In the rice-growing region of Nueva Ecija in the Philippines, smallholder farmers who supply local markets have long relied on community radio segments and local news reports to understand regulatory approvals for new crop varieties and how to identify high-quality seeds. Programs supported through USAID-funded journalism training once partnered with agronomists to break down field trial data and pest management options in Tagalog and local dialects. Similar reporting reached farmers in Indonesia and Nepal, where Earth Journalism Network grants helped outlets cover natural resource management and sustainable agriculture topics tied to agriculture.
The Trump administration’s early 2025 freeze and subsequent termination of most USAID foreign assistance dismantled much of that support. Internews, which backed independent media in more than 100 countries, lost 95 percent of its $126 million USAID allocation for 2025. Its Earth Journalism Network arm, which trained and funded reporters from low- and middle-income countries on environment and agriculture-related stories, saw multiple grants halted in January and formally terminated later that year.
A June 2025 report from Internews Europe, BBC Media Action, and Free Press Unlimited documented the sudden loss of roughly $150 million in annual support for journalism worldwide. In Latin America, U.S. government funding had accounted for more than 75 percent of total donor support to media outlets between 2020 and 2024, making the region one of the hardest hit proportionally. In Asia, roughly half of the total funding previously received from USAID disappeared. In South Sudan, the Association for Media Development warned that 60 percent of the media sector faced collapse, including community radio stations that had carried regular segments on agriculture, seed selection, and integrated pest management.
The effects reached individual journalists directly. In Mali, science reporter Mardochée Boli had begun a project examining scientific disinformation circulating in rural areas when the funding stoppage forced him to abandon the work after only two months. Many of the stories he planned would have addressed claims about agricultural inputs and crop health.
With science desks reduced or eliminated, farmers in affected regions may shift to social media groups and messages from non-governmental organizations for guidance on seeds, fertilizers, and pesticides. It has happened in the past. This shift has precedent. In the Philippines, where outlets once covered biosafety reviews for crops such as Bt eggplant, the reduced local scrutiny has left more room for campaigns from advocacy groups. These organizations continue to produce content in local languages on pesticide risks and genetically engineered crops, often framing regulatory approvals as insufficiently protective.
In Indonesia, more than 300 media and support organizations had drawn on U.S. funds in 2024 for reporting that included agricultural and environmental topics. With half of Asia’s total USAID media support now gone, outlets have cut back on time-intensive field reporting that once verified claims against data from national agricultural research institutes. Farmers in rice and palm-oil areas describe receiving advice through WhatsApp forwards and short videos. These rarely cite peer-reviewed studies or extension service recommendations. The pattern appears in Latin America as well. Media outlets in countries such as Brazil and Bolivia, which had depended heavily on USAID-backed grants for environmental and agricultural coverage, scaled back production after the grants ended. Reporters who previously attended field days or interviewed plant breeders on drought-tolerant varieties or biofortified crops found their assignments curtailed. In their place, activist networks have amplified messages about soil degradation and input dependency, sometimes without engaging the latest regulatory or agronomic data.
Besides the impact on journalists and newsrooms, the consequences at the farm level are concrete. In Guatemala, tomato farmer Maria Lopez saw her yields decline after USAID-supported extension assistance that helped her access improved practices ended; without the volunteer agronomist who had visited her farm, she struggled to maintain the productivity she had previously achieved.
The June 2025 Internews report documented the broader pattern bluntly: with fewer journalistic watchdogs, “disinformation threats are growing” in agriculture and health — precisely the sectors where accurate information directly shapes daily production decisions.
Share this article
The pattern extends beyond Asia and South America. Agroecology activists, who oppose conventional farming inputs and improved seed varieties, told Devex in June 2025 that they see the collapse of USAID-funded development programs as their opening to reshape African agricultural policy. In Nigeria, a vendor openly selling “Baba Aisha Herbal Medicine” as a malaria cure built a large social media following before local fact-checkers at AfricaCheck exposed him — the kind of intervention that requires institutional backing, a beat reporter, and time that fewer journalists now have.
Smallholder farmers across these regions produce the bulk of the food consumed locally. When decisions on seed purchases or pesticide application rest on incomplete or one-sided information, the consequences accumulate at the plot level. A farmer who selects a variety promoted in a viral video but poorly suited to local rainfall patterns may lose an entire season’s harvest. A trader spreading unverified warnings about a registered formulation can prompt widespread avoidance of an effective tool, raising costs for those who continue using it or lowering yields for those who do not.
Bridge funding from European foundations and private donors has reached some newsrooms, but it has not matched the scale or predictability of the lost USAID support. Temporary grants have kept a few programs alive into 2026, yet many outlets report operating with skeleton staffs and reduced travel budgets. The June 2025 Internews-led report called for emergency operational funding and longer-term strategies to rebuild capacity, noting that the gaps are most pronounced in coverage of agriculture and health — sectors where accurate information directly influences daily production choices.
In practice, the change means farmers in Nueva Ecija, rural Indonesia, or the plains of South Sudan now encounter fewer stories that explain why a particular hybrid outperformed local checks in multi-location trials or how a new pest-resistant variety received approval after biosafety testing. Instead, they hear repeated emphasis on risks and corporate influence, framed in emotionally direct language that travels easily on mobile networks.
The loss is measurable in newsroom headcounts and grant ledgers, but it registers most clearly at the farm gate. A single season of mismatched inputs can reduce household income, tighten local food supplies, and increase pressure on already strained markets. In many parts of the Global South, the reporters who once translated complex agricultural research into accessible broadcasts or articles are fewer in number. The information that replaces them comes from sources with different priorities and resources. For farmers who must decide what to plant and spray next month, it is the difference between a harvest that covers family needs and one that does not.
Dr. Joseph Maina is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Macquarie University, Sydney. His work integrates diverse disciplines, including macro-ecology, climate science, oceanography, remote sensing, hydrology, fisheries management, and decision science.
