The Control of Information.
How the rich and powerful shape the media and control your mind. By Dr. Judith Brown
Europe and its information control tactics – Part 1
The funding of European fact checkers.
“About $8.4 million in taxpayers funds were obligated to Portico over the 12 months ending September 30 2024…” White House statement, February 2025.
“We have never received any government funding – no subsidies, no grants, no handouts…(but when government agencies subscribe) this is not funding. It is a transaction”. Editor, John Harris, Portico, February 2025.
n.b., Portico is an online news platform, and a fact check platform, owned by the Poynter Institute that heads the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN).
Fact checking and funders.
Although it is difficult to assess the exact cost of the fact checking industry globally, it is almost certainly a billion-dollar industry. This extensive industry has an enormous reach, across every country worldwide. Yet it barely existed 15 years ago, and it exists only because policy makers, governments and corporations are prepared to pay in order to censor information. The fact check industry does not create a product to sell and it is almost entirely subsidised by those who wish to control information. Some funding comes from large media corporations and from social media companies, but a significant proportion of its income is from governments, i.e. from taxpayers. We are paying in order to be surveilled, to have our voices censored, and to have information that will increase our knowledge and understanding kept from us. Moreover, through our taxes those in the comparatively affluent West are paying for surveillance, censorship, and restriction of information for those in other parts of the world. Although the excuse for such expenditure is for ‘protection’ from ‘bad’ information, adults do not need protection from words and knowledge. For millennia, adults have made up their own minds about what is best for them and their families, and those working in the fact check industry have no additional skills to those that other people possess.
Because of a change of administration in the United States, in the early part of 2025 the cost to the US taxpayer for this disservice was being publicised, hence at time of writing this is a ‘hot button’ issue. Many of the costs of content moderation in Eastern Europe in particular were borne by the US taxpayer. However, although less publicised, Europeans also fund censorship in other parts of the world to the country where they reside. This document considers the funding of the fact check industry in Europe, with the exception of the UK that has been analysed separately. UK reports can be found in The Control of Information archives.
Soft power and profit.
When a foreign power invests in censorship in another country, it does so for political reasons; the organisations involved in such activities are called ‘soft power’. Some soft power organisations, such as the American US Agency for International Development (USAID), the American National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and the British Open Information Partnership (OIP) are linked to military intelligence. The reason for soft power influence is to protect national interests overseas. This can have a useful purpose, for example, if soft power organisations prevent unrest, then this keeps essential supply chains to the home country operating. If a foreign country is viewed favourably, then this can facilitate trade. However, many believe that in the 21st Century, Western governments use soft power for nefarious reasons, for example, to overthrow elected governments that global policy makers do not like.
When corporations invest in censorship, inevitably this is for commercial reasons. Firstly, censorship may be normalised or legalised, in which case it would be costly not to comply. Secondly, those who head large corporations are close to those in power. They may share the same values, they may help in formulating policy, and this helps their businesses to flourish. These large corporations include the owners of the mainstream media and social media.
Who funds the European fact check industry?
The funding of the European fact check industry in 2023 was significantly different in the states that previously were in the Soviet bloc, and those that were not. Hence, this report divides European countries into two sections. At this time there were 98 fact check platforms in Western Europe and 57 in Eastern Europe, plus Facebook had six fact checking contracts in each of the following areas: Russian speaking Ukraine, Belarus and Russia.
As explained earlier, it is difficult to track funding of organisations working in the fact check industry, as most provide no information or incomplete information on their websites. Some information on funding can be found by looking at the activities if each group, for example, they will receive remuneration if they participate in the EU or Meta projects. Another route is examining funders’ websites to check if they list those belonging to their programme, or examining investigative reports into censorship, mostly produced by journalists who do not work in the mainstream media.
