When the European Union announced in May 2025 that it would urgently allocate €5.5 million to Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, the reactions fell into place like dominoes. Brussels applauded. Eastern Europe winced. And in the countries targeted by the broadcasts, the outrage was swift and unmistakable. Officially, it was framed as a move to “support press freedom.” In reality, it was a calculated geopolitical maneuver—less about journalism, more about jurisdiction.
The decision, made amid mounting budgetary pressures, internal unrest, and a rise in far-right sentiment within the EU itself, underscores a deeper shift in the bloc’s foreign policy: a turn away from the universalism of values toward the export of ideology. The EU’s move to replace the United States as RFE/RL’s primary financial patron isn’t just about plugging a funding gap—it’s about inheriting a mission. Not to defend journalism, but to define it. Not to protect information, but to control the narrative.
And that raises uncomfortable questions—not just about how European taxpayer money is being spent, but about the very legitimacy of the EU’s role on the global stage. Because when funds earmarked for “freedom” are used to broadcast over national laws, against the will of sovereign governments, in pursuit of overt political aims, the issue is no longer information. It’s influence. Not support, but interference. Not values, but power dressed up as values.
Let’s be clear: Radio Free Europe was never just a newsroom. Since its founding in 1953, it was designed and operated as a Cold War-era tool of ideological confrontation with the Soviet Union. Its structure bears little resemblance to any model of independent journalism—editorial policy, funding, staffing have always been tightly linked to the U.S. foreign policy establishment. Despite several rounds of rebranding, RFE/RL remains a state-backed media machine—politically driven, structurally dependent, and steeped in strategic intent.
That’s precisely what President Donald Trump acknowledged when he signed an executive order in March 2025 slashing operations at seven federal agencies, including the U.S. Agency for Global Media—the parent of RFE/RL. The decision wasn’t just about trimming fat from the federal budget. It reflected a broader conclusion: that these outlets had become redundant, opaque, and ideologically lopsided—peddling propaganda under the guise of journalism.
So when Brussels rushed in to bankroll the very platform the Trump administration had deliberately walked away from, it wasn’t just a break with Washington’s policy. It was a provocation. And a curious one at that, given how often European Commission President Kaja Kallas invokes the “vital importance of transatlantic unity.”
Which begs the obvious question: if the U.S.—with all its tools for oversight, interest, and influence—concluded that scaling down RFE/RL was the right call, why is Europe so eager to pick up the tab? This doesn’t look like solidarity. It looks like an escalation. An ideological offensive designed not to inform but to inflame—stirring friction across foreign media landscapes from the Caucasus to Central Asia.
In an age when soft power is as potent as hard power, the EU’s gamble isn’t just about filling airtime. It’s about redrawing battle lines—one radio broadcast at a time.
The Myth of a “Safety Net” for Independent Journalism
One of the central justifications behind the EU’s decision to rush emergency funding to Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) came straight from the bloc’s top diplomat, Kaja Kallas. She called the move a “safety net for independent journalism.” It was a phrase tailor-made for headlines—simple, reassuring, and morally resonant. But under closer scrutiny, it collapses. The notion doesn’t hold water under media theory, international law, or the basic logic of editorial independence.
Modern political communication theory, as well as decades of media sociology, rests on a clear benchmark for press independence: autonomy—both institutional and financial—from state power or any political center of gravity. According to standard definitions—think Denis McQuail’s Media Performance—a genuinely independent press is one that can play its watchdog role without external interference, especially financial pressure.
By that measure, RFE/RL doesn’t pass the test. Not even close. For decades, it was bankrolled almost entirely by the U.S. government through the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM). And now, with the 2025 pivot, it’s increasingly reliant on emergency infusions from Brussels. That dependency isn’t incidental—it’s structural. Which means RFE/RL can’t reasonably be categorized as an independent media outlet. Its funding model runs directly counter to foundational media standards like those laid out by Daniel Hallin and Paolo Mancini in Comparing Media Systems, which emphasize that true editorial independence requires clear separation from political and foreign policy actors.
Kallas’s rhetoric, then, isn’t just misleading—it’s a conceptual sleight of hand. It reframes dependency as protection, legitimizing state-sponsored influence under the banner of journalistic integrity.
