Going toe to toe with ‘vandals and demagogues’
A conversation with Jeffrey Gedmin.
Since shortly after World War II, US government-funded broadcasting targeting foreign audiences has played a vital soft-power role around the globe, countering the narratives of oppressive, hostile governments. Although born during the Cold War, such broadcasting, many argue, continues to play an important function by providing accurate information to millions of people inundated by mounting disinformation.
Despite efforts by Russia, China and assorted extremist movements to step up disseminating disinformation, the US government has been trying for months to shut down the Voice of America (VOA), Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) and other congressionally funded broadcasters, arguing they are “riddled with political bias and outright anti-American sentiment.” The targeted organizations include the Middle East Broadcasting Networks (MBN), whose CEO Jeffrey Gedmin has been one of the most visible supporters of US international broadcasting. He argues the administration’s actions mean “America’s adversaries—including Islamic extremists—suddenly have an open field.”
MBN reaches a weekly audience of 33.5 million people in 22 countries and territories across the Middle East and North Africa, according to US international broadcasting’s parent agency, the US Agency for Global Media. Gedmin has written numerous articles defending MBN and US international broadcasting. MBN has also confronted the administration in court in a partially successful bid to restore congressionally approved funding Gedmin argues has been wrongfully withheld.
Compass’s Robert Coalson discussed those developments and their implications with Gedmin, who previously served as president and CEO of RFE/RL and an Institute of Current World Affairs trustee.
The conversation has been edited for length and clarity.
Robert Coalson: I’d like to start by asking your opinion about how the administration’s “transactional” approach has been reshaping US foreign relations in general and public diplomacy in particular?
Jeffrey Gedmin: The Trump administration wants to steer US foreign policy toward a mix of isolationism and aggressive unilateralism. We’ve had elements of those things in both parties, and in particular the Republican Party, over the years. But now they have come to the fore—and with real energy and real drive. I think that’s a way, in short, to describe—if there were such a thing—the Trump doctrine.
On the latter, it seems to me the Trump administration has particular disregard and antagonism to development and democracy, anything that falls under the rubric of soft power—specifically, support abroad of civil society, rule of law and, of course, independent media. So, for all those reasons, US-funded international media finds itself a real target.
Coalson: Last month, the former USAID administrator William Herkewitz wrote: “I believe most Americans would be horrified to learn what we are forfeiting” by dissolving USAID. When it comes to US international broadcasting, what would you want the American people to know about what the country may forfeit by withdrawing from this sphere?
Gedmin: I do believe that most Americans, if properly briefed, would understand the value and relatively modest cost for these things. And I think that many are now victims of terrible and wicked demagoguery. For years, pollsters would ask Americans: How much do you think we spend on foreign aid? And people think it’s 10 percent or 20 percent of the budget. But it’s consistently less than 1 percent, and I think you have to brief people on what the value and what the benefits are in investing in foreign aid and, similarly, in US-funded international media.
We take the money seriously. We have to be good stewards. We have to be grateful for taxpayer support. But in the company that I run right now, Middle East Broadcasting Networks, MBN, the cost each year to reach weekly 34 million people across 22 countries is about one and a half Apache helicopters. I think if you brief Americans on what the value is in advancing democracy, in supporting receptiveness to America’s role in the world, countering the anti-American narratives of Iran and China and Russia and terrorist groups, it’s really great value for modest costs. A lot of Americans don’t know all this because they’re busy doing other things—fair enough on that. But I don’t think that we have explained it adequately, apparently, and now arrive the vandals and demagogues—manipulating, distorting and misleading.
It’s really very regrettable because if they succeed in tearing it all down, there’s going to be a gap, a void, and I fear that in three or four or five years, we’re going to be talking about how we build these things up again, but from scratch.
Coalson: In some of the writing you’ve done on this issue, you’ve called out administration officials for refusing to meet with you and other leaders of the US international broadcasting entities or for leveling unfounded, poorly argued criticisms. It seems to me that you feel it’s possible to come to some sort of negotiated understanding on a workable role for US broadcasting within the administration’s approach to foreign relations. Is that understanding correct? Do you think that under the current circumstances, there’s a function that responsible, professional journalists would want to play in US international broadcasting?
