Supporters of President Donald Trump are urging him to issue an executive order to repeal a so-called “propaganda bill” that former President Barack Obama signed into law.
One X user with more than 15,000 followers shared an image of Obama and stated, “Do you want President Trump to sign an executive order to remove the ‘Propaganda Bill’ Obama signed, which allowed government officials and media to spread propaganda without fear of punishment?”
The claim that the president has the authority to repeal enacted federal legislation through an executive order is false. The post appears to be referencing a provision included in the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), but the description of that provision as allowing “government officials and media to spread propaganda” is misleading.
In 2012, two House members—former GOP Rep. Mac Thornberry of Texas and current Democratic Rep. Adam Smith of Washington state—introduced an amendment to the NDAA bill, which appropriates federal money for the Defense Department. Their amendment proposed altering existing federal law, enacted through the 1948 Smith-Mundt Act, to allow the defense secretary and the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG)—an independent federal agency renamed in 2018 to the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM)—to use federal funds for disseminating “public diplomacy information,” government-programmed media directed at foreign audiences, to U.S. audiences. The Dispatch Fact Check previously detailed the Smith-Mundt Act and its several subsequent amendments in October 2024:
The Smith-Mundt Act—formally known as the U.S. Information and Educational Exchange Act—was passed by Congress in 1948 and signed by President Harry Truman. The act allowed the State Department to engage in public diplomacy and disseminate information to foreign audiences through broadcasts, books, periodicals, and other media. In the modern era, the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM) has led U.S. state media initiatives including Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, and Radio Free Asia.
Under the Smith-Mundt Act, however, no information produced by USAGM or its predecessors could be shared domestically, making it difficult and often impossible for U.S.-based institutions to access information disseminated to foreign audiences. The restrictions appeased both the general public’s mistrust of state-backed media at the time and fears among domestic broadcasters that they could not compete with an organization supported by government funding. Further amendments to the act in the 1970s and 1980s formalized these restrictions and limited domestic access to media, academia, and Congress for examination only.
Smith-Mundt’s restrictions became largely untenable and unenforceable in the 1990s as the Internet eased domestic access to foreign media. In 2010, the bipartisan Smith-Mundt Modernization Act, which would allow for easier domestic dissemination of USAGM information, was introduced to Congress. In 2012, a new version of the 2010 legislation was included in the broader National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, which President Obama signed into law on January 2, 2013.
The modernization act allows domestic organizations and persons to request access to content produced by USAGM, but the agency is still restricted from creating programming intended for domestic audiences.
Before the Thornberry-Smith amendment, the State Department and USAGM were blocked from sharing media intended for foreign audiences through the internet and other digital forms of communication because, if the material is available online, it could be accessible to American internet users. “It should be completely obvious that a law first passed in 1948 might need to be updated to reflect a world of the Internet and satellite [TV],” Thornberry told Foreign Policy in May 2012. “If you want the State Department to engage on the war of ideas, it has to do it over the Internet and satellite channels, which don’t have geographical borders.” Still, the State Department and USAGM are prohibited from disseminating information directed at domestic audiences within the U.S.
Trump has not publicly stated any desire to return the Smith-Mundt Act to its prior form. Were he to champion such a position, Trump would be constitutionally prohibited from doing so through executive order and would need majorities in the House and Senate, along with his presidential signature, to change the federal law.
If you have a claim you would like to see us fact check, please send us an email at factcheck@thedispatch.com. If you would like to suggest a correction to this piece or any other Dispatch article, please email corrections@thedispatch.com.
Please note that we at The Dispatch hold ourselves, our work, and our commenters to a higher standard than other places on the internet. We welcome comments that foster genuine debate or discussion—including comments critical of us or our work—but responses that include ad hominem attacks on fellow Dispatch members or are intended to stoke fear and anger may be moderated.
With your membership, you only have the ability to comment on The Morning Dispatch articles. Consider upgrading to join the conversation everywhere.