The Case for Radio Free Asia and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty: Ensuring Information Access for Closed Societies

Introduction

In March 2025, the Trump administration issued an executive order aimed at closing the United States Agency for Global Media (USAGM).¹ This decision affected Radio Free Asia (RFA) and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), both of which are USAGM grantees, and may ultimately lead to their closure. Such a development would be a strategic loss for the United States and the world.

Despite their names, RFA and RFE/RL are so much more than radio. They do provide radio broadcasts to countries with strict information control. But they also offer critical on-the-ground reporting that informs the American public and provides a voice to those persecuted by authoritarian governments in Europe, Central Asia, the Middle East, and the Indo-Pacific. Both serve strategic functions that advance US interests by conveying the truth about the value of freedom and human rights. The information they provide produces goodwill toward the United States in authoritarian countries that seek to sow discord with America and to deceive their populations about the importance of freedom.

Since the executive order went into effect, RFA has been forced to suspend news operations for the first time in its 29 years of existence and laid off nearly all of its staff in hopes of fully reopening once funding is restored.² The closure of critical services, including the Mandarin, Uyghur, Tibetan, Cantonese, Korean, and Burmese services, has left citizens of authoritarian countries without an information lifeline. Policymakers and civil society actors who once relied on RFA’s groundbreaking reporting, especially through its English-language media, are now without a critical source of information to inform foreign policy decisions. 

The situation with RFE/RL is similar: It has been forced to cut 90 percent of its freelancers and furlough about 25 percent of its staff. However, as a result of these cuts and other significant measures, it has been able to keep all 23 of its language services—which include Ukrainian, Russian, Belarusian, Armenian, and Persian—on the air and producing content.

There are consequences to ceding the information space. When there is a void, authoritarian actors like the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the Kremlin will fill it. The battle for truth and freedom is being fought but is being lost in the information realm. 

RFA and RFE/RL were originally authorized by Congress, which could intervene to save them through end-of-year appropriations or standalone legislation.³ As Congress pursues various forms of appropriations and finalizes legislative priorities for the year, it should create an independent line item to fully fund them both. This would preserve their independence and enable them to continue to carry out a strategic mission in support of the US government, the American people, and the cause of freedom. 

The Case for RFA and RFE/RL

RFA and RFE/RL are a perfect example of what Ronald Reagan meant when he advocated peace through strength. Both are relatively cost-effective ways to promote true and accurate messaging that advances US interests. Prior to Trump’s executive order, RFA had an estimated weeklyaudience of 60 million, with a budget of $60.8 million in fiscal year 2024.⁴ Similarly, RFE/RL’s estimated weekly audience was 47.4 million before the executive order,⁵ and its budget was $142.2 million in fiscal year 2024.⁶ This is a pittance in terms of US government spending, with a large impact for the cost. In addition to fostering goodwill toward America, RFA and RFE/RL provide Washington with the ability to shift the balance of power in authoritarian countries away from the government toward the people. They also offer the tools to advance freedom and prevent conflict through strategic messaging. 

A closer look at their history and strategic benefits makes the costs of losing them clear.

Radio Free Asia

RFA was created in response to the Chinese government’s 1989 crackdown in Tiananmen Square, part of broader efforts to promote freedom in closed societies during and after the Cold War. Authorized by the United States International Broadcasting Act of 1994,⁷ RFA made its first broadcast, in Mandarin, to China in 1996.⁸ Additional funding was authorized through the Radio Free Asia Act of 1998, which expanded RFA’s services beyond China.⁹ Public Law 111-102 made the RFA permanent,¹⁰ and today it has nine services, including Mandarin, Uyghur, Tibetan, Cantonese, Burmese, Laotian, Khmer, Korean, and Vietnamese services.¹¹

RFA continues to be a valuable US foreign policy tool for many reasons, but among the most important are: 

1. It serves as a lifeline to people in countries with tight information control
2. It informs Americans and US policymakers about on-the-ground realities to aid in decision-making.
3. Without it, the United States is ceding ground to authoritarians.
4. It preserves local cultures. 