Gedmin: On the first part of the question, on my most optimistic—let’s say, pathologically optimistic—level, you would want a rational conversation partner on the other side of the table. And you’d like to pose the question: Is this about reform, restructure, reduction? If so, let’s please talk. If it is simply about elimination and dismantling, can you say that to me? Can you be direct? Can you be clear? Can you be honest? And so, on the other side of the table and at this particular moment, are there people who are interested in a serious conversation about reform or structural reduction? Doubtful. But you have to try anything to keep these things alive and moving forward.
The second part is a very good question. No administration official—including Kari Lake, who leads our parent agency [the US Agency for Global Media]—will meet, will talk, will exchange email. Absolutely nothing there. So it’s my conclusion that they’re trying to destroy us, not to reform us.
My second and parallel thought, which goes to your question, I’m concerned that if they cannot kill us this fiscal year or in the 2026 budget, they will undertake moves to control us. And I do believe that taxpayer-funded media track broadly with US foreign policy goals. However, if the definition is to wrap it so tightly that it becomes a mouthpiece of any administration, then I think it loses its utility, it loses its credibility. And in that case, I don’t think serious professional journalists would consider work like that.
And I would understand that. I think serious, professional journalists want to do serious, professional journalism, perhaps indeed, in broad alignment with US foreign policy goals. But I don’t think they want dictates and manipulation and directives to engage in propaganda and disinformation or even public diplomacy. I mean, there’s a place for public diplomacy with the State Department, and that’s explaining America and US policies. I get that. But if you flip this and you had directives every week on Monday morning on rare earth minerals or the acquisition of Greenland or the invasion of Panama, no professional journalist wants to take those directives and then, using pen, so to speak, explain that or advance that to the world.
Coalson: The recent military action between Israel and Iran and the involvement of the United States has come at a very difficult time for MBN. Could you tell us a little bit about how that has played out in your offices, and how the crisis with the administration is affecting your coverage.
Gedmin: We have reduced our staff by 90 percent to stay alive this spring and summer. We are working at a capacity that is extremely limited. The people who continue to work for us are incredibly serious and hard-working and conscientious. They, like RFE/RL and RFA [Radio Free Asia], live in a sea of uncertainty because we don’t know what the rest of the fiscal year brings. We’re cautiously optimistic. We can last until September 30, and 2026 is a big question mark. We’re fighting for that.
In that context, I think it’s hard for people because people at MBN are doing serious journalism. It is mission-aligned and values-based. It’s doing work that you will not see or hear from Al Jazeera, our principal competitor, but also the others— Al Arabiya, Sky Arabia, etc. And I think that we think we could beat them in a very competent, professional, capable sort of way. But then you hear Kari Lake testifying before the House Foreign Affairs Committee [in July] with broad brush strokes about grantee corruption and incompetence and anti-Americanism. It’s just so far from the truth. I think it hurts people to know that the funder doesn’t believe in you, and I think it hurts people when they see that the competitors—or let’s even say adversaries—can use that against us.
So it’s a peculiar moment. We’re reduced. We’re fighting hard. We’re doing excellent work in the midst of a deep conflict situation. But bottom line, if the funder doesn’t have confidence in you—or, even more to the point, disparages you unfairly—I think it stings.
Coalson: RFE/RL and VOA have been lauded for the role they played broadcasting on shortwave radio into Soviet Bloc countries during the Cold War. But these are different times, with different technologies. How do you respond to the argument that the traditional mission of such entities is simply not possible in this age of the internet, social media, artificial intelligence, short attention spans, strained critical-thinking capacity? Is it possible to carry out an RFE/RL-like mission anywhere in the world today, given the state of the technology and the audience?
Gedmin: That’s a great and important question. It seems to me that in some ways, the Cold War was harder because it was a cold war and we were on the outside, broadcasting in and we now know what was happening within the countries, with secret police networks and oppression. And so the challenges are similarly hard, but very different ones.
