The Journalism Science Alliance pairs journalists with scientists and backs their work with grants, mentoring, training, and cross-border collaboration to support public interest investigations. In its first cycle, it supported 24 teams from 15 countries, awarding nearly 1 million euros in funding.
The idea for the Journalism Science Alliance (JSA) emerged during early conversations between the European Journalism Centre (EJC) and NOVA University in Lisbon. As Vera Penêda, Director of Programmes & Impact at the EJC, recalls, “we realised that it was a good moment in time to create a joint programme, at a time when journalism and science are both under pressure from rising authoritarianism and mis- and disinformation.” This shared urgency laid the groundwork for a pan-European initiative designed to bridge two fields that rarely collaborate in a structured way.
JSA is built around a simple premise: meaningful investigative journalism can be strengthened when it draws on scientific methods, and research can reach deeper into public life when communicated through strong, evidence-based reporting. The programme supports this idea through grant funding, training, mentoring, and networking opportunities that bring journalists and researchers together. With these resources, participating teams are expected to uncover stories of public interest, experiment with new approaches, and produce investigations capable of engaging audiences across Europe.
The concept is not entirely new. Over the past few decades, several initiatives have shown what can happen when academics and media professionals combine their skills. A collaborative study of the 1967 Detroit riots, carried out by the Detroit Free Press and Michigan’s Institute for Social Research, became an early demonstration of how joint inquiry can shape public understanding. “Reading the Riots,” a landmark project following the 2011 unrest in the UK, revealed how much impact such partnerships can have when journalists and scholars examine social crises together. More recently, the Center for Media, Data and Society at the Central European University ran the Black Waters project with Atlatszo and BIRN, assembling an interdisciplinary team to investigate environmental corruption along the Danube in Hungary and Romania.
What sets JSA apart is its scale and ambition. Co-funded by the European Union’s Creative Europe programme, it will run across Europe for two years, distributing €2 million in grants to support science-based investigative journalism projects, and will provide additional assistance in the form of mentoring and training. As Penêda explains, it will help participants strengthen skills such as visibility and dissemination: “Journalists learn how to apply elements of the scientific method, such as hypothesis-driven inquiry and data scrutiny. Scientists, in turn, learn how to share their work in ways that resonate with wider audiences.”
The scope of the calls has been intentionally kept broad to encourage a wide range of ideas and partnerships. The aim is to empower journalists and researchers to explore stories that matter to their communities and to the wider public sphere.
To support this ambition, the programme awards three types of grants: €10,000, €20,000, and €50,000. Eligibility criteria mirror the programme’s commitment to collaboration and cross-border exchange. Participating organisations must be based in countries that take part in the full cross-sectoral strand of the Creative Europe programme. This includes all 27 EU member states as well as Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Norway, Serbia, and Ukraine. Partners from outside these countries can also participate, provided the core team includes one eligible media outlet and one eligible research institution.
The first call, closed this summer, revealed how strongly the sector has been waiting for such a structure. JSA received 162 proposals, more than double the total number of grants it will award across its two-year run. Applicants came from 54 countries, and most teams applied for the largest Tier 3 grants of €50,000. For Penêda, this level of interest sends a clear signal: “This shows that there is enormous demand for a space where journalists and scientists can work together.”
From this pool, the independent jury selected 24 teams from 15 countries, awarding €1 million in total. The successful applicants come from a wide geographic spread and will now have eight months to complete their investigations. While many of the chosen projects focus on environmental questions, topics also range across health, justice, inequality, disinformation, and more. Penêda notes that some of the partnerships themselves are pioneering, bringing together experts who would rarely collaborate otherwise, “for example with psychologists.”
One of the recurring questions during this process was how to balance the very different working cultures and interests of science and journalism. Penêda explains that the JSA “is not about translating research into journalism, it’s about co-creating the investigation from the start, with both disciplines shaping the story.” Teams receive tailored mentoring for both sectors, and evaluators prioritised projects promising equal impact and mutual benefit for both.
Balance does not come without challenges. Penêda identifies time and alignment as the first hurdle: “They operate on a different schedule and vocabulary.” The second was ensuring that applicants clearly understood the scope, as “it is not a science journalism programme. We support any topic as long as scientific experience improves the story.” A third difficulty lies in funding: as a co-funded EU programme, the remaining financing is hard to secure. “While some foundations have stepped back from investigative journalism, others simply don’t have the schemes in place to co-fund ongoing initiatives,” Penêda notes, adding that, “we need a funding ecosystem that supports shared ownership.”