RFA serves as a lifeline for people in need. Nowhere is this truer than in North Korea, which, more than almost any other country, restricts access to information as a means of control. Those who do access outside information, listen to K-Pop, or watch South Korean dramas can be sentenced to death.¹² Despite these tight restrictions, North Koreans were willing to take the risk and listen to RFA. In fact, its Korean broadcasts penetrated the Kim regime’s information blockade until they ended in April 2025.¹³

Some North Koreans who escaped have said they decided to leave after hearing information that contradicted the party line and learning about life outside the country.¹⁴ Such information can also equip North Koreans to work for change from within. Yet their access to information is under greater threat today than it has been in recent years due to decisions in Washington as well as in Pyongyang and Seoul, which have enacted new policies that prevent North Koreans from accessing outside information.¹⁵

In Hong Kong, where radio is one of the only sources of outside information that prisoners are permitted to access, political prisoners would reportedly listen to RFA’s Cantonese service.¹⁶ RFA broadcasts provided hope and reminded political prisoners that they were not forgotten.

RFA is an invaluable source of information for ordinary Americans and policymakers. RFA’s English-language reporting is often an invaluable source of information to policymakers, in addition to their reporting in other languages. Eliminating it denies the American public a key source of reliable information on events in closed societies. It also affects the readiness of US policymakers to respond to threats to US security and freedom from authoritarian regimes. 

For example, RFA was among the first to report on the political prison camps and other atrocity crimes the CCP perpetrates against Uyghurs.¹⁷ Much of the groundbreaking reporting by RFA’s Uyghur service provided the factual basis for the atrocity determination issued by then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in 2021.¹⁸ RFA was also the first Korean-language news source to report that North Korean soldiers were fighting with Russia in Ukraine.¹⁹ And it produced groundbreaking reports on China’s activities at Ream Naval Base in Cambodia, and documented essential political developments in Burma before and during the coup in 2021.²⁰

RFA was so effective because, in some ways, it functioned like a local news outlet, with reporters on the ground delivering detailed, accurate reports from countries where information is tightly controlled. There was not another news source quite like it, and the US government relied on it as both a tool and a source.

The absence of RFA programming is creating a void that authoritarian actors such as the CCP are filling. RFA previously broadcasted on 60 shortwave frequencies across China, but since its services went dark, Beijing’s state-controlled media have added 80 frequencies, extended the hours of their broadcasts,²¹ and jammed frequencies RFA once used. The CCP is making similar moves in North Korea. Even before RFA’s Korean service went dark, the CCP was ramping up efforts to get information into North Korea by increasing exports of MP7 and MP8 players designed specifically for North Korea and loaded with CCP propaganda.²² The CCP’s battle for dominance is not being fought only in the military theater; it is also being fought and won in the information domain as the CCP seeks to replace truth with propaganda.

RFA preserved the culture of persecuted communities. Its Uyghur service was the only independent service available in that language. Without it, the Chinese government’s genocide and crimes against humanity would likely have received less attention. Likewise, RFA’s Tibetan and Cantonese services shined a spotlight on the plight of these communities across China. A persecuted people’s ability to hear news about their community in their own language is fundamentally different than receiving news through another source. By providing this service, RFA weakens authoritarian regimes that seek to erase the cultures of persecuted communities. 

RFA’s strategic value is obvious. Without it, the US ability to respond to threats from the CCP, the Kim regime, and other challenges across the Indo-Pacific is weaker. But Washington faces national security threats not only from China but also from Russia and Iran. 

Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty

Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty was originally two separate entities. Radio Free Europe (RFE) was founded in 1950, while Radio Liberty (RL) was founded in 1953. RFE originally broadcasted to Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, and Romania, while RL broadcasted to the Soviet Union in 17 different languages. Both sought to counter communist and state propaganda by providing trustworthy local news, analysis, and cultural programming to audiences behind the Iron Curtain.²³

Congress funded both RFE and RL via the Central Intelligence Agency until 1971, when the Board for International Broadcasting began to fund them. After 1995, they were funded by the Broadcasting Board of Governors, known today as the USAGM. The two entities were merged in 1976, becoming Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.²⁴

Fifteen years later, when the Soviet Union collapsed and Russia was in chaos, RFE/RL was one of the few news outlets providing reliable information. It then received official accreditation in Russia, and in August 1991, President Boris Yeltsin permitted it to open a Moscow bureau.²⁵

RFE/RL then launched several new language services for democracies emerging from the USSR’s dissolution and the breakup of Yugoslavia. However, circumstances changed over the next few decades, especially as President Vladimir Putin strengthened his hold on power in Russia and some post-Soviet democracies grew weaker. According to RFE/RL’s website, in 2017, Russia’s Justice Ministry “declared RFE/RL and nine of its Russian-language reporting projects ‘foreign mass media performing the functions of a foreign agent’ and has since named over 40 RFE/RL journalists as individual ‘foreign agents.’”²⁶ But these labels merely prove that RFE/RL is effective in telling the truth about events in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, both locally and on a broader scale. 

