Controlling the Masses: Government Disinformation Steers Conversations, Shapes Societies
A Texas National Guardsman and a Customs and a Border Protection agent discuss the border along the Rio Grande River in Starr County, Texas, in 2018. After assuming office in January, the administration signed several executive orders related to immigration, including an executive order titled, 'Protecting the American People Against Invasion.' The language surrounding the order creates a sense of urgency, conflict and crisis that many say doesn't exist. Photo by Texas Army National Guard
The Integrity Project
The dominance of social media platforms, search engines and now AI technologies, coupled with heightened distrust of traditional news outlets, allows leaders at all levels of government direct communication with the public and rapid dissemination of unfiltered information, ideological messaging, perhaps even propaganda, that leverages fear, instills division, and exploits confirmation biases to manipulate public opinion and consensus.
Of course, this is nothing new.
The use of disinformation to drive agendas and attain or maintain power dates as far back as the Romans, when bread stamps and phrases on coins reminded the masses who was in charge and who paid for it, and punctuates a timeline that includes many notable events in disinformation history:
• The Black Plague in 14th century Italy, when scapegoating and religious persecution was directed mostly at Jews, who were blamed for spreading disease.
• Apartheid propaganda in South Africa. Designed to legitimize racial segregation, uphold white supremacy and suppress dissent, the apartheid government used state-run media, education, religion, and culture to disseminate its ideology and maintain control.
• Aryan 'superiority' during the 1930s in Germany. Posters, pamphlets, pronouncements, and artwork such as Die Partei (The Party) outside the Reich Chancellery in 1939 Berlin conveyed specific messages about power, race, and national identity.
• Indonesia’s anti-communist purge of the 1960s. Following an alleged coup attempt blamed on the Communist Party of Indonesia (PKI), widespread violence and propaganda resulted in tens of thousands of public executions.
Government-sponsored disinformation continues to serve as a powerful tool for shaping perceptions, often by tapping into existing biases to influence public opinion, policy outcomes, and control over institutions. Leaders throughout history have employed several interrelated strategies:
CREATE A NON-CRISIS OR VILLAIN TO HEIGHTEN PUBLIC ANXIETY
Leading up to the 2024 Presidential Election, former President and candidate Donald Trump focused attention on immigrant communities, particularly those from Haiti and Venezuela. In September 2024 in Springfield, Ohio, he and running mate JD Vance, also of Ohio, referenced rumors that Haitian immigrants were stealing and eating pets, and vowed to deport not only criminals but also Haitians living legally in the U.S. A month later in Aurora, Colorado, both claimed the city was "overrun by a Venezuelan prison gang," despite statements to the contrary from local authorities. PBS Newshour reported that Trump also referred to some immigrants as "animals" and claimed that those suspected in violent crimes "have bad genes."
The language used in these appearances drew on existing biases around race, criminality, and demographic change.
After assuming office, the administration signed several executive orders related to immigration, including Executive Order 14159, "Protecting the American People Against Invasion." The terminology used in the order’s title and public messaging created a sense of urgency and conflict. The order expanded the use of expedited removals, increased funding for enforcement personnel, denied federal funding to jurisdictions supporting immigrant communities, and imposed new penalties on undocumented immigrants. Additional executive actions followed, including policies to restrict access to public services and reinterpret the 14th Amendment.
Mayor Jorge Maldonado of Nogales, Arizona, said in a pre-election interview with the World Press Institute that "Nogales is one of the safest borders in the country" and characterized cross-border cooperation with Sonora as strong. Nevertheless, two days after the inauguration, 1,500 U.S. Army troops were deployed to the border.
CONTROL THE PRESS
Autocratic regimes often cite disinformation as a justification to restrict press freedom or suppress independent journalism. Similar patterns have begun to emerge recently in democratic societies—even in the U.S.
