US anti-disinformation guardrails fall in Trump's first 100 days
WASHINGTON: From slashed federal funding for disinformation research to the closure of a key agency combating foreign influence operations, the United States has dismantled vital guardrails against falsehoods within President Donald Trump's first 100 days in office.
The moves could have national security implications, experts warn, granting US adversaries more freedom to sow disinformation as geopolitical rivalries intensify.
Combined with social media platforms scaling back content moderation – and Meta's suspension of third-party fact-checking in the United States – these developments have left researchers concerned that it may become even harder for the public to separate fact from fiction.
The National Science Foundation recently cancelled hundreds of research grants that it said were "not aligned" with the agency's priorities, including projects focused on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) as well as misinformation and disinformation.
Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), charged with cutting government spending, praised the NSF's "great work" in cancelling 402 "wasteful" DEI grants – a move the agency said saved US$233mil (RM1bil).
"Shocking that understanding how people are misled by false information is now a forbidden topic," said Lisa Fazio, an associate professor of psychology at Vanderbilt University, confirming that her NSF grant to examine "how false beliefs form (and) how to correct them" had been cancelled.
"Our work will continue but at a smaller scale," she wrote on the platform Bluesky.
Several of the terminated grants were focused on health misinformation as well as artificial intelligence and deepfake detection on tech platforms, researchers said, at a time when scams fueled by cheap and widely available AI tools are rapidly proliferating.
'Censorship'
"Research on how technology impacts society is critical to holding powerful tech platforms accountable," said Becca Branum, a deputy director at the nonprofit Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT).
"Shielding companies from criticism by defunding research is censorship that should trouble all of us."
The cuts came just days after Secretary of State Marco Rubio shut down the State Department's Counter Foreign Information Manipulation and Interference (R/FIMI) hub, which tracked and countered disinformation from foreign actors.
"By shutting down the office, Rubio has opened the American information space to the likes of Russia, China, and Iran," said Benjamin Shultz, lead researcher at the American Sunlight Project, an anti-disinformation watchdog in Washington.
In a report this month, the anti-disinformation firm Alethea said it had uncovered a Russian network seeking to sow mistrust in US defense and military programs.
The targets of the network, linked to a Russian influence operation known as "Portal Kombat," included the US giant Lockheed Martin and the F-35 fighter jet program.
The R/FIMI was previously known as the Global Engagement Center (GEC), and once had dozens of employees operating with a budget of around US$60mil (RM262mil).
Rubio justified its closure, saying in a statement that it was the responsibility of government officials to "preserve and protect the freedom for Americans to exercise their free speech."
'Truth and facts'
The GEC, established in 2016, had long faced scrutiny from Republican lawmakers, who accused it of censoring and surveilling Americans.
Its closing leaves the State Department without a dedicated office for tracking and countering disinformation from US rivals for the first time in over eight years.
The move comes as Rubio unveiled wider plans to restructure the State Department, cutting positions and shuttering specialised programs.
The Trump administration is also targeting officials who had been examining foreign interference in US elections.
The administration has reassigned several dozen officials working on the issue at the FBI and forced out others at the Department of Homeland Security's Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), reports said.
"As we approach 100 days of Trump 2.0, it's harder than ever to believe that American politics – and society writ large – have reached a place where truth and facts are optional," said Shultz. – AFP
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Straits Times
3 hours ago
- New Straits Times
US trade war enters precarious 'Slow Grind' phase
US trade negotiations have transitioned from their opening act, with its many twists and turns, into a new, protracted chapter: the Slow Grind. It may be less turbulent than this past spring's drama, but no less worrying for investors. Now that the US and China have the framework for a trade agreement, attention may start to turn to the European Union, which appears next in line to strike a deal with the Trump administration. But the prospect of a swift resolution seems remote. Finding significant common ground to meaningfully reduce the EU's substantial goods surplus with the US, roughly US$200 billion annually, presents a formidable challenge, as major avenues appear blocked. The EU is highly unlikely to concede on agricultural market access given the region's strong and comprehensive policy for protecting local agriculture. Large-scale aircraft deals also seem improbable given the Airbus-Boeing rivalry. The contentious issue of pharmaceutical pricing will complicate any healthcare deals. While Europe could theoretically increase purchases of US defence equipment or relax "Buy European" policies in defence procurement, the political palatability of such moves is low. Consequently, the focus may inevitably shift towards the services sector, where the EU runs an approximately US$100 billion annual deficit with the US, driven largely by the operations of American technology giants. Here, a potential landing zone exists: the EU could conceivably ease some of its more burdensome technology regulations with limited immediate downside, offering a tangible, albeit partial, lever to address the overall trade imbalance. In fact, Section 899 in the Trump administration's proposed "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" — which threatens to increase taxes on entities from countries with "unfair foreign taxes" — appears to be aimed directly at digital taxes levied by EU countries on US technology companies. This suggests that this area could be a focal point in US-EU negotiations. US negotiations with the EU are also occurring against a markedly different backdrop than the one that prevailed in May during the earlier