The Smith–Mundt Act: How the Obama Administration Opened the Door to Government Propaganda on U.S. Citizens

RP Deep Think:  For decades, the American people operated under an important safeguard—one that kept them insulated from their own government’s propaganda. This safeguard was the Smith–Mundt Act of 1948, a post-World War II measure that ensured the U.S. government could not use taxpayer-funded media campaigns to manipulate public opinion at home. It was a recognition that a free society relies on an independent press, not state-sponsored messaging masquerading as news.

But in 2013, the Obama administration quietly dismantled that firewall by passing the Smith–Mundt Modernization Act, stripping away protections that had been in place for over 65 years. Now, U.S. government agencies are legally permitted to disseminate state-produced content domestically, raising serious concerns about the potential for government overreach and media manipulation.

What Was the Smith–Mundt Act?

The Smith–Mundt Act, officially known as the U.S. Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948, was created in the aftermath of World War II to address two key issues:

1. The Need for Public Diplomacy – The U.S. sought to counter Soviet and other foreign propaganda abroad by broadcasting pro-American messaging through outlets like Voice of America (VOA) and other State Department-backed initiatives.
2. A Strict Ban on Domestic Propaganda – The government understood the inherent danger of state-controlled media influencing its own citizens. Thus, the Act explicitly banned U.S. government-created materials from being distributed within the country.

The principle was simple: Government propaganda is for foreign audiences, not the American people.

How the Obama Administration Reversed the Ban

For over six decades, this principle remained intact. That is, until 2013, when the Obama administration, through the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2013, repealed the domestic propaganda ban under the so-called Smith–Mundt Modernization Act.

The changes went into effect on July 2, 2013, and the implications were massive:

• Federal agencies, including the State Department and Department of Defense, can now legally create and distribute media content domestically.
• Taxpayer-funded broadcasts originally meant for foreign propaganda (such as Voice of America and Radio Free Europe) can now be repackaged for American audiences.
• Government officials now have a new, legally sanctioned tool for influencing domestic public opinion through “official” narratives.

This wasn’t just a procedural update. It was a fundamental shift in the relationship between the government, the press, and the American people. For the first time in modern history, Washington had given itself the green light to push official propaganda directly onto U.S. citizens.

The Dangerous Implications of Repealing Smith–Mundt

The Obama administration framed the repeal as a modernization effort, arguing that it was necessary to counteract misinformation in the digital age. But let’s be clear: this was a direct expansion of government influence over the flow of information.

Here’s why that should deeply concern every American:

1. Government-Backed Narratives Can Now Shape Public Opinion

With the repeal of Smith–Mundt, the government has the legal authority to fund, produce, and distribute media content that aligns with its policy objectives. That means official narratives on everything from foreign conflicts to domestic policy can now be crafted and presented to the public as "news."

The question is: If the government can create its own news, how does an independent press survive?

2. Taxpayer Dollars Are Funding Domestic Propaganda

Before the repeal, American tax dollars were at least limited to propaganda efforts abroad—justified as necessary in the battle against Soviet influence, radical jihadism, or foreign misinformation campaigns.

Now, those same funds are being used to influence Americans directly. The government is paying to shape the minds of its own citizens, using their own money.

3. The Line Between Journalism and State Messaging Is Blurred

An independent press is one of the cornerstones of a free society. But when the government has the ability to produce and distribute its own “news,” it competes with, influences, and even replaces traditional media outlets.

• Does an administration-friendly news outlet source stories from government-produced materials?
• Are independent journalists pressured to align their reporting with official narratives?
• How does the public distinguish between real news and state-sponsored messaging?

With Smith–Mundt repealed, these aren’t hypothetical concerns. They are happening right now.

4. What Happens When the “Wrong” Party Is in Power?

For those who support state-controlled media efforts because they trust the government now, what happens when the other side takes control?

A government with the power to legally spread its own domestic propaganda is a dangerous tool in the hands of any administration. What happens when:

• The government wants to suppress unfavorable narratives?
• Political dissent is framed as misinformation?
• Critical viewpoints are pushed out of the mainstream media landscape?

Government control of information is not a left vs. right issue—it’s an American issue. And once this power is granted, it doesn’t get rolled back.

Where Do We Go From Here?

The repeal of Smith–Mundt was a direct attack on the free flow of information in America. While its removal may not have seemed alarming at the time, we now see the effects in real-time:

• Government-produced content shaping public discourse.
• Legacy media increasingly relying on state-sponsored narratives.
• Dissenting voices being labeled as "misinformation" or "dangerous speech."

The question now is: How do we restore safeguards against government overreach in media?

Possible Solutions:

1. Reinstate a modernized version of the Smith–Mundt Act that once again prohibits government-produced media from being distributed domestically.
2. Increase transparency in state-produced content, requiring all government-funded media to be clearly labeled as such.
3. Strengthen protections for independent journalism, ensuring that the free press remains separate from government influence.

Final Thoughts

When the Obama administration quietly revoked Smith–Mundt, they didn’t just tweak a policy—they erased an essential safeguard against government overreach.

Today, we live in an era where our own government can legally engage in propaganda campaigns against its own citizens, using taxpayer dollars to craft, push, and reinforce official narratives.

That should concern every single American, regardless of party affiliation.

The fight for press independence and freedom from state-controlled messaging isn’t about left vs. right—it’s about whether the government should have the power to dictate the reality you live in.

The question is: What will we do to stop it?