All media, even in open and free societies, are facing and having to lean into wrenching changes having to do with the market and the way people consume media and technology. That’s not unique to RFE/RL, VOA or any of us. Second, even though people consume media differently, and technologies are changing the way we work in many ways, real journalism still matters. You can’t be providing people with only consumer-demanded content like cotton candy at the carnival. I mean, it’s fun, it tastes great, it’s not nutritious and none of it sticks. So I think there’s a danger, and a balance that has to be maintained.
And the last thing I would say about the great tradition of RFE/RL and, of course, VOA, is that we’ve always been in the journalism business, but underpinning that, we’ve always been in the ideas business too. We’ve never been, in my view, at our best, just about commodity news—on this date, this person traveled to this city and released this statement and so on. It was always more than commodity news. It was contextualizing. There was analytical framework. It was telling people what happened, but in a professional and responsible way, what it means. I think most consumers want that.
So that’s a long way of saying I get that the technology is changing. I get that AI is coming on strong. I get that the way people consume media is changing rapidly. But I think there still has to be a place for journalism that has quality and integrity, as well as for a framework of some sort of ideas. The reason why we do all this, in my view, is not just to be a supplier of information. We actually care about a certain value set. We care about liberal democracy, checks and balances, transparency, accountability and individual rights under the rule of law. Now maybe some people don’t, but I think most of us do, and we’re not indifferent to those things.
Coalson: I’d like to end by asking you what your longer-term outlook is for the United States and its role in the world? If we wait another four years, eight years, will it be possible to find a way to restore and improve damaged democratic institutions at home and international standing abroad?
Gedmin: I think it’s a real, serious fight like I’ve never seen in my professional lifetime. I think that the people coming at these institutions, and coming at US-funded media, are committing acts of vandalism. That’s why [the conservative pundit Steve] Bannon talks about blowtorches, and why Elon Musk talks about chainsaws. How to describe it? You could say “entrepreneurial demolition.” But it’s vandalism with a vision. And that vision, back to the first part of this conversation, is to steer America toward this blend of isolationism and aggressive unilateralism. I think they’re moving faster than many of us thought. It’s at home and abroad, a kind of Orbanism [after the populist Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban] on steroids. So we have to fight to maintain all institutions. It isn’t clinging to the old status quo or resisting change or wanting to live in the past. None of that is true. Institutions have to be adapted. Companies need to be reformed.
But this vandalism with a vision and this steering in a very unfortunate direction can be hard to repair. So, first, defend, reform and adapt where need be. Then I think we need a vision put forth broadly and in a bipartisan way, I would say, with support across the country, to restore America’s place and voice in the world.
As for the other side—as you know, caricature works in demagoguery. They want to say that we are clinging to the past, the status quo. We want America to be in all places at all times. Our vision is America as policemen, and we’re indiscriminate interventionists. Well, none of that is true. All of that is tremendous exaggeration for effect and devious manipulation to advance an alternative and competing worldview.
So fight now, reform, adapt and defend what is worthy and in need of defense. Articulate a vision going forward. We live in a two-party system, although I would welcome the end of the duopoly to give Americans more choice, I think. But nevertheless, if you’re a Democrat, we talked a lot about the Heritage Foundation and Project 2025. Now, dear Democrats, let’s go, or moderate Republicans, let’s go. Or American internationalists, let’s go. What is the vision? What is the blueprint for two and four and six years going forward? It can’t be simply retreat in defeat. There has to be defense and a vision going forward.
Jeffrey Gedmin currently leads Middle East Broadcasting Networks, Inc. (MBN). He is the co-founder and editor-in-chief of American Purpose, the magazine and media venture. Gedmin has written and edited several books on Germany and European security. He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and serves on several advisory boards, including the Institute for State Effectiveness, the Justice for Journalists Foundation, and the Tocqueville Conversations. He previously served as a trustee for the Institute for Current World Affairs.
 | A guest post by
|
 | A guest post by
|