round of trade talks with China. Back then, the US was just emerging from a significant bout of financial market volatility and facing the risk of "empty shelves" if onerous tariffs on China remained in place, so both investors and business leaders were demanding urgent action. Importantly, EU exports to the US are predominantly industrial and luxury goods, not the daily consumables that directly impact the average American's pocketbook. Adding to this calmer backdrop, capital markets have shown signs of adapting to the current administration's seemingly unpredictable trade tactics. The S&P 500 index has rebounded 20 per cent since its post-Liberation Day low and is only around 2.0 per cent below its all-time high. One major risk, however, is that the US starts taking a harder line with Europe for fear of looking weak. Central to the US negotiation strategy is the perceived credibility of threats. Given the Trump administration's emphasis on the president's deal-making prowess, the US fundamentally cannot afford to be seen as backing down consistently, a scenario some critics have labelled "Trump Always Chickens Out" (TACO). Being perceived as unreliable with ultimatums would critically undermine the administration's negotiating power, not just with the EU, but globally. This need to maintain a credible hard line could add friction to the process, making concessions harder to make and progress slower to achieve. On the currency front, the euro may continue to appreciate against the US dollar — ending a more than decade-long trend of greenback strength — if wary European investors bring more capital back home. This could give the European Central Bank greater leeway to implement interest rate cuts, with less immediate concern about imported inflation. However, such euro strength has historically been negatively correlated with the performance of risk assets more broadly, adding another layer of complexity to the investment landscape. Further complicating the picture is the risk that the tentative deal just reached with China could unravel, reflecting the ongoing tug-of-war within the US administration between China hawks and pragmatists. The frenetic pace of the trade war's opening chapter has given way to a more arduous phase. This "Slow Grind" promises to generate more uncertainty, testing the patience of markets and policymakers alike, with progress likely measured in inches rather than miles.
New Straits Times
3 hours ago
- New Straits Times
Ukrainians' painful wait for news of loved ones
VOLODYMYR Umanets, a 69-year-old security guard, hopes his son will be among the Ukrainian prisoners of war now being handed over by Russia, but he knows he could be part of a more sombre homecoming: the repatriated remains of dead soldiers. Not knowing which group his son, Sergiy, will be in is a torment. "I am told to wait. What else is left for me to do?" said Umanets, as tears welled up in his eyes. Last week, Russia and Ukraine began implementing a deal reached at June 2 peace talks in Istanbul to hand over 1,000 prisoners of war each, and also a huge number of human remains. Alongside the joyful scenes of soldiers returning home and hugging loved ones, there have been macabre images of men dressed in hazmat suits transferring body bags from refrigerated trucks. Russia said it planned to hand over the remains of around 6,000 Ukrainian soldiers in this phase of the exchange. So far last week, it said it transferred 1,212 sets of remains, while Ukraine said it handed over the bodies of 27 Russian soldiers. Sergiy, 49, served in the army as a younger man and volunteered to rejoin shortly after the February 2022 full-scale invasion. He was serving in the Ukrainian military in southeastern Ukraine when he went missing in combat in December 2023. His father, who works as a security guard in the town hall in Bucha, outside Kyiv, said he still hoped Sergiy was alive, and that he was captured by the Russian side. But he acknowledged the possibility that his son might have been killed. He gave authorities a sample of his DNA so that if Sergiy's remains are recovered, he can be identified. "You know, I want to know at least something, to get at least some information," he said. "I read recently in the newspaper that a young man was declared missing. And during the exchange of bodies, his DNA was identified. He was buried today. I wish I knew at least this." Each side has been handing over soldiers' remains periodically throughout the conflict, but the swap now underway is of an unprecedented scale. For Ukraine, the repatriation of the remains marks the start of a long and painstaking process to identify who they are, how they died and to notify their families. The task is made more complicated because sometimes the returned soldiers were killed in explosions so their bodies are in fragments, according to Djordje Alempijevic, a professor of forensic science at Belgrade University who helped examine the remains of people killed in conflicts in the Western Balkans in the 1990s. An added complication, he said, was that some of the remains had been stored for a long time, and they degraded, even if kept in refrigeration. In the best-case scenario, the bodies were returned with some documents to help identification, said Dmytro Hapchenko, a local council official in Bucha who has worked on remains of people killed in the war. But he said that does not always happen. In fact, Ukraine has alleged that Russia's approach to processing the remains of Ukrainian soldiers has been haphazard. On June 2, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said in previous repatriations of remains, Russia handed over bodies to Ukraine that were actually dead Russian soldiers. Russia, in response, has accused Ukraine of deliberately delaying the exchange of the remains, stranding trucks with human bodies on the Russian side of the border, a claim denied by Ukraine. Absent any identifying documents for the returned remains, forensic pathologists will try to conduct an autopsy, said Alempijevic. He said they looked for features like old bone fractures, dental characteristics and metal plates or screws from old surgeries. Alempijevic, a member of the United Nations Subcommittee for the Prevention of Torture, said autopsies also allowed pathologists to look for evidence of a war crime. Hapchenko, the Bucha city official, said he was supporting families from his area whose loved ones went missing in the fighting. "Unfortunately, there are quite a few of them," he said. Referring to the repatriation of fallen soldiers now underway, he said: "Maybe now they'll be able to bury them."
