Global Trends in Democracy and Authoritarianism: Challenges to Press Freedom
Updated February 7, 2024
Global Trends in Democracy and Authoritarianism:
Challenges to Press Freedom
Experts and policymakers have expressed concern over
have the effect of unduly restricting, or criminalizing in
global challenges to press freedom, including in connection
some cases, the free expression of individuals and the work
with broader concerns over the state of democracy around
of media outlets. In the context of the COVID-19
the world. Some research, including by the United Nations
pandemic, for example, some governments used a stated
and nongovernmental organizations, indicates that press
need to combat health-related misinformation to justify
freedom has been declining globally. Some Members of the
imposing restrictions on the media.
118th Congress have proposed legislation seeking to bolster
U.S. foreign policy responses to this trend (e.g., S. 2526,
The ability of journalists to report information, and of
H.R. 4898, and H.R. 5855).
citizens to meaningfully access this information, is also
affected by governmental efforts in some countries to erode
Press Freedom and Democracy
freedom of expression on the internet. These efforts can
Erosions in press freedom may be both a contributor to, and
include, for instance, criminal or other penalties for online
a symptom of, current global trends of democratic
speech, blocks of websites or social media platforms,
backsliding and rising authoritarianism. Many experts
internet shutdowns, and online disinformation campaigns.
describe the presence of a free, independent, and pluralistic
media sector as an essential condition for genuine and well-
Unfair or Distorted Media Environments. Independent
functioning democratic governance. They see a free press
media outlets are under financial strain in many countries,
as critical to holding governments accountable to the public
including in ostensibly free environments, and may be
and helping citizens make informed decisions about
vulnerable to efforts to impede, influence, or co-opt their
political leaders and policies. Analysis of trends in
work. Governments, government-aligned actors, or other
backsliding democracies has reinforced this view, with
powerful figures may in some cases use legal, regulatory, or
efforts to undermine press freedoms identified as a common
economic tools to disadvantage or co-opt critical media
early indicator of broader democratic breakdown. Further,
outlets and/or favor pro-government voices. Relevant
existing non-democratic governments appear to have drawn
tactics can include, for example, selective or arbitrary
on an evolving playbook for repressing independent sources
application of tax laws or licensing practices, ownership
of information, potentially contributing to the apparent
takeovers, unfair distribution of government subsidies or
increased durability of modern authoritarian governance.
advertising budgets, and expensive and time-consuming
lawsuits (often referred to as strategic lawsuits against
public participation, or SLAPPs). Relatedly, experts have
International Frameworks
raised concerns about the influence of authoritarian
Both the 1948 U.N. Universal Declaration of Human
governments such as China and Russia on media
Rights and the 1976 International Covenant on Civil
environments around the world.
and Political Rights enumerate the right of everyone
to “seek, receive and impart information and ideas”
Attacks Against and Imprisonment of Individual
through any form of media, “regardless of frontiers.”
Journalists. Journalists around the world can face threats,
The 1991 Declaration of Windhoek on Promoting an
harassment, detention, physical attacks, or killings for doing
Independent and Pluralistic African Press, viewed by
their work. Perpetrators can include state and non-state
many as a landmark statement of free press principles,
actors, and typically enjoy impunity. According to one
states in part that an “independent, pluralistic and free
nongovernmental tally, as of December 1, 2023, 320
press is essential to the development and maintenance
journalists globally were detained or imprisoned in relation
of democracy in a nation.” The U.N. General
to their work, with the top five countries of detention being
Assembly in 1993 proclaimed the anniversary of the
China (44 journalists), Burma (43), Belarus (28), Russia
Windhoek Declaration, May 3, as World Press
(22), and Vietnam (19). In some cases, governments may
Freedom Day.
also seek to repress journalists operating in other countries.
Selected Global Challenges
Biden Administration Initiatives
Government Censorship and Control. In countries with
The Biden Administration has emphasized press freedom
forms of authoritarian governance, media organizations are
issues as part of a broader policy, consistent with many
often unable to operate independent of substantial
prior Administrations, to promote and defend democracy
government control or influence. Even in contexts with
around the world. The Administration launched a number
greater levels of media freedom, governments may use laws
of relevant global foreign assistance initiatives as part of
or policies that purport to combat issues of public concern
commitments in support of multilateral Summit for
(e.g., terrorism, defamation, or mis/disinformation) but that
Democracy meetings held in 2021 and 2023. These include
https://crsreports.congress.gov
Global Trends in Democracy and Authoritarianism: Challenges to Press Freedom
funding for the multi-donor International Fund for Public
against journalists overseas (e.g., sanctions against certain
Interest Media; a program to help enhance the
Saudi individuals in response to the October 2018 Saudi
independence and financial sustainability of media outlets;
government operation that resulted in the killing of Jamal
an initiative to cover the costs of defending journalists from
Khashoggi). The State Department has also announced
lawsuits meant to silence their reporting; and a program to
policies of imposing visa restrictions against individuals
assist at-risk journalists. The United States has also pursued
involved in “extraterritorial counter-dissident activities,”
some pertinent multilateral efforts in connection with these
including against journalists, and, separately, against
meetings, including engagement through the Media
individuals connected to the misuse of commercial spyware
Freedom Coalition and a code of conduct for governments
“to target, arbitrarily or unlawfully surveil, harass, suppress,
concerning export controls and human rights.
or intimidate” journalists and other individuals.
