Imagine a world where truth is a battlefield, and the weapons are words. That’s the scenario painted by the author, a director of an international fact-checking network, as they chronicle a disturbing trend: the deliberate dismantling of tools designed to help us discern fact from fiction. At the heart of this disruption, they argue, is a concerted effort by figures like former President Donald Trump and his Republican allies, both in the US and globally, to undermine fact-checking journalism. Their actions, once seemingly aimed at controlling narratives, are now backfiring spectacularly. The author points to Iran, a country often outmatched in traditional warfare, as a surprising victor in the information war. Iran’s arsenal consists of viral “Lego videos,” outrageous claims like the death of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (who is very much alive), and a steady stream of anti-Trump propaganda. What’s truly concerning, the author notes, is evidence that Russia and China are amplifying these Iranian messages, creating a tsunami of disinformation. Suddenly, the very people who sought to dismantle fact-checking are on the receiving end, scrambling for solutions that are met with skepticism worldwide. The State Department’s weak directive to embassies to correct the record on X (formerly Twitter) feels like a band-aid on a gaping wound – a stark contrast to the aggressive efforts previously made to undermine accuracy safeguards.
The author recounts witnessing firsthand how Trump and his allies celebrated when Meta, the parent company of Facebook, dismantled its US fact-checking program. Trump still brags about it. The narrative deepens with Elon Musk’s involvement, joining the administration in gutting the US Agency for International Development (USAID), a vital organization that funded countless independent fact-checking initiatives globally. Even academic research into disinformation and independent journalism, once seen as crucial to a healthy democracy, is under attack, rebranded by congressional committees as a “censorship industrial complex.” It’s a disheartening trend for the author, who has dedicated their career to promoting accuracy. They explain that this isn’t just about fact-checkers; Trump’s crosshairs have extended to any institution capable of independent verification and resistance to political pressure – journalists, universities, medicine, the legal profession, and science itself. The author posits that this mentality, which systematically strips away safeguards against misinformation, is now delivering “terrible dividends.”
The shift from professional fact-checking to “community notes” on platforms like X and Meta, while theoretically promising, has proven deeply flawed in practice. The author cites Carlos Hernández-Echevarría, a policy expert from a Spanish fact-checking group, who highlights how bad actors can easily manipulate the system, and how casual users quickly lose motivation to contribute when their notes are suppressed. He paints a picture of a vicious cycle: tired users stop writing, leading to a reliance on AI-generated notes that lack sufficient ratings. Hernández-Echevarría starkly labels it a “poor excuse for an anti-disinformation effort.” The data supports this grim assessment: in the first half of 2026, European fact-checkers attached notes to a staggering 35 million Facebook posts, while in the US, a mere 900 community notes appeared. The author emphasizes that professional fact-checkers bring a tenacity and dedication that ordinary users simply cannot replicate. Beyond platforms, the impact of defunding efforts is even more profound. The author reveals that after Musk’s metaphorical “wood chipper” treatment of USAID, independent and pro-democracy media lost an estimated $247 million annually. This financial blow decimated programs specifically designed to counter false narratives from autocratic regimes like Iran, impacting regions from the Middle East and Africa to Ukraine, Eastern Europe, and Latin America. These programs, built over decades to foster democracy, were also highly effective at debunking disinformation.
The challenges don’t end with political attacks; a lack of sustainable business models is further eroding independent journalism. As people increasingly rely on AI for information, publishers are seeing their website traffic dwindle, directly impacting their ability to generate revenue through subscriptions and advertising. The author raises a critical concern: if publishers can no longer sustain themselves, the very source of high-quality information that feeds AI is at risk. This creates a negative feedback loop: less journalism online means less content for AI, leading to a degradation of the information ecosystem as a whole. Yet, amidst this onslaught, the fact-checking community exhibits remarkable resilience. The author notes that out of 14 US fact-checking newsrooms that were part of the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) when Meta made its controversial announcement, nine are still actively producing fact checks. This includes major wire services like Reuters and The Associated Press, alongside stalwarts like PolitiFact and FactCheck.org. The output from organizations like Agence France-Presse (AFP) further underscores the critical need for their work: 744 fact checks were published in March, a significant jump from 480 in February, with a remarkable 72% focusing on Iran-related claims. The demand for this exhaustive work, the author argues, is undeniable.
The resilience isn’t limited to the US. Worldwide, newsrooms dedicated to challenging false narratives around ongoing conflicts are also persevering. Research from the IFCN shows that despite widespread difficulties, fact-checkers are seeing growing audiences. The author strongly believes that this vital information infrastructure can be sustained, provided effective funding models are found. They express doubt that the current administration will grasp the gravity of the “information peril” we face, or that even losing an information war would deter Trump from attacking independent information sources. The author then poses a poignant question: will others in government step up to defend fact-checking at this crucial juncture? Their answer is candid: “I don’t know.” What they do know, however, is the unwavering conviction of fact-checkers themselves. Katie Sanders, editor-in-chief of PolitiFact, articulates this conviction: “Nonpartisanship is what separates us from the rest of the noise of the internet.” She emphasizes that while many can “fact-check with a point of view,” its value pales in comparison to neutral, meticulously reported efforts.
The author concludes with a powerful testament to the unwavering spirit of those on the front lines of truth. No one they’ve spoken with is ready to surrender. Laura Zommer of Factchequeado, a fact-checker from Argentina – a country with a history of coups, economic collapses, and authoritarian regimes – recognized the early warning signs in the US long before many Americans. For her, the image of tech CEOs applauding at Trump’s inauguration was chilling, a clear signal that the tech sector was taking sides in politics. Despite the immense challenges, Zommer remains defiantly committed. “We are not doing great, but we are in resistance mode, and I’m confident we’re going to continue,” she asserts. Her words resonate with a profound sense of responsibility: “It’s exactly this time when we need to be doing a history of the facts, creating archives, doing testimonials for the people that won’t listen. If we give up, who’s going to do it?” This final thought leaves the reader with a stark choice: to succumb to the tide of misinformation, or to join those who bravely stand as guardians of truth, ensuring that facts endure for future generations.