During and after the 2024 election cycle, the President frequently criticized major news organizations, including The New York Times, NBC News, CNN, and The Washington Post, accusing them of spreading "fake news." He referred to these outlets and others as "dishonest," "corrupt," and an "enemy of the people." Pew Research data shows that in 2024, only 40 percent of Republicans expressed some or a lot of trust in national news organizations, down from 70 percent in 2016. Analysts attribute much of this decline to the ongoing narrative of media distrust.
After returning to office, the administration issued an executive order renaming the Gulf of Mexico the "Gulf of America." The Associated Press declined to adopt the change in its reporting, after which it was excluded from certain White House events. A federal judge later ruled that the White House could not deny access to events based on editorial decisions, citing constitutional protections.
The administration also initiated investigations into CBS News, NPR, and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr led inquiries into whether NPR and PBS violated laws by allegedly airing advertisements disguised as underwriting announcements—the implication being that taxpayer funding was supporting entities that might be operating more like for-profit ventures. The investigations prompted concerns about press freedom and the potential chilling effects of regulatory scrutiny. Though all three organizations complied and were cleared, observers described the moves as politicized.
Due at least in part to these sorts of episodes and rhetoric, public sentiment toward traditional news sources has continued to decline, with a 2025 Pew Research survey indicating only 53 percent of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents report even "some trust" in national outlets.
INSTITUTIONAL CAPTURE OF REGULATORY BODIES
Efforts to influence or restructure regulatory institutions—by limiting their authority, access, or funding—have long been a feature of political power. Under the current administration, a pattern has emerged in which agencies and officials perceived as adversarial have faced targeted changes in authority or staffing.
On Inauguration Day, the administration unveiled an executive order revoking security clearances from 50 former intelligence officials—most of whom had publicly questioned the origins of the Hunter Biden laptop story. While the administration characterized the move as restoring accountability, critics argued it was retaliatory and risked politicizing national security oversight.
Framing government agencies as part of a “deep state” has held a certain appeal to voters who felt marginalized by globalization, disillusioned by Washington insiders, and alienated by those officials often portrayed as elitist and unaccountable.
Institutional restructuring has accelerated as a result. In recent months, a sweeping reorganization led to the dismantling of the U.S. Department of Education, significant budget cuts at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, U.S. Agency for International Development, and HUD, as well as the termination of federal grants and contracts tied to housing, healthcare, and social services. Approximately 260,000 federal jobs were eliminated during this process. Many of the agencies affected were those that had, at times, offered critical assessments of administration policies or regulatory decisions.
Supporters described these moves as fulfilling campaign promises to streamline government and reduce bureaucratic waste. But watchdog groups and legal scholars have raised concerns that such actions constitute a broader effort to neutralize institutional checks on executive power. Some agencies, including HUD and USAID, have seen vital functions disrupted, leading to lawsuits and, in several cases, injunctions blocking further implementation of executive directives.
Rather than overt censorship or illegal orders, institutional capture often manifests through procedural change: strategic defunding, leadership turnover, revised mandates, or realigned enforcement priorities. Over time, such changes may reshape regulatory bodies to reflect political priorities more than independent oversight, with long-term implications for democratic accountability.
HISTORICAL PARALLELS AND MODERN CHALLENGES
The use of fear-driven messaging, press control, and institutional weakening is well-documented in autocratic states such as Russia and China. But similar methods have also been employed in democratic contexts. Following the 9/11 attacks, the U.S. government declared a "war on terror" that introduced new surveillance authorities, expanded detainment policies, and justified military interventions. These measures were often framed as responses to existential threats.
Digital platforms have served to accelerate these dynamics. Foreign and domestic actors alike have used fake news sites and bot networks to amplify messages, distort facts, and polarize opinion. The result is a landscape where verifying truth is more difficult than ever.
The Integrity Project's analysis finds that disinformation by governments constitutes more than political spin. It represents a structural threat to evidence-based governance. From public health to immigration to media oversight, coordinated messaging designed to inflame or deceive corrodes the institutions of democracy. While such tactics are not new, their use by elected leaders raises urgent questions about the need for institutional safeguards and public awareness to ensure accountability and preserve democratic norms.
ADDITIONAL NEWS FROM THE INTEGRITY PROJECT
