President Trump amplified online calls for a “Charlie Kirk Act” aimed at ensuring media accountability, after sharing a viral TikTok video that demanded such legislation be named in honor of Kirk. The video blamed media “lies and hateful rhetoric” for fueling hostility that led to his death, and urged Trump to make it “impossible” for the press to mislead Americans.
Supporters link the idea to reviving the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948, which originally regulated U.S. government information and propaganda programs abroad. The law was amended under Obama to allow domestic access to State Department media products, effectively permitting U.S. government propaganda to be published, circulated, and distributed within the country.
Renaming it the “Charlie Kirk Act” would go further by holding news outlets financially liable for propaganda, an idea that has already gained traction with a change.org petition gathering more than 17,000 signatures.
Originally, the Smith-Mundt Act authorized the State Department to run international information and cultural exchange initiatives but explicitly prohibited the domestic dissemination of materials produced for foreign audiences. This “statutory firewall” ensured that propaganda tools aimed at countering Soviet influence overseas could not be turned inward against American citizens.
For 64 years, the ban on domestic dissemination protected Americans from government-run information campaigns, preventing the State Department and the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) from broadcasting such materials at home out of concern they would be used to manipulate public opinion.
That protection ended with the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012, sponsored by Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-TX) and Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA), embedded in the FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act, and signed by President Barack Obama on December 28, 2012. The changes took effect on July 2, 2013. Supporters justified the repeal by arguing that the law had not kept up with new technologies like the internet and satellite television, which blurred the line between foreign and domestic audiences.
In practice, Obama’s changes expanded the State Department and BBG’s authority to produce and distribute information through press, film, radio, the internet, and social media, making these materials legally available inside the United States. The law formally bars the use of government funds to “influence public opinion in the United States,” but that safeguard is hollow. Content created to persuade foreign audiences has the same persuasive force when Americans see it, and in the digital age anything published abroad is effectively available at home.
The “upon request” clause is presented as a limiter, yet in reality anyone, an individual, organization, or media outlet, can request the material and then republish it online, rebroadcast it, or use it in social media campaigns. Hypothetically, this provision functions as a backdoor: government-aligned outlets, partisan social accounts, or activist networks could request materials and then amplify them through coordinated pushes that reach mass domestic audiences.
These modifications created mechanisms to influence public opinion while avoiding direct accountability. Content is “technically” for foreign audiences, domestic availability is “upon request” rather than active distribution, and the prohibition on “influencing public opinion” provides legal cover while being practically meaningless. Funding can flow through intermediary organizations instead of directly from government to citizen, giving officials plausible deniability while still shaping what institutions publish.
Influence could operate through funding dependencies that steer think tanks and universities, personnel networks that coordinate messaging across media and NGOs, and legal frameworks that reward compliance and punish refusal to republish. In such an environment, cultural narratives are framed so that dissent is branded as conspiracy theory or misinformation, making countervoices easy to dismiss.
Government funding could be withheld from think tanks and institutions that refuse to republish official propaganda. The result could be government-backed campaigns pushing COVID vaccines, supporting lockdowns, promoting Biden and Harris, claiming that Trump is a Russian spy, and insisting that masks and lockdowns save lives despite peer-reviewed papers showing little benefit.
A well-documented example of a government-backed propaganda campaign was the promotion of COVID narratives and measures. The Biden administration paid nearly $1 billion to hundreds of news organizations, including ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, the New York Post, the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, and countless local outlets, as part of a Department of Health and Human Services “comprehensive media campaign” to advertise COVID vaccines.
Congress and the administration together set aside nearly $2 billion for vaccine promotion, targeting young people, people of color, and conservatives. The White House enlisted dozens of social media influencers, including pop star Olivia Rodrigo, TikTok creators, YouTubers, and celebrities, to market vaccines to younger Americans. At the same time, the CDC devoted $3 billion to community outreach efforts, with Vice President Harris and other officials coordinating with over 275 community groups.
Researchers funded by the NIH ran Facebook advertising experiments promoting vaccination, with Facebook itself providing financial and logistical support. Coordinated campaigns reached more than 25 million people and generated 171 million views, while Facebook supplied free advertising credits to amplify the message.
Obama’s Smith-Mundt modifications were also part of a broader transformation. They enabled infiltration and co-optation of universities, unions, media, politicians, and judges; allowed foreign policy establishment funding of groups that also work with prosecutors domestically and operate in media; provided dual-use grants to organizations active both internationally and at home; and facilitated social media censorship coordination between government agencies and private platforms.
Read the full article here