Looking ahead, Penêda is clear about the ambition: “We’d love to renew it.” The next call is set for early 2026, and the long-term vision is expansive: “it could be a template for a collaborative truth-telling model that could grow into a global alliance”, provided the right partners come on board. “It’s not just a grant scheme. It’s a way of testing how journalism and science can work together, as two truth-based fields, by building a shared structure of support.”
Artificial intelligence offers powerful tools while also putting new pressures on already fragile business models in journalism. While newsrooms can turn to AI to boost efficiency and reach audiences in new ways, they also have to face a significant decrease in traffic – and complex questions about who should pay for the journalism that fuels AI systems.
AI tools are reshaping journalism in many ways, and their impact on business models is becoming increasingly visible. Experts usually articulate both optimism and uncertainty surrounding these changes.
For example, Niamh Burns, Senior Research Analyst in Tech and Media at Enders Analysis, describes the current situation as “a mixed bag.” Veronika Munk, Director of Innovation and New Markets at Denník N, notes that every newsroom she knows already uses AI in some form. There is even a sense of fear of missing out, she says, as newsrooms rush to try new tools, but “only a few look at success metrics,” and follow whether these tools deliver the results they expect.
The Benefits of AI in Newsrooms
Despite this lack of clarity, certain benefits of AI are evident. AI tools can help news outlets respond more quickly to their audiences, operate more efficiently, and personalise their products. They also give news organisations new ways to tell stories, reach audiences through different formats, and create products that have the potential to bring in more revenue. One clear example is the use of AI tools for tagging, which Munk describes as particularly helpful for search engine optimisation and direct email campaigns, both of which are essential for maintaining and growing readership. Other examples include automated social media posting, translation, and transcription tools, both from audio to text and vice versa.
Burns highlights that AI tools can become especially valuable for data journalists. These tools make it possible to analyse large datasets far more quickly and with fewer resources, which means even small newsrooms can attempt investigations that would previously have been out of reach. She also points out that “AI can also help with the multiplatform distribution model,” making it easier to prepare audio, video, or social media versions of a single story. In many cases, these new formats lead to higher user engagement and, with that, a greater chance of converting casual readers into subscribers.
Some organisations are already using AI to write headlines that perform better in search engines or to translate stories into new languages. This allows them to reach audiences they have never served before. Burns, however, warns against taking personalisation too far. While AI can support more sophisticated recommendation systems, journalism has always been shaped by editorial judgement, and she argues that this cannot be fully delegated to algorithms. Editors must still decide which stories matter most.
Munk takes a practical view of these developments. If a newsroom can save time on routine tasks, she says, then there is more capacity for journalistic work, and this ultimately strengthens the product. She has also seen AI tools directly contribute to higher revenue. “We have a lot of campaigns, and this tool, Manychat, a social media client, is really useful,” she explains. Denník N integrated the tool into Instagram, where sharing links is not possible. However, when the outlet partnered with The New York Times and bundled subscriptions, users could comment “New York Times” on an Instagram post and they immediately received an automated direct message with the subscription link. Munk explains that they have been using this tool for half a year and “the conversion rate is quite high sometimes.”
Another important contribution of AI is its ability to analyse audience behaviour. By identifying trends in topics, formats, or publishing times that perform best, AI tools can guide editors as they shape content strategies. These insights help balance public interest journalism with the need to produce stories that draw enough attention to sustain the business.
Still, as Munk notes, while some outlets may think about monetising the tools they develop, most are building similar systems for internal use, such as summarisation tools or language checkers. This means the competitive advantage often lies not in creating unique tools, but in deploying them thoughtfully.
Risks to Traffic and Visibility
At the same time, concerns about the risks AI poses to journalism have been steadily growing. Many of these concerns arise from the simple fact that the business model for news media was already fragile long before AI tools became widespread. Burns explains that publishers originally put their content online for free because they expected to earn money from advertising. That model has been faltering for a decade, but, as she says, “with AI, we see a further challenge: news organisations not getting clickthrough traffic as before.”
This is indeed the main concern for news media. While tech companies have relied heavily on news content to train large language models, now search engines and chatbots answer many queries directly. This means that even when users seek reliable information, they may not reach the website that produced it. Studies already show that the clickthrough rate for Google’s AI-generated summaries is dramatically lower than for traditional search results – Tollbit, for example, found a 91% decrease. Furthermore, Cloudflare reported that OpenAI scraped a news site hundreds of times for every single referral page view it sent.
