By – Vasatika Saraswat

Abstract

The evolution of the media landscape in the United States during President Donald Trump’s second term represents a significant shift with wide-ranging implications, not only for domestic democratic governance but also for the nation’s foreign policy posture and global standing. The increasingly strategic use of the“free media” rhetoric, the weakening of traditional journalism, and the rise of partisan news ecosystems all contribute to a changing informational environment. This paper evaluates these developments through the prism of international relations and geopolitical strategy, arguing that domestic information control has external consequences, undermining democratic credibility, altering diplomatic signalling, and reshaping soft power dynamics. As great power competition intensifies and normative frameworks surrounding media freedom diverge globally, the internal media dynamics of liberal democracies like the United States become critical components of their strategic identity and foreign policy effectiveness.

Introduction

In the current era of multipolar competition and information warfare, the internal organisation of a state’s media environment has become inseparable from its international image and diplomatic leverage. For liberal democracies, freedom of the press has long served not only as a normative cornerstone but as a soft power asset. It signals openness, legitimacy, and internal accountability to both allies and adversaries. During President Donald Trump’s second term, however, a noticeable recalibration occurred. The discourse surrounding media freedom took on a strategic character, wherein the language of openness was used to justify exclusionary practices, and traditional journalistic institutions struggled to maintain their independence and authority. This shift carries implications far beyond US borders. The United States’ reputation as a normative leader on press freedom has historically enabled it to promote democratic governance abroad and to critique autocratic regimes that limit access to information. But as domestic practices increasingly mirrored those of illiberal states, whether through attacks on critical media, selective access policies, or the proliferation of ideologically aligned pseudo journalism, the credibility of these critiques diminished. This article examines how the Trump administration’s approach to the media intersects with foreign policy, the conduct of public diplomacy, and the broader geopolitics of truth in an age of strategic disinformation.

Media Control and the Erosion of US Normative Leadership

The strategic invocation of the“free media” rhetoric by the Trump administration, while concurrently restricting access and delegitimising independent outlets, mirrors practices commonly associated with competitive authoritarian regimes. Although these measures did not amount to formal censorship, they introduced a normative ambiguity. Outward commitments to democratic principles were contradicted by internal actions that constrained critical reporting. For instance, during Donald Trump’s first term in office, the administration revoked CNN journalist Jim Acosta’s press credentials after a combative exchange at a press briefing in 2018. Although the White House claimed to support freedom of the press, the move was widely condemned by international press freedom watchdogs, legal scholars, and allied governments as inconsistent with democratic norms. From a geopolitical standpoint, this contradiction weakened the United States’ ability to project itself as a model for liberal values. Competitor states such as China and Russia, which have long critiqued US democracy as performative rather than substantive, found renewed opportunities to point to internal inconsistencies. In international forums, particularly within the UN Human Rights Council and regional bodies, American credibility on issues of press freedom faced more resistance, especially from non-Western states seeking to justify their own controls on the media. Furthermore, as strategic competition moved into the realm of information ecosystems, the US found itself less able to draw clear distinctions between democratic and authoritarian communication models. The blurred lines between journalism, propaganda, and state-influenced media became evident not only in domestic discourse but in how the US was perceived abroad. This erosion of normative distinctiveness had tangible diplomatic costs. It led to diminished influence in promoting media development initiatives, weakened soft power appeal, and reduced leverage in contesting disinformation campaigns emanating from rival states.