Amongst the 98 Western European fact check platforms that were located, 48 were attached to a media company, this included broadcasters and the press. It is assumed that these fact checking operations were fully or partly funded by their owners. 34 received remuneration from the EU, and six received funding from their own governments. Only one received funding directly from the USA, and four received funds from Canada or another European government. Nine received funds from European, mostly German, philanthropists, and eight received funds from American philanthropists, including the Open Society, Ford Foundation, and Luminate.
Social media was an important source of funding in 2023. 35 received funding from Meta, and five from Google. Five received funds from journalists’ organisations, such as the Belgian Journalists Fund. Most other funding, either declared or found via investigations, was minor.
Of the 57 platforms in Eastern Europe, 12 were linked to media corporations. As in Western Europe it is assumed that the owners funded some or all fact checking activities. However, as has been recently revealed, many media companies operating in Eastern Europe are backed by American funding. For example, USAID has funded nine out of ten media outlets in Ukraine; more than 6,200 journalists from 707 media outlets and 279 non-profit non-governmental organizationS [1] here. 16 Eastern platforms received funds from the EU. As fact check platforms are paid to participate in policy making EU groups, it seems that platforms in Eastern Europe were less involved in these activities in 2023, compared to those in the West. Four received funds from their own government. The direct investment of American and other governments in fact checking was higher than in Western Europe however, with ten (18%) receiving funds direct from the American government, and nine (16%) receiving funds from other governments. However, funding was not always direct from governments but also included European, American and British government funding via organisations such as the European Endowment Fund (EED) (3), USAID (2), NED (4), the American German Marshall Fund (GMF) (3), the American Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) (1), the American Internews that is associated with the World Economic Forum (WEF) (1) and the British Open Information Partnership (OIP) (5). George Soros’s foundation, Open Society, is the most prominent philanthropist donating to Eastern Europe. Social media corporations, especially Meta, provided significant funding in 2023.
How are think tanks linked to the fact check industry funded?
Think tanks, networking organisations, and large NGOs are significant contributors to censorship in Europe, but only twenty-four were found with a direct link to the fact check industry and are included in this report. For example, some have a fact check platform partner, or have produced reports on mis- and dis-information. It is possible that many more think tanks and NGO are involved in the censorship industry. Many of the functions of these groups will be discussed in detail in a later report, but this report deals with funding issues.
Some think tanks and networking organisations appear to be fully funded by the EU, such as the European Digital Media Observatory (EDMO). Others list the EU as contributing to their income, such as the Croatian Think Tank GONG, that also lists other funders including Open Society and foreign embassies [2] here. Other think tanks are less open concerning their funding. For example, no funding sources were found on the Lithuanian think tank Debunk.org [3] here, but an internet search found the website Wikiwand that reported Debunk’s funding [4] here. Wikiwand listed funders as the American Global Engagement Center (GEC) that was frequently named in the Twitter files expose as channelling American funds to the censorship industry. It has now been closed down. Another funder, the Digital Forensic Research Lab (DFR Lab) was also criticised in the same report. The DFR is the fact checking wing of the Atlantic Council, a think tank that is partnered with NATO. Other named funders included Google, the UK Foreign Office (UKFCO), and the American GMF. No other sources were found that reported the same funding sources. Other think tanks were more open concerning their funding, for example, the Hungarian Political Capital lists 29 supporters, 25 international partners, and 20 Hungarian professional partners on its website [5] here. Many of the same funding names recur throughout the fact check network, such as the Open Society, OIP, NED, various EU departments, some European foundations, and NATO. Even when funders appear to be local, Western governments often donate for soft power influence. The Visigrad Fund belongs to Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic, but now external donor countries are allowed to fund, including Canada and the USA. Hence, the ‘soft power’ of the USA, the UK, and European governments has focussed on the fact check industry, censoring information that does not comply with their political aims. This is particularly apparent in Eastern Europe.
Censorship Funding
In the early part of 2025, the funding for European fact checking activities became unstable due to changes occurring in the USA. This includes the closure of the Global Engagement Center that funnelled the US government funds to the censorship industry [6] here, USAID whose activities were restricted in the early part of 2025, together with at least two other organisations with USAID links (OCCRP and Internews) [7] here, and changes in the policies of the two largest social media corporations, X (formerly Twitter) and Meta, that owns Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp [8] here.
Until 2025, USAID, amongst other activities, provided funding for fact checking activities worldwide, including in Eastern Europe. Its activities were reduced by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) in February 2025, its website was removed, and hundreds of staff were made redundant. Secretary of State Rubio was appointed as acting administrator [9] here. USAID funding in 2022 amounted to over US$30 billion; after its closure, the chair of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the White House listed projects that they considered wasteful [10] here and [11] here. USAID is a soft power organisation that took on many of the activities of the American Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) when it was formed. Mike Benz, a cyber security expert and media freedom researcher describes USAID as a deep state organisation, and its functions include propaganda and censorship activities. For example, it provided funding to the investigative journalism group OCCRP, who wrote state funded hit pieces that influenced judiciaries to arrest enemies of the state [12] here. Benz stated that this system also controlled the judiciary - when independent local judiciary members did not cooperate with US demands, they were themselves removed. Although this study only found two European fact check platforms that disclosed USAID funding, it is likely that there were far more. Out of five platforms found in Ukraine only one admitted to USAID funding in 2023, but the closure of USAID in 2025 had an immediate impact on the Ukraine media; it is now stated that two thirds of funding came from USAID [13] here.
Four platforms were found in Eastern Europe that listed funding from the NED. NED has long been seen as an arm of the US overseas regime change and political influence efforts. In an interview with the Washington Post in 1991, the founder admitted that ‘a lot of what we do today was done covertly by the CIA 25 years ago [14] here. Board members include the designer of the Atlantic Council’s DFR Lab, the managing director of Google, and Anna Applebaum, a journalist who claims to be a ‘disinformation expert’ despite supporting claims that were later found to be inaccurate [15] here.
NED has long been associated with the fact check industry. For example, since at least 2017 it has funded Bellingcat, described as specialising in psyops and a NATO propaganda outfit. A board member is Francis Fukuyama, who has considered the possibility of removing the First Amendment. NED also has funded the British Global Disinformation Index (GDI), making grants of over US$500,000 between 2020 and 2021. The GDI helps to defund media organisations that do not follow approved narratives – more details are found in the archives [16] here. NED also funds the Poynter Institute, the centre of the fact check industry, and the owner of the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN)[17] here.
Only one fact check platform in Eastern Europe was found that was funded by OCCRP in 2023, although there may be more, as OCCRP has 70 regional centres, and Eastern Europe is close to Russia that has been a target of some of their investigations. OCCRP is one of the largest investigative journalism organisations in the world, publishing several important scoops. One was the Panama Papers, which revealed more than 11 million confidential documents relating to tax avoidance by over 140 heads of state and political leaders around the world, particularly embarrassing Russian. Founded in 2008, OCCRP now manages journalists on six continents, with 200 employees and offices in Washington DC, Amsterdam and Sarajevo. It has an annual budget of US$22 million. It receives grants via organisations such as USAID and Burean of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL); it is structurally dependent on the US government, from which it has received massive funding. As proof of their close relationship, cooperation documents exist that empower the US government to approve OCCRP personnel. Its grants target investigations of US enemies, such as Russia and Venezuela Although the OCCRP claims independence, it rarely does hit pieces on the US, although there have been a small number of unimportant reports on US indiscretions [18] here. One exception to this is hit pieces on President Trump, which is reported in the next Substack issue – Trump is considered an anti-establishment figure.
Compare this to the Wikileaks outfit, that does not receive any US government funding, but has been free to raise serious concerns about illegal activities by the US government and its military. Rather than funding Wikileaks as the OCCRP was funded, the US conducted a long campaign of persecution against Wikileaks and its founder, Julian Assange, because this media organisation was truly independent.
OCCRP received US taxpayers’ money, via USAID, to the tune of US$20 million annually for its investigative reporting. These state sponsored hit pieces were able to generate US$44.5 billion in fines and resulted in 548 policy changes in countries outside USA. Although USAID justified these profitable investigative programmes as ‘capacity building’, Benz stated that the real purpose was to ruin lives and go after political targets in order to change foreign governments’ policies from the inside; USAID was shaping the internal policies of other governments [19] here.
Another funder that has been outed in recent investigations is Internews, which has received funding of just under US$500 million from the US government via USAID [20] here. In 2023 it operated one fact check platform in Kosovo. A recent communication by Wikileaks X states that since 2008, 95% of its income was from the US government [21] here. However, the Internews website lists corporations and foundations linked to those with immense wealth as co-funders. It is a non-profit in the US and France, and is registered as a charity in the UK. Internews is involved with 4,291 media outlets worldwide, in one year producing 4,799 hours of broadcasts, reaching up to 778 million people. In 2023, it trained over 9,000 journalists. It has offices in 30 countries, including main offices in the US, London, Paris, Nairobi, Bangkok and Kyiv [22] here.
Internews was divided into three sections in 2023, Internews, United for News, and Ads for News. United for News is partnered with the WEF [23] here. In February 2025 Ads for News website was no longer available, and any evidence of its existence has been erased from the Internews website although evidence of its existence and links with Internews was found in an old advertisement for a senior executive [24] here. Ads for News, which may have been closed down, was a demonetarisation organisation, using advertising revenue to control published information, on the pretext of protecting the reputation of brands. In 2023, the Internews website described its main function as interaction with local broadcasters and press outlets worldwide to assist them to move online. This of course has commercial advantages, but also it makes it much easier for content to be monitored by the fact check industry. After this Internews intervention, Ads for News found advertisers for those media outlets whose reports complied with approved narratives.
This initiative is no longer the main focus of Internews operation in 2025 [25] here. Instead, its website describes a range of initiatives including:
‘…educating citizens and journalists about the role of a responsible media sector, fostering critical thinking and media literacy, increasing the quality and quantity of reporting by local journalists, helping media improve their online offerings and supporting traditional media in their efforts to go digital, providing legal support to journalists and media outlets, and reforming media legislation to better protect the freedom of speech and the press’.
Hence clearly Internews is involved with training journalists to operate to meet their content moderation specifications. They also operate media literacy training programme to ‘brainwash’ citizens into thinking in a particular manner, influence the local judiciary, and lobby to ensure that European legislation complies with censorship policies that benefit organisations that censor. For example, in November 2024 Internews announced a grant of 10.5 million Euros to establish a media network to sustain ‘healthy information ecosystems’ [26] here. With the reduction in its income from USAID, Internews will need to reach new donors with deep pockets.
Other funders mentioned in this article, such as the DFR, Global Engagement Centre, and the GMF have been extensively examined by American journalists Matt Taibbi, Mark Shellenberger and Lee Fang as part of the Twitter files investigations.
Social media funding.
Facebook has been the biggest single funding source of the fact check industry. In Europe, in 2023, it had 77 contracts within European countries, plus 18 others where fact check platforms were contracted to operate across borders, making 99 contracts in all. It is unclear how much each contract is worth, but where such figures are available, for example, Ellinika Hoaxes in Greece, this programme pays several hundred thousand dollars per year. Meta proposes to end its third-party fact checking programme that provides much of the fact check platforms’ funding. It is moving to a ‘community notes’ system and again it is unclear who will operate this, and how the workload will compare; it is also unclear when the new system will be implemented outside the USA. Where Facebook contracts cross borders in Russia, Belarus, and the Russian speaking part of Ukraine, presumably Western governments may still desire some form of surveillance of social media content.
This is a sensitive issue, as the EU and the UK have draconian censorship legislation already enacted, that requires large social media corporations to moderate content. Facebook is in currently in negotiations with the EU and presumably with the UK, as is the social media platform X.