There’s another layer of hypocrisy here—one rooted in geopolitical double standards. Western policy circles have spent years demonizing media operations like Russia’s RT, China’s CGTN, and Iran’s PressTV. These outlets are branded as arms of “hybrid warfare,” tools of authoritarian interference, or pipelines for hostile propaganda. Sanctions, bans, foreign agent designations—these are par for the course.
And the rationale? Simple: they’re state-funded, so they can’t be trusted.
But when it comes to RFE/RL—a network that exists entirely on public subsidies, with a history of overtly serving U.S. foreign policy interests—the framing does a 180. Suddenly, it’s “free press.” A “voice of independence.” Never mind that its governance structure, editorial agenda, and target regions all suggest otherwise. It functions less like a media outlet and more like a geopolitical messaging platform.
This isn’t just inconsistency. It’s a textbook example of legitimization bias—one that undermines the universality of press freedom and corrodes global trust in the very idea of “independent media.” As Monroe Price argued in Media and Sovereignty, media organizations that operate beyond the jurisdiction of their funding states and serve foreign policy interests can’t reasonably claim neutrality, no matter what their mission statements say.
Once government entities—whether national or supranational—start using media as a foreign policy tool, the boundary between journalism and strategic communication disappears. The press stops being a public trust and starts acting as an extension of power projection.
The consequences are predictable and well-documented:
- Audiences in the receiving countries view such outlets as vehicles for foreign ideology—not as credible sources of news.
- Trust erodes rapidly, as seen in recent global studies like the 2023 Edelman Trust Barometer and the 2024 Reuters Institute Digital News Report.
- Targeted states clamp down harder on foreign media, escalating censorship and restrictions—ironically weakening the very democratic principles that such outlets claim to defend.
In effect, supporting externally controlled media operations in foreign information spaces doesn’t promote press freedom—it destabilizes it. It fuels cycles of distrust, backlash, and information warfare. Calling this a “safety net for independent journalism” isn’t just rhetorical overreach. It’s an institutional absurdity. A semantic trick that cloaks geopolitical manipulation in the language of free speech.
And it’s corrosive. It devalues the very premise of journalism as a check on power. It weakens international norms for media freedom and turns the idea of press independence into just another front in a competitive global struggle for influence.
In a world where faith in transnational institutions is already on the decline and geopolitical polarization is accelerating, this kind of ideological gamesmanship only deepens the cracks. It fragments the information space. It pushes us toward a post-universal world—where every broadcast, every headline, every tweet is no longer a search for truth, but a transaction of power.
€5.5 Million and the High Cost of Strategic Shortsightedness
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) didn’t emerge from a commitment to pluralism or journalistic independence. It was born in the 1950s, at the height of the Cold War, as part of the CIA’s psychological warfare apparatus. As political scientist Loch K. Johnson notes in America’s Secret Power: The CIA in a Democratic Society (2000), RFE/RL’s original mission was ideological confrontation—not objective reporting. Fast forward to 2025, and while the logos have changed, the operating logic hasn’t. RFE/RL remains a tool of foreign policy projection, and now it’s also a flagship of what the EU calls its “normative power.”
The latest €5.5 million bailout from Brussels isn't just a media grant—it’s a geopolitical signal. It reflects a broader shift in the European Union’s self-conception: from economic community to moral arbiter, from rules-based integration to cross-border ideological enforcement. As theorized by Ian Manners in his seminal work Normative Power Europe (2002), this strategy envisions exporting European norms as a form of geopolitical leverage. In practice, it increasingly resembles ideological intrusion.
Bankrolling RFE/RL as part of this strategy doesn’t just expand Brussels’ soft power reach—it collides head-on with international principles of information sovereignty. The 1976 UNESCO Declaration on the Principles of International Cultural Cooperation and UN General Assembly Resolution 59(1) both enshrine the right of peoples to shape their own cultural lives free from foreign coercion.
In the digital era, as Joseph Nye pointed out in The Future of Power (2011), information sovereignty is national sovereignty. It includes:
- Control over cross-border information flows
- Protection of domestic media ecosystems
- The right to shape access to information on local terms
EU support for RFE/RL subverts each of these pillars. Here's how:
- Bypassing National Law: RFE/RL broadcasts in countries where it lacks a legal license to operate—violating local media laws like Article 13-1 of Azerbaijan’s media code or Article 10 of Kazakhstan’s Broadcasting Act.