Journalistic Retrenchment and the Foreign Policy Optics of Institutional Weakness

The performance of mainstream journalism during this period also had consequences for America’s image as a global influencer. The reluctance of several major outlets to confront inflammatory or illiberal rhetoric directly, due to a combination of legal pressures, access concerns, and editorial caution, created an international perception of institutional retreat. Foreign observers, including allied intelligence agencies, international media watchdogs, and foreign ministries, closely monitor the robustness of a country’s internal checks on executive power. For instance, during the Trump administration, concerns were raised by Germany’s Federal Foreign Office regarding the United States’ treatment of journalists and erosion of institutional norms. International watchdogs such as Reporters Without Borders and the Committee to Protect Journalists also publicly questioned whether the United States could still be considered a standard-bearer for press freedom. When traditional media in the United States appeared subdued or overly deferential, this sent signals to both allies and adversaries about the resilience of American democratic institutions. Countries that once looked to US journalism as a standard of adversarial reporting, particularly in emerging democracies, saw a more complicated picture. For authoritarian-leaning states, this became a rhetorical tool. If even the United States showed deference to power, then liberal press models could be portrayed as unviable or hypocritical. From a foreign policy perspective, the softening of journalistic resistance undermined US credibility as a global advocate for press freedom. US diplomatic missions, which traditionally fund and support press development through USAID and State Department initiatives, found themselves increasingly questioned about domestic media practices. In bilateral negotiations or international conferences on media transparency, the American position lost much of its previous moral clarity.

The Global Implications of Partisan Media Networks

Perhaps the most far-reaching development was the rise of partisan media ecosystems designed to resemble traditional journalism but lacking its editorial independence or institutional accountability. These outlets, often described as “pink-slime media”, operated with a dual objective: domestic influence and international confusion. In the realm of international relations, these pseudo-journalistic entities contributed to the growing phenomenon of media mimicry, in which the form of journalism is retained while its function is subverted. This tactic has long been used by state-aligned networks in Russia, Turkey, and Hungary to create the appearance of pluralism while managing narratives. As the US developed its own variants of this model, it complicated Washington’s ability to criticize similar approaches abroad. More broadly, the proliferation of ideologically motivated, algorithmically amplified news content undermined the reliability of the American information space. This directly affected foreign policy operations that rely on consistent, credible messaging, such as crisis diplomacy, global health coordination, and alliance reassurance. Allies increasingly encountered conflicting signals between official US policy positions and the messages circulating in domestic media. The fragmentation of American information reduced predictability, a core component of strategic trust in international relations. Adversaries, meanwhile, found fertile ground for their own disinformation campaigns. The breakdown in domestic media coherence created opportunities for foreign actors to inject false narratives, exacerbate political polarization, and exploit the weaknesses of a divided information environment. The long-term effect has been a degradation in America’s ability to shape the global narrative, a key element of geopolitical influence in the digital age.

Conclusion: Media as a Strategic Asset in Foreign Policy

In a global order where information warfare is as consequential as territorial disputes, the internal structure of a nation’s media environment is a matter of strategic concern. The transformations seen during Trump’s second term mark not just a domestic evolution but a geopolitical shift. By reframing press freedom to justify exclusion, by inducing hesitancy in traditional journalism, and by permitting the rise of partisan pseudo news infrastructures, the United States unintentionally mirrored some of the very practices it once condemned. This has not gone unnoticed internationally. America’s ability to act as a credible proponent of democratic norms, to engage in effective public diplomacy, and to push back against authoritarian narratives has been weakened, not necessarily by the intent of policy, but by its cumulative effect on the country’s informational legitimacy. Looking forward, policymakers and strategists must treat media reform not merely as a domestic priority but as a component of foreign policy resilience. Reinvesting in independent journalism, insulating editorial institutions from political retaliation, and regulating the transparency of digital media funding are not just matters of governance; they are essential to the strategic projection of democratic credibility. In the absence of such recalibration, the US risks further erosion of its soft power, diminished coherence in international signalling, and weakened capacity to counter the geopolitical narratives of rival states. The question is no longer whether press freedom matters in international relations; it is how much longer it can remain a pillar of US strategic identity if current trends continue unchecked.

About the author: Vasatika Saraswat is a second-year B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) student at Jindal Global Law School (JGLS). Her academic interests lie at the intersection of international relations, constitutional law, and feminist legal theory. Passionate about interrogating the power structures embedded in global governance, she explores how international law is shaped by, and in turn shapes, gender, sovereignty, and geopolitics.

Image Source : The Guardian