Which US influencers were paid by the UAE or Saudi Arabia to promote pro-government narratives?
Executive summary
Available sources in this packet do not list any US influencers who were paid by the UAE or Saudi Arabia to promote pro-government narratives; reporting in these documents focuses on licensing and regulation of influencers in the UAE and Saudi Arabia rather than named paid propaganda campaigns (not found in current reporting). The sources do show that both countries require influencer licences and have tightened rules on paid promotions—UAE/NMC licensing since 2018 and new advertiser-permit rules in 2025, and Saudi licence regimes and enforcement discussed in multiple reports [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. No roster of US influencers appears in the available material
The documents you provided explain regulatory changes and market trends for influencers in the UAE and Saudi Arabia, but none of the items name US-based influencers who were paid to deliver pro-government narratives on behalf of either state. The packet includes guidance on licensing and enforcement, industry lists of top regional influencers, and background on influencer agencies—yet no source offers evidence of payments to US influencers for state propaganda (not found in current reporting).
2. What the sources do document: licensing and tighter controls
Several pieces describe formal rules that make paid promotions traceable and regulated. The UAE has required an Influencer License from the National Media Council since 2018 and expanded rules in 2025 requiring an advertiser permit for anyone posting promotional content; the new permit regime and fee structures are emphasized across outlets [1] [2] [3] [5]. Saudi Arabia likewise has an influencer licensing regime and has used fines and bans in enforcement actions as part of its media regulation approach [4] [6].
3. Why regulations matter to the question of paid pro-government messaging
Licensing and advertising disclosure rules change the mechanics for how paid content is executed and traced. The sources show both governments seeking to professionalize and control the influencer market—requiring licences, trade registrations, and disclosure of paid advertising—measures that, in principle, make it easier to identify commercial relationships and discourage covert state-sponsored campaigns [1] [5] [7]. That regulatory context is relevant when investigating whether state actors hire foreign influencers, but the documents here stop short of naming such deals.
4. What the regional influencer listings say — and what they don’t
Market and directory posts in the packet list top Saudi and Emirati influencers and agencies, and outline business opportunities for brands and tourism boards. These are commercial snapshots, not investigative reports into political influence operations. They identify influential creators and agencies operating in MENA markets—but do not document payments from Gulf states to US influencers for pro-state messaging [8] [9] [10] [11].
5. Two competing interpretations from the sources
One interpretation present in the material is that licensing professionalises the sector and improves transparency, protecting consumers and brands [5] [12]. Another strand of reporting and comment raises censorship and control concerns—arguing licences can become tools to suppress dissent or to regulate political expression, not only commercial activity [4] [6]. Both frames appear in these sources and matter when assessing any claims about state-financed influence campaigns.
6. Evidence gaps and how to pursue them
The documents supplied do not contain investigative findings or named allegations about US influencers being paid by the UAE or Saudi Arabia. To verify such claims you would need reporting that: names specific US creators, documents payments or contracts, or cites government or agency records showing paid advocacy. That material is not present in the current packet (not found in current reporting). Freedom of information requests, leaked contracts, agency invoices, bank records, or on-the-record statements from named influencers would be the usual paths to substantiate payments.
7. What readers should watch for in future reporting
Look for: named individuals with corroborating financial/contract evidence; platform disclosures that explicitly tie content to state-sponsored campaigns; investigative reporting from outlets that can access contracts or whistleblowers; and independent verification from multiple sources. In the absence of that, assertions that US influencers were paid by these governments remain unproven in the documents you provided (not found in current reporting).
Limitations: my conclusions are confined to the supplied sources. The packet contains regulatory, market, and directory material about influencers in the UAE and Saudi Arabia but no direct evidence naming US influencers paid to promote pro-government narratives (not found in current reporting) [1] [2] [4] [3] [5].