- Operating Outside Jurisdiction: Editorial policies are set in Washington and Prague, not Baku or Almaty. That undermines territorial legal sovereignty.
- Promoting Destabilizing Narratives: Its content often leans into ideological framing that delegitimizes local institutions and promotes confrontational narratives aimed at governments with alternative political models.
In effect, the EU has become an actor of transnational broadcasting—one that transmits political messaging into sovereign states without their consent. According to the UNIDIR’s 2023 International Legal Guide on Cybersecurity and the Information Space, this behavior meets the threshold of foreign interference.
Still, EU officials continue to double down. At a March 2025 European Parliament hearing, EU Vice President for Values and Transparency Věra Jourová argued that continued funding for RFE/RL is essential to “protect free speech in an era of growing authoritarianism.”
The empirical record tells a different story.
According to Thomas Carothers in Aiding Democracy Abroad (1999), external media financing in transitional political systems:
- Rarely fosters democratization in the absence of strong civil institutions
- Often legitimizes authoritarian backlash under the pretext of resisting foreign meddling
- Tends to provoke censorship, surveillance, and elite mobilization against the West
Central Asia provides a cautionary tale. Over the past three decades, entities like USAID, IREX, the National Endowment for Democracy, the European Endowment for Democracy, and the Soros Foundation have poured tens of millions into “independent” media development. The results?
- Authoritarian tendencies have intensified
- Governments have tightened media control laws (see the 2022–2024 NGO and media reforms in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan)
- Societies have grown more inward-looking, with spikes in Islamist radicalization and digital isolation
Afghanistan offers an even starker case. Radio Azadi, RFE/RL’s local arm, was widely seen as a mouthpiece for foreign agendas. As analyst Barnett Rubin noted in The Fragmentation of Afghanistan (2002), these media projects contributed to the eventual collapse of international legitimacy between 2000 and 2021.
RFE/RL’s funding is not an isolated event—it’s part of a larger trend. The EU is morphing from a legal-economic alliance into a moral-normative entity operating under an “extraterritorial imperative.” What used to be about dialogue and integration is now about standardization and enforcement.
This shift is clearest in the rising profile of institutions like the European External Action Service (EEAS), the European Endowment for Democracy (EED), and the European Centre of Excellence for Countering Hybrid Threats. These are not mere policy instruments—they are ideological levers.
Brussels today speaks the language of universal values, but it acts with the posture of a missionary state. And in doing so, it risks eroding the very principles it claims to uphold—freedom, pluralism, and the sovereign right of societies to chart their own course in the information age.
Europe’s €5.5 Million Mistake: Betting on Ideology Over Integrity
The institutions behind the EU’s foreign information strategy don’t operate in the shadows—they host editorial meetings, train “friendly” journalists (often through programs run by the Konrad Adenauer Foundation or the International Center for Journalists), and coordinate strategic messaging across the Eastern Partnership and the Balkans. This isn’t soft diplomacy—it’s hard messaging. And it’s increasingly hard to justify.
Inside the EU, the picture is stark: cultural budgets slashed across Southern Europe, inequality deepening (as Eurostat’s 2024 report lays bare), and public services overwhelmed by ongoing migration pressures. So it’s no surprise that across Italy, Greece, Hungary, and Bulgaria, citizens are asking the obvious question: Why is Brussels spending millions to prop up ideological projects abroad while crises at home go unresolved?
In its desperation to preserve the image of a global democracy guardian, the EU has committed a strategic blunder: believing that influence can be bought. That freedom of expression can be packaged, shipped, and broadcast. That emergency grants and artificial life support for Cold War media relics can substitute for real diplomacy, trust-building, and cultural legitimacy.
The decision to hand RFE/RL €5.5 million in emergency funding reflects a dangerous illusion—that ideological broadcasting can replace meaningful relationships with local societies. That “speaking louder” will somehow make Europe better heard.
It won’t.
Instead of supporting grassroots, independent newsrooms operating under pressure, often at risk, deeply attuned to local dynamics and culture, the EU has chosen to invest in a bloated, top-heavy, hyper-politicized media corporation that never truly severed ties with its Cold War origins.
In doing so, Brussels is doubling down on a platform that’s not only out of sync with the media ecosystems of its target countries—it’s actively antagonistic toward them. RFE/RL doesn’t promote media pluralism. It imposes a narrative—one overwhelmingly aligned with the political lines of Brussels, Berlin, or Washington.