Since 2022, RFE/RL’s work has been focused largely on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. In February 2024, as a result of its efforts to document Russian brutality, Moscow labeled it an “undesirable organization.”²⁷ According to RFE/RL President Stephen Capus, that designation is an example of “how the Russian government views truthful reporting as an existential threat.”²⁸

Persian broadcasts to Iran are another important component of RFE/RL. They began in 1998 as a result of an increasing American focus on the Middle East, and after 2002 were given a new name, Radio Farda.²⁹ In recent years, Radio Farda has rapidly expanded its programming, reaching audiences both inside and outside of Iran.³⁰ This broadcaster plays a key part in countering Iranian regime propaganda by providing unbiased reports, analysis, and cultural content to Persian-speaking audiences. 

Like RFA, RFE/RL continues to be a critical asset in US foreign policy for a number of reasons, including:

1. It offers citizens of authoritarian countries access to information they otherwise would not have.
2. It reveals how authoritarian regimes abuse their citizens.

RFE/RL provides unbiased media and radio programs. It does this in authoritarian countries like Russia, Belarus, Turkmenistan, and Iran, and in evolving democracies in Eastern Europe, Central Asia, and the Middle East. RFE/RL also broadcasts to borderline authoritarian states like Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan.

RFE/RL plays a crucial role in revealing human rights abuses in Eastern Europe and the Middle East. Some of the many human rights topics covered by RFE/RL include authoritarian regimes’ exploitation of migrants from the Middle East, South Asia, and Africa for criminal purposes;³¹ repression of religious groups for practicing their faith;³² persecution of Iranian women and girls for removing their hijabs;³³ and crackdowns on ordinary citizens for protesting against their corrupt political leaders.³⁴

As noted earlier, in March of this year, President Trump signed an executive order affecting RFA and RFE/RL. The order called for major cuts to seven federal agencies, including the USAGM, which oversees RFE/RL.³⁵ Near the end of the month, however, the USAGM rescinded a letter it had issued terminating RFE/RL’s grant agreement for fiscal year 2025, putting the agreement back into effect.³⁶ Nevertheless, funding issues have persisted, and the European Union has even stepped in to pledge emergency funding for the broadcaster.³⁷

The Way Forward

As the US government considers how to preserve RFA and RFE/RL, it should take careful stock of what makes them unique and effective and seek to preserve these advantages. 

First, the unique configuration of these small, agile nonprofits that receive US federal funding is arguably what has made them successful. Both have enough independence from the US government to maintain objectivity, independence, and journalistic integrity while retaining the government’s financial backing. Both also have a unique firewall setup that prevents Congress or the administration from meddling in their reporting. 

Second, both entities function much like local journalism outlets. RFA’s team at one time comprised approximately 300 employees and contractors, while RFE/RL has more than 1,300 employees and contractors³⁸ RFA’s main headquarters is in Washington. It was establishing a Taipei office when the executive order went into effect, and it also had offices in Dharamsala for the Tibetan service and in Turkey for the Uyghur service. RFE/RL has headquarters in Prague, providing a perch from which to analyze developments in Europe. BothRFA and RFE/RL have hired local journalists for their expertise and their knowledge of local problems that are of interest to the United States. 

Third, RFA and RFE/RL are relatively cost-effective means of preventing conflict in regions where US interests are most under threat: Europe and Eurasia, the Middle East, and the Indo-Pacific. This is not merely a hypothesis; RFE/RL contributed to the fall of communism in Europe. While Russia continues its war with Ukraine and Iran and the CCP threaten US and global security, Washington should be shoring up efforts to disseminate information, not tearing them down. President Reagan understood it best: peace through strength requires not only kinetic force, but also non-kinetic tools of statecraft to be effective.

