The Role of NGOs in Defunding and Censoring Media Outlets and Podcasters Advocating America-First Policies

The Role of NGOs in Defunding and Censoring Media Outlets and Podcasters Advocating America-First Policies

The influence of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in shaping public discourse by targeting media outlets and podcasters who advocate for policies prioritizing American interests, often referred to as "America-first" policies has become disconcerting, to say the least. These NGOs, funded by a mix of government grants, private donations, and international sources, have been orchestrating efforts to defund and censor voices that challenge socialist or globalist narratives.

NGOs are nonprofit entities that operate independently of government control, often purporting to focus on advocacy, human rights, or social change. While many NGOs do serve vital roles in promoting values and humanitarian causes, some have been overstepping their mandates, particularly when their actions suppress dissenting voices. In the context of America-first media outlets and podcasters, NGOs have been linked to coordinated campaigns aimed at limiting their reach, either by pressuring advertisers to withdraw funding or by flagging content for censorship on social media platforms, operating as social terrorists. Their efforts say, "Agree with us or we will destroy you."

The rise of these efforts coincides with broader debates about misinformation, disinformation, and the role of media in shaping public opinion. NGOs exploit these concerns to silence voices that diverge from their establishment narratives, particularly those emphasizing national sovereignty, border security, or economic policies favoring American citizens.

Several NGOs have been identified in reports and investigations for their roles in targeting conservative or America-first media outlets and podcasters with their terrorist attacks of propaganda and focus on . Below are some of the most prominent organizations and their alleged activities:

1. National Endowment for Democracy (NED)

   The National Endowment for Democracy, a quasi-independent organization heavily funded by the U.S. government, has been accused of facilitating censorship efforts through its grants. A 2025 report by the Center for Renewing America highlighted NED’s role in funneling funds to the Global Disinformation Index (GDI), a British organization that labels conservative media outlets as sources of disinformation. GDI’s “exclusion lists” targeted outlets such as The Daily Wire, The Federalist, Newsmax, and The New York Post, flagging them as “risky” to advertisers, which led to reduced ad revenue for these publications. Critics argue that NED, despite its stated mission to promote democracy abroad, has indirectly supported domestic censorship by funding GDI’s operations.

   
   

2. Global Disinformation Index (GDI)

   GDI, though not a U.S.-based NGO, has worked closely with American entities and received funding from NED and the U.S. State Department’s Global Engagement Center (GEC). GDI’s methodology involves rating news outlets based on their perceived risk of spreading disinformation, often disproportionately targeting conservative or America-first platforms. By sharing these ratings with advertisers and tech companies, GDI has effectively pressured corporations to pull advertising from outlets like The Blaze and One America News, limiting their financial viability. This approach has been criticized as a form of economic censorship, as it starves targeted outlets of revenue without directly banning their content.

   
   

3. Election Integrity Partnership (EIP)

   The Election Integrity Partnership, a collaboration involving NGOs like the Stanford Internet Observatory and the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab, has been implicated in censoring content during the 2020 U.S. presidential election. The EIP worked with social media companies and government agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security, to flag posts for removal or suppression. According to reports, much of the flagged content came from conservative figures and media outlets advocating America-first policies, raising concerns about viewpoint discrimination. The EIP’s partnerships with Big Tech and federal agencies have sparked accusations of a “censorship-industrial complex” that stifles free speech under the guise of combating misinformation.

   
   

4. U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and Global Engagement Center (GEC)

   While not traditional NGOs, USAID and the now-defunct GEC (shuttered in December 2024) have collaborated with NGOs to advance censorship initiatives. Documents obtained by America First Legal in 2025 revealed that USAID and GEC worked with organizations like Poynter and NewsGuard to develop AI-driven tools to identify and suppress “misinformation.” These tools were often used to target content critical of globalist policies or supportive of America-first agendas, such as skepticism about open borders or COVID-19 mandates. The collaboration extended to foreign governments, including the UK’s Foreign, Commonwealth, and Development Office, raising questions about the propriety of U.S. agencies influencing domestic speech.

The NGOs involved employ several strategies to defund and censor America-first media and podcasters:

Organizations like GDI create lists of “risky” media outlets, which are shared with advertising firms and tech platforms. These lists discourage advertisers from placing ads on targeted sites, effectively cutting off their revenue streams. For example, GDI’s partnerships with companies like Xandr (owned by Microsoft) have led to the demonetization of conservative websites.

NGOs collaborate with Big Tech to flag content for removal or algorithmic downgrading. The EIP, for instance, worked with platforms like Facebook to suppress posts deemed to contain “misinformation,” often targeting conservative voices. This practice limits the visibility of America-first podcasters and media personalities, reducing their audience reach.

