On Friday, the Borderless Reporter, or RSF as it’s known in French, unveiled its annual press freedom report, stating that global press freedom has hit an all-time low. The report attributed this decline to restrictions experienced by journalists under President Donald Trump.
The core message of the 2025 report highlights that “economic pressures,” such as concentrated ownership, advertiser influence, and restrictive or opaque public funding, are undermining journalists’ independence.
“A secure and transparent financial situation is essential for freedom and independence in today’s media landscape. Without economic independence, there can’t be a free press,” the report emphasizes.
According to Bokande, “If the media faces financial strain, they may compromise on quality to attract audiences, making them vulnerable to oligarchs and government entities that may exploit them.”
She added, “When journalists are impoverished, they lose the ability to resist those who spread disinformation and propaganda.”
“Media’s economic independence is critical for ensuring reliable information that serves public interest,” she concluded.
This viewpoint poses a significant challenge to the traditional view of press freedom, which has often focused on authoritarian regimes imprisoning reporters. If a leading threat to “freedom of the press” is inadequate government support for media organizations, many might question whether press freedom is truly endangered.
In recent discussions, advocates have identified the rise of state-controlled media as a major danger to genuine journalism and a key source of misinformation. Now, RSF seems to suggest that only substantial government funding for media entities can safeguard press freedom.
While there are indeed old-fashioned threats to press freedom like imprisonment of journalists, the RSF report claims that “economic indicators” for press freedom are currently at their lowest ever.
“Nearly a third of global news outlets have shut down due to economic difficulties. This is evident in the US (ranked 57th), Tunisia (129th), and Argentina (87th),” the report highlights.
The report asserts that America, which is seen as a “leader in economic decline,” has transformed vast areas into news deserts. Local journalists have voiced that “making a living as a journalist is tough,” which likely contributes to an increasingly hostile environment for the media.
These assertions might strike news-engaged Americans as surprising, especially given the constant stream of news content available today.
Naturally, RSF attributes this information crisis largely to President Trump. Press freedom advocates have often been distracted by funding cuts aimed at state-run media organizations, which Trump was perceived to threaten regarding journalistic independence.
The report notes that Trump’s potential second term appears to be exacerbating this trend, with false economic justifications leading to the abrupt cessation of funding from the US Global Media Agency (USAGM). This has adversely affected several newsrooms, including Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, leaving over 400 million citizens without access to reliable information.
Moreover, the freeze on funding for the US Organization for International Development (USAID) has halted international aid, pushing numerous media outlets into critical economic instability and leading to closures, particularly in Ukraine (ranked 62nd).
However, the RSF analysis fails to address its own economic circumstances, stemming partly from a loss of public trust due to rampant misinformation and erroneous reporting in some cases.
It’s somewhat absurd to complain about the “economic independence” of major media while overlooking their long-standing practices, excessive political bias, and reluctance to disclose unfavorable information that could tarnish their narratives.
Media outlets like CBS News didn’t simply succumb to disinformation; they made conscious choices, partly motivated by a desire to see their preferred candidates succeed in elections.
The press freedom organizations that many take seriously are operating at a deeply political level, which poses a significant threat to press freedom and journalistic independence. It’s naive for reporters to argue that press freedom isn’t under siege. In fact, issues of misinformation, exemplified by figures like “The Maryland Man,” show that Trump is possibly more threatening to journalism than anyone realizes.
Interestingly, Trump has been more open to speaking with the media compared to President Biden, who often seems to prefer avoiding press interactions. It’s clear some media outlets aim to shape public perception, while Trump engages reporters, even those expressing hostility towards him. Meanwhile, Biden tends to remain distant, conducting press conferences only with careful orchestration from aides—something that could be a genuine concern for journalistic independence, a point that RSF should consider more thoroughly.
Ultimately, the RSF report raises alarms about “foreign influence” laws that suppress information, recalling how state-controlled media poses a significant problem. Many of these laws are framed as responses to misinformation, suggesting that the landscape of information warfare remains complex. Some of the most drastic censorship worldwide is often justified under the guise of combating disinformation, a point challenged in RSF’s findings.
In its report, RSF surprisingly mentioned China’s extensive censorship apparatus, characterizing its “propaganda model” as rapidly spreading throughout authoritarian regimes. For some reason, the severe control exerted by the Chinese Communist regime was downplayed in comparison to the purported threats posed by Trump to US media.
Additionally, RSF’s evaluation of disinformation and media oppression seems to hinge significantly on the authors’ sentiments toward particular governments. The summary claims that “the Israeli military has decimated journalism for over 18 months,” conveniently ignoring other perspectives, while it condemns Israel multiple times throughout the report.
