Government Media Shouldn’t Compete with CNN or Fox News, Says Sebastian Gorka

Why It Matters

Redirecting public funds toward foreign‑focused media could reshape U.S. strategic communication while limiting government influence on the domestic news market. The stance signals a potential shift in how America counters authoritarian propaganda abroad.

Key Takeaways

• AGM funds VOA, RFE/RL targeting authoritarian regimes
• Gorka opposes government outlets competing with commercial news
• Taxpayer dollars should support foreign information operations only
• Cold War IO model influences current U.S. media strategy
• Debate highlights balance between public diplomacy and domestic media

Pulse Analysis

The Agency for Global Media (AGM) is the umbrella organization that oversees Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, and other U.S. government‑funded broadcasters. Established during the Cold War, its original mission was to deliver uncensored news behind the Iron Curtain, countering Soviet propaganda. Today, AGM still operates under a public‑diplomacy charter, aiming to provide reliable information in countries where press freedom is restricted, such as North Korea, Iran, and Belarus. By maintaining editorial independence from domestic commercial networks, AGM seeks to preserve credibility while advancing U.S. foreign‑policy objectives.

Sebastian Gorka’s recent comments reinforce a long‑standing viewpoint that government media should focus exclusively on external audiences rather than entering the competitive U.S. news arena. He argues that taxpayer dollars are better spent on strategic information operations that weaken dictatorial regimes, rather than on domestic programming that would place the government in direct competition with CNN, Fox News, or other private outlets. Gorka’s stance reflects concerns about potential conflicts of interest, the risk of politicizing public broadcasters, and the desire to keep the U.S. media market free from government‑run competition.

The debate has practical implications for congressional appropriations and the future of U.S. public diplomacy. If policymakers adopt Gorka’s recommendation, funding could be reallocated to expand multilingual services, enhance digital platforms, and increase on‑the‑ground reporting in hostile environments. Conversely, critics warn that narrowing the scope of government media might reduce the United States’ ability to shape narratives in a fragmented global information ecosystem. Ultimately, the discussion underscores the delicate balance between safeguarding democratic media markets at home and leveraging state‑funded outlets to combat authoritarian disinformation abroad.

Original Description

“I would like to return to a place where government news entities are driving a stake through the heart of dictatorial regimes like North Korea, like Iran,” says Sebastian Gorka, deputy assistant to the president and senior director for counterterrorism at the National Security Council. “That’s what I’d like to see, because that’s what the taxpayers should be funding and nothing else.”

Gorka references the Agency for Global Media (AGM)—the U.S. government agency that oversees Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), and other publicly funded outlets—and briefly mentions Cold War–era information operations (IO).

Subscribe to our channel: https://goo.gl/WCYsH7

This work represents the views and opinions solely of the author. The Council on Foreign Relations is an independent, nonpartisan membership organization, think tank, and publisher, and takes no institutional positions on matters of policy.

Visit the CFR website: http://www.cfr.org

Follow CFR on X: http://www.twitter.com/cfr_org

Follow CFR on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/councilonforeignrelations/