Recommendations

If the US government shuts down RFE/RL and RFA, authoritarian states will fill the void with propaganda. In fact, they are already doing so. To give up this strategic advantage precisely at a time when China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea are ramping up threats against the United States would be a mistake. Civil society and government need to coalesce to generate the political will to prevent the closure of RFA and RFE/RL. 

Without them, the United States will be less well-equipped to fight and win in the information space, make strategic policy decisions in regions of importance, and provide support to persecuted people. To strengthen and maintain RFA and RFE/RL, the US should:

1. Ensure adequate funding. Congress should ensure continued appropriations for RFA and RFE/RL. Ideally, each one would receive a separate line item, whether grants or contracts are administered by USAGM or another institution. The best option would be for them to be funded through grants, but they could also be funded through contracts, assuming that legal recourse was adequately ensured for both. Grants would be preferable to contracts because RFA and RFE/RL are serving the public good through quality journalism that is typically conducted through grants and not contracts. A grant-based model provides more agency to RFA and RFE/RL in crafting their proposals and executing their journalistic mission.
2. Respect their journalistic integrity and maintain their advantages in any future arrangement. Some have suggested consolidating certain USAGM grantees under a single new international broadcasting entity. Any efforts to do so should ensure the agility, journalistic integrity, and localized structures of RFA and RFE/RL. One potential idea is to use the under secretary for public diplomacy and public affairs (or the R Family at the State Department) strictly as a conduit for funding RFA and RFE/RL, similar to how the National Endowment for Democracy receives its US government funding.³⁹ In other words, the under secretary would be responsible for ensuring funds are disbursed to RFA and RFE/RL but would not control messaging or meddle in the journalistic independence of these organizations. If the under secretary does anything more than serve as a conduit for disbursing funds, he or she risks turning RFA and RFE/RL into propaganda outlets and sacrificing their journalistic integrity.
3. Retain the firewall that protects their journalistic integrity and independence in any future arrangement. According to USAGM’s website, the firewall is “critical to ensuring that the editors, reporters, and other journalists [at USAGM networks] make the final decisions on what stories to cover and how they are covered, and that those decisions are ultimately governed by the highest standards of professional journalism, as required by law”⁴⁰ (i.e., the United States International Broadcasting Act of 1994⁴² The firewall is also codified in the journalistic standards of each USAGM network, including RFA and RFE/RL.⁴³ To maintain the highest-quality journalism, the firewall should remain integrated into RFA’s and RFE/RL’s journalistic standards.
4. Maintain their regional offices. Forcing them to eliminate overseas offices could undermine those elements that make them effective. Local journalists and sources enable them to accurately report the news and identify problems and solutions. RFA should retain its ability to operate in Washington and through offices in Taipei and elsewhere in Asia, and RFE/RL should retain its Prague headquarters.
5. Streamline accountability and oversight mechanisms. US broadcasting efforts over the years have struggled to strike the right balance between oversight and accountability. Neither the Broadcasting Board of Governors nor the board associated with USAGM proved to be the optimal oversight mechanism. As a new framework is developed, other models in the US government, including the commissioner model of the US Commission on International Religious Freedom, could serve as useful examples.
6. Improve coordination between the United States and allies on information-dissemination efforts, information sharing, and burden sharing. After RFE/RL and RFA are again on a stable footing, the US government should create a mechanism to coordinate information-dissemination efforts with allies as well as information sharing and burden sharing. This would strengthen Western efforts against authoritarian regimes.
7. Introduce new kinds of RFE/RL content. RFE/RL produces written news stories and standard news videos, which are effective in some ways but may not be optimal for younger audiences. To grab their attention, RFE/RL should produce vertical videos, such as those posted to Instagram Reels and YouTube Shorts, and more catchy, short-form content in general.
8. Consider providing free broadband internet to RFE/RL and RFA audiences. The countries where their audiences live, such as Russia, Belarus, and China, often block access to certain websites, including those producing credible, independent news, and their citizens use virtual private networks (VPNs) to circumvent this. However, over time, governments have become skilled at blocking VPNs. To overcome this, the US government could provide RFE/RL and RFA audiences with free broadband internet through Starlink or a similar service so that they can continue to access credible news. This would send shockwaves through the Axis of Upheaval threats (China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea).