The Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 started with noble intentions: to engage in public diplomacy by promoting American values and countering propaganda abroad. But the 2012 amendments have brought unintended and troubling consequences. These changes have essentially cleared a path for government-crafted material—referred to as propaganda—to find its way into American households, all under the banner of “transparency.”
Initially, the Smith-Mundt Act was all about influencing foreign audiences for the sake of national interests. However, the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) made changes that now allow these foreign-directed messages better known as propaganda to be disseminated within the United States. Although the intent was to promote transparency and public scrutiny, the actual result is far more problematic.
A Missed Opportunity for Safeguards
One glaring omission in the 2012 amendments is the lack of a system for marking or flagging this material. If the real objective is transparency, why not make it mandatory to identify such content clearly? This oversight leaves the door wide open for this material to be co-opted for other purposes, leaving the American public none the wiser. The content could easily be weaponized for partisan gain or to muddy the waters of public discourse. The lack of safeguards is not just negligent; it’s flagrantly irresponsible. What we’re left with is a shadowy landscape where the line between information and propaganda is not just blurred—it’s obliterated.
Ethical Concerns That Can’t Be Ignored
By allowing material designed to influence foreign populations to circulate domestically, lawmakers have blurred the ethical lines. These materials are no longer isolated from the American public but can be integrated into domestic media channels without any clear labeling. This brings into question the very integrity of public discourse.
While the architects of the 2012 amendments may not have intended to flood American media with government-crafted messaging, we could have had a safeguard; a simple marking system would have sufficed to alert consumers of the media’s origin. Instead, lawmakers left the door ajar for unintended, or even nefarious, consequences. now we are, left to deal with the reality that our own government has the legal cover to distribute propaganda to us, thanks to a glaring “oversight” in legislation.
