about. They are witnessing the U.S. government’s commitment to the principles of such a system.  It would be a shame to lose that.

One of the time-tested signs of democracies degrading into autocracies is the replacement of truth and objectivity with propaganda, perhaps by turning into a propaganda organ a government element that previously had some other purpose. Worrisome signs abound in the Trump administration, including the branding of a free and independent press as an “enemy of the people.”

It is the manipulation of messages to the American people themselves that is most relevant to the degrading of American democracy. But compromising truth and objectivity in messages sent to the outside world is part of the same process, and a reason to be disturbed by the latest purge in addition to the more immediate negative effects it is likely to have on the perceptions that audiences overseas have of the United States.


lev radin / Shutterstock.com
google cta
Analysis | Washington Politics
Did the US only attack Iran because of Israel?
Top image credit: President Donald J. Trump holds a joint news conference at the White House with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Feb. 4, 2025. (Shutterstock/ Joshua Sukoff)

Did the US only attack Iran because of Israel?

QiOSK

In the months that led up to the Iraq War, the Bush administration went to extraordinary lengths to convince the world of the need to oust Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. Leading officials laid out their case in public, sharing what they claimed was evidence that Iraq was moving rapidly toward the deployment of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. When U.S. tanks rolled across the border, everyone knew the justification: the U.S. was determined to thwart Iraq’s development of weapons of mass destruction, however fictitious that threat would later prove to be.

In the months that led up to the Iran War, the Trump administration took a different tack. President Trump spoke only occasionally of Iran, offering a smattering of justifications for growing U.S. tensions with the country. He claimed without evidence that Iran was rebuilding its nuclear program after the U.S.-Israeli attack last June and even developing missiles that could strike the United States. But he insisted that Tehran could make a deal with seven magic words: “we will never have a nuclear weapon.”

keep readingShow less
Iran says ‘no ship is allowed to pass’ Strait of Hormuz: Reports
Top image credit: A large oil tanker transits the Strait of Hormuz. (Shutterstock/ Clare Louise Jackson)

Iran says ‘no ship is allowed to pass’ Strait of Hormuz: Reports

QiOSK

Hours after the U.S. and Israel launched a campaign of airstrikes across Iran, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps is warning vessels in the Persian Gulf via radio that “no ship is allowed to pass the Strait of Hormuz,” according to a report from Reuters.

The news suggests that Iran is ready to pull out all the stops in its response to the U.S.-Israeli barrage, which President Donald Trump says is aimed at toppling the Iranian regime. A full shutdown of the Strait of Hormuz would cause an international crisis given that 20% of the world’s oil passes through the narrow channel. Financial analysts estimate that even one day of a full blockade could cause global oil prices to double from $66 per barrel to more than $120.

keep readingShow less
What Pakistan's 'open war' on Taliban in Afghanistan really means
Top image credit: FILE PHOTO: Afghan Taliban fighters patrol near the Afghanistan-Pakistan border in Spin Boldak, Kandahar Province, following exchanges of fire between Pakistani and Afghan forces in Afghanistan, October 15, 2025. REUTERS/Stringer

What Pakistan's 'open war' on Taliban in Afghanistan really means

QiOSK

Pakistan’s airstrikes on Kabul and Kandahar over the last 24 hours are nothing new. Islamabad has carried out strikes inside Afghanistan several times since the Taliban’s return to power. Pakistan claimed that the Afghan Taliban used drones to conduct strikes in Pakistan.

What distinguishes this latest episode is the rhetorical escalation, with Pakistani officials openly referring to the action as “open war.” While the language grabbed international headlines, it is best understood as part of a managed escalation designed to signal resolve without crossing red lines that would make de-escalation impossible.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.