Uncertainty prevails.
This study revealed that the US government and US social media corporations provided the majority of censorship funding in Europe in 2023. Although the EU and the UK government provide funding, and the CIA linked Google search engine has not announced any plans to change its funding policy, nevertheless funding has been slashed. Income will be insufficient for the censorship industry to continue its current level of operations. This leaves the fact check industry in a state of uncertainty. Although the immensely wealthy have funded censorship activities over the past few years, it is unclear whether they will be willing to bridge the massive hole that has appeared in the last few months.
Additionally, it is unclear what type of censorship activities will be required on major European social media programmes. Elon Musk, one of the wealthiest people in the world, purchased the social media platform Twitter (now renamed as X) in 2022, and stated that his motivation in this purchase was to remove some restrictions on that platform. It is not known when proposed Meta changes will happen in Europe. A number of Facebook activities related to cross border operations into countries hostile to US interests.
Social media giants face a dilemma – they cannot censor the posts of Americans and if they do so they will face negative consequences, but under current laws they will be required to censor posts in Europe, with huge penalties for non-compliance. Questions arise, such as what will happen to the uncensored posts of Americans that reach the European markets. Europe and North America are two huge markets for social media corporations, and it will pose administrative challenges to operate two opposing systems from areas of the globe that have frequent cross-posting.
In 2023, many censorship funders were ‘CIA cutout’ organisations, linked to American intelligence. Whilst much of this network was dismantled very rapidly in 2025, it is unclear how American soft power operations will be funded in future. Although there is a new administration in USA, those in power will still see a need to exert influence to protect their own country’s interests, and at the moment it is unclear how and when new systems will be installed, and what restrictions the new system will inevitably impose.
The control of information options.
At the time of writing, there are no new restrictions in the activities of media literacy platforms in USA. These are already growing rapidly and are a worrying development. Journalists, children, and students are influenced to only accept information from approved sources, by using psychological techniques to influence and control minds. Trainees are encouraged to consider alternative views as dangerous or ‘hate speech’. They are trained to view those who have alternative views, even if they are educated and experienced in the areas in which they are making contributions, as imposters. They are told that ‘science is settled’, and any who challenge science are wrong. They are told that those who challenge accepted narratives do this for financial gain, or because they are evil, or because they are gullible and have been fooled. In Europe, media literacy training has become entrenched, and educational institutions have an obligation to train young minds under the new censorship programmes.
Conclusion.
The manner in which censorship has been funded in Eastern and Western Europe shows significant differences in the style of funding. In particular, in 2023 fact checking operations in countries that were previously in the Soviet Bloc were heavily funded by American governments, either directly or via soft power organisations. The US focus on countries that previously were subject to Russian influence demonstrates the American desire to tightly control discourse and policies in this area. This would be helpful if the intentions were to create a more peaceful and cooperative world. Unfortunately, the opposite is true, as political commentators have demonstrated that in the political, legal, and communication worlds the US has forcibly dominated policy, an action that has often been divisive and has led to war. Some of these soft power organisations were rapidly dismantled in 2025, leaving a hole in income available for censorship activities, and a potential hole in American influence in Eastern Europe and elsewhere.
The most significant soft power organisation that has closed down is USAID. Although this has resulted in protests, the humanitarian functions of USAID were only one part of its activities. Its main functions included funnelling funds to other organisations that were structurally dependent on the US government for their existence, and hence were unable to function independently.
The EU disinformation programme invites fact check platform members to participate in activities and for this they receive remuneration. In 2023, Western fact check platforms were more likely to participate than their Eastern partners, although this may be due to the West having more established platforms. These activities are likely to continue in order to plan how best to continue censorship and propaganda activities, without which they would be redundant.
The desire by those in power, and those with immense wealth, to control information has not diminished. They will already be preparing to overcome the new obstacles to censorship activities. Those who wish to remain independent and free still have a struggle ahead.