https://youtu.be/SSRZfDL4874
The Scary Future of AI on Earth, Predicting & Deciding EVERYONES Future - Westworld Season 3
https://youtu.be/IeFJmkA_F-s
>OpenAI
"One distinction I'd keep on our research sheet
You often see this rendered online as:
“Obama repealed Smith–Mundt and legalized propaganda against Americans.”
That's too broad.
The original Smith–Mundt Act wasn't repealed. Congress amended its domestic-dissemination restrictions. The government agency affected by the law, now called the U.S. Agency for Global Media, describes the 2013 change as allowing its program material to be made available domestically upon request, subject to the other applicable statutory restrictions and standards.
And it didn't suddenly give CNN, Fox, NBC, newspapers, etc. permission to lie. Smith–Mundt governed U.S. government international information/broadcasting activities, not truthfulness rules for private American news organizations."
—-
"There were real, observable consequences of the 2013 Smith–Mundt change, but I haven't found a clean, documented case where an administration was caught saying, essentially, “Smith–Mundt now lets us secretly propagandize Americans, so we're doing it.” Some claims made about the amendment go considerably beyond what the law actually changed.
The clearest results are more mundane—but still interesting.
-
Government-funded foreign broadcasts became much easier to distribute inside America
Before modernization, outlets under what is now the U.S. Agency for Global Media—such as Voice of America—were principally producing material for foreign audiences, and the government faced restrictions on distributing that material domestically.
After July 2, 2013, USAGM could provide broadcast-quality material to people and organizations inside the United States upon request. That included U.S. broadcasters, universities, NGOs, publications and others. USAGM explicitly celebrated this as one of the law's practical effects.
So something like:
VOA creates Persian-language reporting for Iran → an Iranian-American broadcaster in the United States wants it → USAGM can provide the material domestically.
That's a genuine result of the change.
-
Americans could more readily receive material originally designed to influence/inform foreign audiences
This is the part that understandably raises eyebrows.
The statutory language expressly contemplated government information produced for foreign audiences through:
press, publications, radio, motion pictures, Internet and social media.
It also specifically says that the State Department/BBG shouldn't have to avoid a communications medium simply because Americans might also be exposed to the material.
That was particularly relevant once geographical boundaries became meaningless online.
Before the Internet, you could reasonably say:
“This radio station broadcasts into the Soviet Union.”
With Twitter/X, YouTube, websites and Facebook:
“This State Department content is intended for people overseas—but Americans can see and share it too.”
The modernization essentially acknowledged that reality.
-
What it didn't do is important
Congress actually retained language against using these programs to “influence public opinion or propagandizing in the United States.” The legislation also specifically applied the changes to the State Department and Broadcasting Board of Governors, not every federal agency.
USAGM likewise says it still isn't authorized to create programming for an American audience. Its programming remains aimed overseas.
Therefore the popular claim:
2013 → Obama legalized government propaganda against Americans
is too strong.
A more accurate description is:
2013 → Congress removed much of the firewall preventing foreign-targeted State Department/BBG material from being made available domestically, while retaining a prohibition against using those programs to propagandize Americans.
That's a much more interesting distinction anyway.
-
The biggest practical change may have been the Internet/social-media loophole problem
The legislation specifically says government foreign communications shouldn't be prohibited merely because a domestic audience “is or may be thereby exposed” to them."
"5. Critics warned about exactly that possibility
There were civil-liberties/media critics who argued that once government officials could make foreign-targeted material available domestically, the distinction between foreign public diplomacy and domestic persuasion could become blurry.
One watchdog specifically formed around monitoring Smith–Mundt argued that government officials could potentially push programs toward interested domestic broadcasters while technically characterizing the arrangement as permissible availability rather than domestic targeting. That's an allegation/interpretation by a critic, rather than proof that such a systematic abuse occurred.
So I'd put that in a “potential loophole / criticism” box rather than “documented abuse.”
-
There's an unexpected transparency benefit
This is the other side of the story that gets overlooked.
Americans were paying for this material but historically could have difficulty obtaining the finished products themselves.
After modernization:
American taxpayer → funds international broadcasting → American taxpayer can request/watch the resulting material.
USAGM actually argued that this provided greater transparency into publicly funded broadcasting.
That's a reasonable argument for the amendment.
And there's a very interesting 2025–26 development
Someone apparently shares your concern.
A bill introduced in the current Congress, H.R. 5704 — “Repeal the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2013,” would restore much stronger domestic-distribution restrictions.
Its proposed language explicitly says:
“No funds … may be used to influence public opinion in the United States.”
and would generally prohibit domestic distribution of USAGM program material except for specified transparency/oversight purposes.
Read H.R. 5704 on Congress.gov"
>this one includes costs and 1 AI correction
>"And that makes me want to correct one thing in the infographic we just made: the “Present — 427+ million weekly audience” and governance portions were too static for August 2026. The agency has gone through an enormous fight over its attempted shutdown since 2025. If we revisit that sheet, 2025–26 deserves its own large section rather than simply saying “Present.”