How did the 2013 changes affect U.S. government domestic access to foreign propaganda materials?
Executive summary
In 2013 Congress amended provisions of the Smith–Mundt Act through language folded into the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), easing restrictions so that U.S. government-produced materials aimed at foreign audiences could be made available domestically on request and online [1] [2]. Advocates said this improved transparency; critics warned it opened a path for domestic dissemination and potential covert influence, though multiple fact‑checking outlets and legal commentators note the amendment did not authorize agencies to create programming aimed at U.S. audiences or repeal the ban on covert domestic propaganda [2] [3] [4].
1. What changed in 2013: a narrow, technical loosening
The 2013 amendment—commonly called the Smith–Mundt Modernization Act component of the FY2013 NDAA—modified the long‑standing Smith–Mundt regime so that materials produced by U.S. international broadcasting bodies (e.g., Voice of America and related services) could be disseminated within the United States in some forms, particularly online and upon request, rather than being categorically inaccessible to the American public [1] [5]. Proponents argued the change simply modernized an old statute that predated the internet and allowed Americans to see what taxpayer‑funded foreign‑targeted programming contained [6] [7].
2. What the amendment did not do, according to fact‑checks and agencies
Major fact‑checks and official agency guidance emphasize the amendment did not repeal the core prohibitions against creating programming “for the purpose of influencing” U.S. domestic audiences; agencies remain barred from producing content targeted at Americans and from covert domestic persuasion absent Congressional authorization [2] [3] [7]. The U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM) and others have repeatedly stated their enabling statutes still authorize programming for foreign audiences, and that the legislative change was not a green light for Defense Department or other agencies to run domestic propaganda campaigns [7] [2].
3. The practical effect: easier domestic access, not affirmative targeting
Practically, the law made post‑2013 materials available to U.S. requestors and permitted broader online access, so Americans could read, view, or rebroadcast agency content that was formerly effectively shielded from domestic distribution [8] [5]. Critics and watchdogs note this increases the chance that government‑produced material reaches U.S. consumers indirectly through rebroadcast by private outlets, though statutory language and appropriations riders continue to prohibit covert influence operations aimed at the U.S. public [4] [1].
4. Where disagreement and alarm come from
Advocates such as the ACLU framed the change as a First Amendment and transparency win—letting citizens examine what their government broadcasts overseas—whereas civil‑liberties and democracy‑watch groups (e.g., Brennan Center) warned the exceptions and vague standards (like what “develop audiences” means) could be exploited to influence domestic opinion or to allow surreptitious distribution via intermediaries [9] [4]. Commentators in outlets such as Foreign Policy described the amendment as unleashing government‑funded programming into domestic channels, a framing that inflamed public concern despite caveats in statute and agency statements [1].
5. Legal and oversight limits that remain important
Multiple sources note that other statutory and appropriations protections remain: explicit prohibitions on using appropriated funds to influence U.S. public opinion and requirements that government material not be covertly attributed remain in force; enforcement, however, can be challenging because violations are often difficult to prove and penalties limited [9] [4]. This combination—restrictions on intent and attribution but easier access—creates a legal grey area that invites oversight debates rather than an incontrovertible dismantling of domestic safeguards [4] [3].
6. Bottom line for readers: transparency gains plus unresolved risks
The 2013 changes increased Americans’ ability to access government‑produced, foreign‑targeted media (transparency argument) while leaving in place statutory limits against creating programming directed at U.S. audiences or covertly influencing them (restrictions argument) [2] [6]. The result is a contested policy outcome: supporters see a corrective to anachronistic secrecy, critics see openings for misuse and call for stronger clarifications and enforcement—an unresolved tension reflected across government guidance, watchdog analyses, and contemporary reporting [7] [4] [1].