Can the Smith-Mundt Act be used to restrict disinformation spread by government officials?
Executive summary
The Smith–Mundt Act originally barred the State Department and US-funded broadcasters from deliberately distributing government-produced programming to U.S. audiences; that domestic-dissemination prohibition was loosened by the Smith–Mundt Modernization provision in the FY2013 NDAA, which allows U.S. persons to request and receive agency-produced content [1] [2]. Current reporting and commentary show the law governs U.S. Information Agency/USAGM activities, not broadly policing statements by all government officials, and experts and agencies say it does not create a general tool to punish or remove false statements by elected officials [3] [4].
1. What Smith–Mundt actually covered: a Cold War limit on agency broadcasts
The original 1948 law — formally the U.S. Information and Educational Exchange Act — was designed to let the U.S. carry out overseas information programs while preventing the State Department and government-funded broadcasters from using those programs to "propagandize" Americans at home; it expressly prohibited domestic dissemination of materials produced for foreign audiences [1] [5]. That narrow scope — agencies that create programming for foreign audiences — is the consistent framing in archival and contemporary summaries [1] [5].
2. The 2013 “modernization”: loosened access, not a new censorship weapon
Congress amended the law in 2012–13 to allow the U.S. Agency for Global Media and related broadcasters to make their content available within the United States upon request and to provide more transparency; the change removed a blanket bar on domestic access to that specific agency content but did not repeal the Act itself [2] [6]. USAGM emphasizes the agency still focuses on overseas audiences and that the modernization merely permits responding to domestic requests for material [2].
3. Why Smith–Mundt is not a ready-made remedy for official disinformation
Across reporting and fact checks, analysts argue Smith–Mundt applies to government-sponsored broadcasters and materials produced for foreign audiences — not to general speech by cabinet members, presidents, or Congress — and the law never created a mechanism to “punish” lies by private media or elected officials [6] [7]. Fact-check outlets note activists seeking to “reinstate” Smith–Mundt misunderstand both its original reach and the effect of the 2013 change [6] [7].
4. Overreach and confusion: where people misread the statute
Public discussion often conflates Smith–Mundt with broader prohibitions on psychological operations or DoD practices; scholars and journalists warn Smith–Mundt historically addressed State Department and USAGM activities, while military PSYOPs are governed by different law (Title 10) — making many popular claims legally inaccurate [4] [8]. Commentators describe persistent public misperceptions that the modernization “made it legal for the U.S. government to lie to Americans,” a narrative not supported by the statute’s text or by agency FAQs [2] [9].
5. Political proposals show the law’s limits as a policy lever
Recent legislative moves and proposals — such as efforts to “restore” the Smith–Mundt prohibition or repeal the modernization — demonstrate political appetite to restrict government-funded dissemination to Americans, but those bills focus on agency broadcasts and funding rules, not on creating a new statutory remedy to stop statements by officials across government [10] [11]. Congressional text for repeal targets USAGM program material distribution and use of funds, not misstatements by private media or politicians [11].
6. What the available sources don’t say — and why that matters
Available sources do not mention a legal path under Smith–Mundt to remove, discipline, or criminalize false public statements by elected officials generally; the materials supplied confine Smith–Mundt’s ambit to agency-produced programming and to related funding/distribution rules [1] [2]. Because the reporting and agency FAQs repeatedly stress the statute’s narrow institutional focus, using Smith–Mundt as a broad anti-disinformation enforcement tool lacks grounding in current public reporting [2] [3].
7. Bottom line for reformers and critics
If the policy goal is to curb disinformation by government officials, Smith–Mundt is a blunt and largely irrelevant instrument: it regulates how certain federal information programs are distributed, not speech by officeholders, and its 2013 modernization further narrowed the practical barrier to domestic access [1] [2]. Policymakers aiming to address official falsehoods should look to other statutory regimes, agency ethics rules, transparency measures, or new legislation tailored to statements by officials — not to Smith–Mundt as currently understood in the reporting [3] [11].