Selected U.S. Policy Tools
Foreign Assistance Conditionality. Certain globally
Public Reporting. The State Department’s statutorily
applicable provisions that restrict foreign assistance on the
mandated annual Country Reports on Human Rights
basis of human rights have potential relevance for
Practices include information on freedom of expression
responding to some press freedom-related human rights
conditions for members of the media in countries around
violations (e.g., the “Leahy Laws,” which restrict assistance
the world. This media-specific reporting is pursuant in part
to foreign security force units responsible for human rights
to the Daniel Pearl Freedom of the Press Act of 2009 (P.L.
violations). Some SFOPS provisions have also entailed
111-166), which required the State Department to expand
possible assistance restrictions to particular countries.
the reports’ coverage of press freedom issues.
Export Controls. The United States may use export
Media-Related Democracy Assistance. Congress
controls to attempt to combat the spread of technologies
appropriates foreign assistance funds that support some
that can be misused to facilitate attacks against journalists.
programs to bolster the supply of, and demand for,
The Export Control Reform Act of 2018 (Title XVII,
independent media, as well as improve broader enabling
Subtitle B of P.L. 115-232) stipulates that export controls
environments. State Department and USAID allocations for
be used in part to carry out U.S. foreign policy, “including
the “Independent Media and Free Flow of Information”
the protection of human rights and the promotion of
foreign assistance program area increased from
democracy.” The Department of Commerce has imposed
approximately $155 million in FY2021 to $236 million in
some pertinent controls, such as in relation to certain
FY2022 (not including funding from Ukraine supplemental
companies found to have supplied spyware used by foreign
appropriations). For FY2023 and FY2024, the Biden
governments to target journalists and other individuals.
Administration requested approximately $251 million and
$271.5 million, respectively, for this program area. These
Issues for Congress
figures include internet freedom programs funded by these
Diplomatic Efforts. Congress may conduct oversight over
agencies; they do not capture media-related activities
the extent to which press freedom issues are effectively
categorized under other foreign assistance program areas,
integrated into U.S. bilateral and multilateral diplomacy,
such as civil society. Separately, the National Endowment
including broader democracy promotion efforts, where
for Democracy, to which Congress provides an annual
appropriate. Relatedly, Congress may wish to monitor how
appropriation (around $315 million in recent years),
the United States is supporting partner countries to deliver
generally devotes a substantial amount of its grant resources
on their press freedom-related commitments made at the
to supporting independent media. In addition, U.S.
Summit for Democracy meetings. Congress may also
international broadcasting, though not considered
consider the pros and cons of creating new State
democracy assistance, may help fill information gaps in
Department offices and/or senior officials focused on press
contexts where domestic independent media does not exist.
freedom issues, as some pending legislation proposes.
Congress has included some relevant directives in recent
Foreign Assistance. Congress may consider how much and
Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related
what types of foreign assistance resources, if any, to
Programs Appropriations Acts (SFOPS). Most recently,
appropriate for this issue. Such considerations could
FY2023 SFOPS (Division K of P.L. 117-328) directs not
potentially be informed by efforts to assess and learn from
less than $20 million for programs to protect freedom of
prior programs, and by oversight of new global initiatives
expression and independent media, and not less than $30
launched by the executive branch.
million for supporting and protecting threatened, harassed,
or attacked civil society activists and journalists.
Sanctions and Other Restrictive Tools. Congress may
conduct oversight over the executive branch’s use of
Targeted Sanctions. Some global and country-specific
sanctions and other restrictive tools to respond to press
authorities allow for the imposition of economic sanctions
freedom violations. Key questions may include whether
and/or visa restrictions against foreign persons responsible
existing authorities and sanctions programs are adequate,
for human rights violations or abuses. These include, for
whether such authorities could be used more robustly and
example, the Global Magnitsky Human Rights
the resources needed for doing so, and how the executive
Accountability Act (Title XII, Subtitle F of P.L. 114-328),
branch evaluates the effectiveness of actions taken.
which the executive branch implements through Executive
Order 13818. The executive branch has utilized these
Michael A. Weber, Analyst in Foreign Affairs
authorities on some occasions to respond to actions taken
IF12137
https://crsreports.congress.gov
Global Trends in Democracy and Authoritarianism: Challenges to Press Freedom
Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to
congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress.
Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has
been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the
United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be
reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include
copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you
wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.
https://crsreports.congress.gov | IF12137 · VERSION 3 · UPDATED