The Star
4 hours ago
- The Star
The US is dooming the UN
SAY you are president of the United States and you've been clear that you put America First and that you disdain 'globalists' and all their organs of international multilateralism, chief among them the United Nations. How do you go about discrediting those institutions? One option is to withdraw the US formally. For example, Donald Trump began his second term by announcing that he'll pull the country out of parts of the UN system, including its Human Rights Council, the World Health Organisation and the Paris Agreement on climate change. That just about hobbles these conventions, since fighting, say, pandemics or global warming without American participation seems futile. But the attack doesn't need to be so blunt. You could also nominally remain a member of an institution while ignoring, undermining or sabotaging it. The US still belongs to the World Trade Organisation, for example, even though Trump has inverted its foundational idea by launching a trade war on the world. America also remains, for now, the backbone of Nato, although Trump has undermined its credibility by casting doubt on the US commitment to Article 5, the alliance's mutual-defence clause and thus its reason for being. Something similar is happening at the UN. In 2015 all its members, including the US, adopted an updated mission statement in the form of 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). These were meant to be answers to humanity's biggest problems, from ending hunger and poverty to improving health and education and reducing inequality. Even though progress on most of these efforts is running behind schedule, it's hard to fault the intention. And yet the US now does. In March, it formally rejected the SDGs. It was a bizarre spectacle. The task fell to a mid-level diplomat named Edward Heartney, and the occasion was a vote in the General Assembly to adopt an 'International Day of Peaceful Coexistence'. An anodyne ritual, you might think, but you'd be wrong. Heartney got up and delivered a philippic against the 'soft global governance that is inconsistent with US sovereignty'. Such 'globalist endeavours... lost at the ballot box', Heartney went on – referring to the US election in 2024 – which is why America 'rejects and denounces' the SDGs. The audience, more used to hearing such outbursts from rogue states, was stunned. Mark Leon Goldberg, a veteran UN watcher, told me that even Heartney, a career foreign service officer, looked as though he had a gun to his head and was recording a hostage video. And yet, the speech set the tone for what was to come. The US now regularly gums up every proceeding it can. In June, it cast the only no vote (compared with 169 in favour) against a Mongolian resolution to introduce a World Horse Day. Why? To protest against those SDGs, of course, and everything that 'impinges upon state sovereignty as a soft form of global governance'. America's opposition to the SDGs is more than symbolic. This past week, almost all member states are gathering in France for the UN Ocean Conference to make progress on SDG No 14, on saving the world's oceans and seas (which are in at least as much trouble as our atmosphere). The Trump administration is boycotting that meeting. Instead, Trump recently ordered a push to mine international seabeds for minerals, one of the things the conference is most urgently trying to regulate. He and the Republican Congress are also planning to defund the UN system and other international organisations. Since the US has been the largest contributor to UN coffers since the organisation's founding in 1945 (its share of the regular budget was 22 % in 2024), the cutbacks will force the UN to shrink or close programmes (even if it becomes more efficient, as it should). Reform of the UN's Security Council – an aspiration of the Biden administration – is also off the table. The US, like Russia and China, instead exacerbates its dysfunction: In June, 14 of the council's 15 members voted for a resolution demanding a ceasefire in Gaza; the US vetoed it. Goldberg hopes that the nomination of Michael Waltz as the US ambassador to the UN might provide some relief: Waltz was Trump's national security adviser until May and with his high profile might be 'able to explain the value the UN gives to American security interests'. I doubt it. Waltz's move to the UN was meant as a demotion. If anything, it confirms that Trump views the institution as a dead end. Cumulatively, this trend away from multilateralism, which Trump didn't start but is turbo-boosting, is already changing the world, and for the worse. 'There hasn't been a binding international agreement on any matter – any transnational issue of importance' for years, laments Shivshankar Menon, a former national security adviser of India; 'we're a world adrift'. The historical echoes are ominous. The UN's forerunner was the League of Nations. Conceived by leaders such as then US President Woodrow Wilson at the end of World War I, it was meant to prevent a second. But Wilson's own country then failed to ratify the treaty after Republicans in the Senate turned isolationist. Without American support, the League was powerless to stop the aggression of fascist Italy, Japan and Germany, and gradually became irrelevant as the world went up in flames. Even so, it was formally dissolved only in 1946, when the new UN – finally backed by the US – took its place. Say you're that American president again and, like Trump, you want to be remembered as a 'peacemaker'. Wouldn't you start by broadening your understanding of the UN's reason for existing, and of the bleak scenarios if the UN went the way of the League? If Waltz wants to redeem his career and legacy – a long shot – he should muster the courage to educate the White House that the United Nations isn't America's enemy, but potentially its best friend, if not its last best hope. — Bloomberg Opinion/TNS Andreas Kluth is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering US diplomacy, national security and geopolitics.
