Many Americans have never heard of the US Agency for Global Media (USAGM). However, for decades, hundreds of millions of people around the world have relied on the outlets that USAGM funds — including Voice of America (VOA), Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), the Middle East Broadcasting Networks, the Office of Cuba Broadcasting and Radio Free Asia (RFA) — for accurate, unbiased news. That changed in March, when US President Donald Trump signed an executive order reducing the agency’s operations to the legal minimum as part of a supposed cost-cutting effort. USAGM, in turn, terminated grants and contracts for all the international broadcasters under its umbrella, citing the order.
Thousands of journalists stand to lose their jobs, and access to verifiable reporting in some of the world’s most politically repressive countries is at risk. This blow to the US’ soft power has created an information void that authoritarian regimes are keen to exploit. For example, the Chinese and Cambodian governments have celebrated the dismantling of USAGM as an end to “biased propaganda poison” and “fake news,” underscoring the agency’s role in combating misinformation.
While RFE/RL’s funding has been restored following a federal judge’s temporary ruling, RFA’s annual budget of US$60.8 million remains in jeopardy. The Asian broadcaster won a court ruling ordering the funds to be disbursed, although that has not happened yet.
Illustration: Mountain People
This would have far-reaching consequences. Despite its relatively limited budget, RFA has long served as a vital source of uncensored news for its 60 million weekly readers and listeners. Operating in environments where press freedom is absent or under siege, RFA is also often the only broadcaster exposing the realities of life under authoritarian rule. From providing early evidence of China’s mass internment of Uighurs in Xinjiang to reporting on the civil war in Myanmar, RFA has consistently brought international attention to abuses that might otherwise have remained hidden.
Nowhere is RFA’s impact more evident than in Cambodia, where the government has severely curtailed press freedom. For decades, outlets such as RFA and VOA have symbolized hope, and today they are among the few trusted news sources for Cambodians at home and abroad. In recent years, their operations have become more essential than ever against a backdrop of democratic deterioration: The Cambodian government has shuttered independent media, dissolved opposition parties and jailed dissenters.
The arrest of award-winning Cambodian journalist Mech Dara, known for his courageous reporting, and the blacklisting of British journalist Gerald Flynn for appearing in a climate documentary that the regime accused of spreading false information, are emblematic of this trend. However, through it all, RFA has continued to publish investigative reporting on everything from official corruption and cybercrime to the erosion of civil liberties.
The gutting of RFA is not simply a media story; it is also a geopolitical one. Across Southeast Asia, regimes with close ties to China increasingly rely on state-controlled narratives to suppress dissent. In Myanmar, where a 2021 military coup ushered in an era of violence and repression, RFA has provided crucial on-the-ground reporting that counters misinformation spread by the ruling junta. In the absence of such coverage, the atrocities being committed in Myanmar — and in other countries — would be concealed from view domestically and globally. Authorities would be able to act with impunity and pursue ever-more repressive tactics to enforce their rule.
Also at stake is the US’ ability to project democratic values and its credibility in doing so. RFA, much like the BBC World Service or Deutsche Welle, has long functioned as a strategic instrument of soft power, supporting the free flow of information. This tool has arguably never been more important, as China expands its state media apparatus, including outlets such as CGTN and Xinhua, into countries where US influence is waning to promote its worldview.
Cambodia’s increasing reliance on China — which accounts for nearly half of foreign direct investment in the country — underscores the shifting landscape of influence. Chinese-backed infrastructure projects, coupled with growing diplomatic alignment, have made Cambodia an increasingly loyal partner, while China has gained a presence at Ream Naval Base that could threaten regional security. Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) recent visit to Phnom Penh further cemented the relationship. For the US to abandon RFA would be tantamount to ceding yet another front in the global contest of ideas.
US Congress must act to prevent that outcome. Judicial freezes on Trump’s executive order targeting USAGM are certainly welcome, but are only a temporary reprieve. Restoring RFA and funding it beyond the current fiscal year are much more important, especially for foreign policy objectives. US policymakers should also explore long-term independent funding mechanisms that could insulate RFA from political interference and ensure its durability.
Ultimately, the decision to sustain RFA is about more than budget lines. It is about whether the US remains committed to defending press freedom and supporting the journalists who risk their lives to expose corruption and abuse. At least two RFA Khmer journalists are facing deportation when their US visas expire. For them, returning to Cambodia would mean certain imprisonment. Equally importantly, the US must not abandon the millions of people who rely on RFA for accurate reporting in an era of heightened mistrust and upheaval.
Mu Sochua, a former Cambodian politician and Nobel Peace Prize nominee, is president of the Khmer Movement for Democracy.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
A gap appears to be emerging between Washington’s foreign policy elites and the broader American public on how the United States should respond to China’s rise. From my vantage working at a think tank in Washington, DC, and through regular travel around the United States, I increasingly experience two distinct discussions. This divergence — between America’s elite hawkishness and public caution — may become one of the least appreciated and most consequential external factors influencing Taiwan’s security environment in the years ahead. Within the American policy community, the dominant view of China has grown unmistakably tough. Many members of Congress, as
The Hong Kong government on Monday gazetted sweeping amendments to the implementation rules of Article 43 of its National Security Law. There was no legislative debate, no public consultation and no transition period. By the time the ink dried on the gazette, the new powers were already in force. This move effectively bypassed Hong Kong’s Legislative Council. The rules were enacted by the Hong Kong chief executive, in conjunction with the Committee for Safeguarding National Security — a body shielded from judicial review and accountable only to Beijing. What is presented as “procedural refinement” is, in substance, a shift away from
The shifting geopolitical tectonic plates of this year have placed Beijing in a profound strategic dilemma. As Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) prepares for a high-stakes summit with US President Donald Trump, the traditional power dynamics of the China-Japan-US triangle have been destabilized by the diplomatic success of Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi in Washington. For the Chinese leadership, the anxiety is two-fold: There is a visceral fear of being encircled by a hardened security alliance, and a secondary risk of being left in a vulnerable position by a transactional deal between Washington and Tokyo that might inadvertently empower Japan
After declaring Iran’s military “gone,” US President Donald Trump appealed to the UK, France, Japan and South Korea — as well as China, Iran’s strategic partner — to send minesweepers and naval forces to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. When allies balked, the request turned into a warning: NATO would face “a very bad” future if it refused. The prevailing wisdom is that Trump faces a credibility problem: having spent years insulting allies, he finds they would not rally when he needs them. That is true, but superficial, as though a structural collapse could be caused by wounded feelings. Something
RSS