Many of these NGOs receive substantial federal funding, which critics argue gives them undue influence over public discourse. The NED, for example, received hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars annually, some of which supported GDI’s censorship efforts. This blurring of lines between government and NGO activities has raised concerns about state-sponsored censorship.

Some NGOs engage in public campaigns to shame media outlets or podcasters, labeling them as propagandists or disinformation spreaders. For instance, the Norwegian Helsinki Committee, funded in part by NED, has been accused of targeting academics and journalists who question globalist narratives, using social media to incite harassment and pressure event organizers to cancel appearances. While this example is international, it reflects a broader tactic used by NGOs to silence dissent.

Several high-profile media outlets and podcasters have faced defunding or censorship due to their America-first stances:

• The Daily Wire: As a leading conservative outlet, The Daily Wire was flagged by GDI as a “risky” source, leading to reduced ad revenue. Its advocacy for policies like border security and economic nationalism made it a prime target for NGOs aiming to curb conservative influence.

• Andy Ngo: A journalist and podcaster known for covering antifa and critiquing progressive policies, Andy Ngo has faced relentless attacks from NGOs and activist groups. His events have been targeted for cancellation, and his social media presence has been subjected to harassment campaigns, often amplified by NGOs claiming to combat disinformation.

• Fox News and Conservative Talk Shows: Posts on X have highlighted dozens of NGOs receiving federal funds to pressure advertisers to stop buying ads on Fox News, as well as other platforms like The Post Millennial and Glenn Beck’s The Blaze. These efforts aim to economically weaken outlets that prioritize American interests.

The actions of these NGOs raise significant concerns about the state of free speech in the United States. By targeting media outlets and podcasters for their political views, these organizations risk undermining the First Amendment’s protections for freedom of expression as they cross over the line into economic and social terrorism. The collaboration between NGOs, government agencies, and Big Tech further complicates the issue, as it creates a network that can suppress speech without direct government intervention, thus evading constitutional scrutiny.

Moreover, the reliance on vague terms like “disinformation” allows NGOs to cast a wide net, potentially silencing legitimate debate. For example, advocacy for America-first policies—such as prioritizing domestic manufacturing or securing borders—can be labeled as xenophobic or misleading, even when grounded in factual arguments. This selective targeting disproportionately affects conservative voices, leading to viewpoint discrimination.

The economic impact on targeted outlets is equally troubling. By cutting off ad revenue, NGOs can effectively bankrupt independent media, reducing the diversity of perspectives available to the public. This tactic is particularly damaging to podcasters and smaller outlets that lack the financial reserves of mainstream media conglomerates.

In response to the concerns of these NGO terrorists, lawmakers and advocacy groups have begun investigating NGO activities. In 2023, congressional committees launched probes into the State Department’s connections with GDI, leading to NED’s announcement that it would cease funding the organization. Microsoft also suspended its partnership with Xandr after public outcry over its role in demonetizing conservative media.

Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.) has been a vocal critic, leading a 2025 Senate hearing to examine NGOs’ roles in censorship during the Biden administration. Schmitt’s efforts build on his earlier lawsuit as Missouri’s attorney general, which exposed coordination between federal agencies and tech companies to suppress speech. Proposed legislation aims to hold social media companies and bureaucrats accountable for censorship, though challenges remain in regulating NGOs without infringing on their legitimate activities.

Conclusion

The involvement of NGOs like NED, GDI, and the Election Integrity Partnership in defunding and censoring America-first media outlets and podcasters highlights a troubling trend in the battle over free speech and the terrorist style tactics used against it. While these organizations claim to combat disinformation, their methods—economic pressure, content flagging, and public shaming—often target specific viewpoints they wish to silence, raising questions not only about their impartiality, but it's becoming increasingly clear that their motives parallel terrorist activity on social and economic levels. The collaboration between NGOs, government agencies, and Big Tech amplifies their influence, creating a complex web that threatens media independence and public discourse and undermines the ability of the government to serve the people.

As the debate continues, policymakers, journalists, and citizens must critically examine the role of NGOs in shaping how information flows. Balancing the need to address genuine misinformation with the imperative to protect free expression is a delicate task, but one that is essential to preserving a vibrant and diverse media landscape. For now, the voices advocating for America-first policies face an uphill battle against well-funded NGOs determined to limit their reach—but growing public awareness and legislative scrutiny may yet shift the tide if Americans can manage to remove the politicians and judges these NGOs control.