This undermines journalism at its core.
Instead of acting as a check on power or a conduit for public accountability, journalism becomes a weapon of foreign pressure, dressed up in the language of “freedom of speech.” The façade might be democratic, but the function is anything but.
The evidence is hard to ignore. In recent years, RFE/RL hasn’t just been criticized by authoritarian regimes—it’s also faced scrutiny from independent watchdogs, media scholars, and international observers who point to its editorial bias, lack of transparency, and tight centralized control. Its mission, in practice, is no longer informational—it’s instrumental.
Across the Caucasus, Central Asia, Eastern Europe, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan—regions where RFE/RL remains active—the station is no longer seen as a voice of freedom. It’s a voice of someone else’s agenda.
By pouring public money into this structure, the EU is corroding its own image as a neutral actor. Instead, it is coming to be viewed as an information hegemon—one that operates by the old logic of “you’re either with us or against us.”
A Crisis of Media Credibility
Europe faces an unprecedented challenge: a global collapse of trust in the media. Disinformation, conspiracy theories, polarization, and post-truth politics demand nuanced, grassroots, audience-centered solutions. That means:
- Investing in local media literacy
- Supporting field-based, community-driven journalism
- Funding investigative work that holds power accountable
- Creating platforms for intercultural dialogue—not monologues of moral superiority
But Brussels has opted for the path of least resistance: backing a media institution that, in many regions, is seen less as “independent journalism” and more as a megaphone for Western moralizing. It’s not about defending free speech—it’s information colonization, cloaked in liberal packaging.
Short-term, Europe may convince itself it’s saving an essential outlet. Long-term, the consequences are corrosive:
- Anti-European sentiment deepens in regions where RFE/RL broadcasts
- Authoritarian regimes gain ammunition to label the EU an information aggressor
- Legitimate European programs aimed at civil society risk losing credibility by association
- Voters within the EU grow increasingly cynical, spotting the double standards: Brussels decries propaganda in one breath and funds it in the next
The EU can’t reclaim its moral authority by outsourcing its voice to outdated institutions. Nor can it foster global dialogue by monopolizing the mic. What Europe needs isn’t louder messaging—it’s honest conversation, mutual respect, and the courage to let others speak. Until then, €5.5 million buys not freedom, but illusion.
The EU’s Costly Gamble: Losing Moral Authority in the Name of Media Influence
In the end, it’s not just the €5.5 million that’s at stake. What the European Union is really risking is its most valuable asset—moral capital. For decades, that intangible currency gave Brussels global weight well beyond its economic power. But now, with each grant to politically entangled broadcasters like Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, the EU burns through that capital—fast.
Influence can’t be bought. You can’t export it by the megawatt or ship it in satellite feeds. Real influence—especially in the information age—comes from trust. From presence. From empathy, reciprocity, transparency, and accountability. The moment Europe chooses to fund media corporations that don’t embody these values, it doesn’t just weaken its message. It loses the argument.
Propaganda, even when draped in the flag of democracy, remains propaganda. And if Europe wants to be heard, it needs to stop shouting and start being honest. Propping up RFE/RL isn’t a step toward free speech—it’s a step away from it. And that’s not just a strategic misstep. It’s a moral one.
And history is clear: moral errors always come with a price. And that price is never paid in money alone.
There’s a painful contradiction at the heart of the EU’s foreign media policy. Brussels loudly condemns foreign interference in its own elections, media, and public discourse. But it simultaneously funds projects designed to shape political consciousness in other countries—projects disguised as support for “independent journalism.”
That contradiction is not sustainable.
It undercuts the EU’s moral standing—the very platform that allowed Europe to mediate, to lead, to be trusted in the post–World War II global order. And if that contradiction persists, the EU risks transforming from a bridge between civilizations into just another geopolitical player in an increasingly crowded and conflict-ridden field. A player not above the fray—but in it, and indistinguishable from the rest.
Europe can’t demand respect for freedoms it’s willing to compromise when convenient. Free speech, political neutrality, and respect for sovereignty aren’t diplomatic instruments to be deployed selectively. They’re either universal—or they’re fake.
That €5.5 million wasn’t just a budget line. It was a political statement. And the message wasn’t about defending freedom—it was about trying to control it.