Publishers see a pattern in this: while their content helps power AI tools, their own visibility shrinks. According to a study by the Reuters Institute, 74% of respondents are worried about a decline in referral traffic for their news organisation.
The impact is not equal across newsrooms. Munk notes that Denník N feels the decline in clickthrough traffic less because of their hard paywall model. Still, it can be a serious problem for outlets that rely heavily on advertising, she adds.
This has serious consequences. As audience behaviour changes, more people turn to AI-powered search engines and chatbots. For many publishers, disintermediation, the loss of direct connection with audiences, is becoming the greatest fear. Younger audiences, who already have weaker ties to traditional news brands, are drifting even further away.
Therefore, Burns argues that newsrooms “need to build direct engagement with their audience,” also because nobody knows how these tools will evolve. They change constantly as tech companies adjust their products to improve user experience. The figures and patterns we see today may shift again in as little as a few months.
Legal Battles and Licensing
Against this backdrop, publishers are trying to rethink how they can adapt. Some believe that they may eventually need to distinguish between human readers and AI agents. As The Atlantic’s CEO, Nicholas Thompson, argued at a conference, they need to identify who is visiting the site so that the organisation can decide how to monetise that interaction. He imagines showing different products or even blocking access in some cases.
You could block AI crawlers, Burns says, but then you face the “problem of losing visibility, because users will still go to these tools to search for information.” Therefore, blocking may protect content, but it also deepens the risk of disappearing from public view.
There is also a broader ethical and economic issue. AI companies rely heavily on the quality of journalistic work, which depends on careful fact-checking, verification and editorial judgement. A white paper published last year by News Media Alliance confirmed that journalistic content is among the most frequently used sources for AI systems. Yet much of this use happens without permission or payment. Burns asks whether it is possible to create an incentive structure where AI companies pay for content. Her answer is cautious: “It’s very patchy at the moment.”
Some publishers have responded with legal action. The New York Times has sued OpenAI for copyright violations, while Dow Jones and the New York Post have taken action against Perplexity.
Others have chosen partnership. A number of news organisations have already agreed to licensing deals. Burns sees “some development in the content of such deals, they are more sophisticated.” She believes that the companies should pay the newsrooms not only for historical, but also for ongoing access.
Survey data from the Reuters Institute shows that almost four in ten publishers expect licensing income from AI companies to become significant. Most, however, prefer collective deals that support the entire sector, rather than each newsroom negotiating its own terms.
Munk agrees that AI companies need journalistic content, and she sees licensing as essential for the future. “It doesn’t work otherwise. If you use something, you need to pay for it,” she argues. Burns also believes that licensing is the right path but warns that not every market will benefit equally. Large English-language publishers have more leverage, while smaller organisations will struggle. She argues that this imbalance shows why “regulatory intervention is needed here, not just ad hoc deals.”
At the same time, the growing value of human editorial oversight may become a strength for publishers who emphasise accuracy, verification, and accountability. Munk notes that journalists are responsible for the content they produce, and this responsibility gives this type of content greater value. Outlets that maintain strong editorial standards, she says, will stand out in the information environment.
Looking ahead, many argue that publishers, journalists, and tech companies should work together to understand how different forms of journalism contribute to the AI value chain. This understanding will be essential for building sustainable business models in the next era of journalism.
The European Commission’s new €2 trillion budget proposal could reshape EU support for journalism. Hopes are high for a substantial increase in journalism funding, but questions remain over how much of it will truly reach news organisations. Experts also agree that EU funding could have a greater impact if it was more targeted, better structured, and aligned with a long-term vision for Europe’s media landscape.
In the summer, the European Commission presented its proposal for the next seven-year budget (Multiannual Financial Framework, MFF), amounting to €2 trillion for the period from 2028 to 2034. According to the proposal, the Creative Europe and Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values (CERV) programmes are being merged into one media-culture joint support vehicle, AgoraEU, which will support media freedom, civil rights, democracy, and diversity with a total of EUR 8.6 billion.
AgoraEU will consist of three strands: Culture, CERV+, and Media+. In the previous MFF, Creative Europe amounted to €2.44 billion and CERV about €1.55 billion. Research by the Media and Journalism Research Center (MJRC) found that from 2018 to 2024, the EU funded journalism projects with a total of €295.1 million (about €42 million each year). Therefore, AgoraEU’s planned €8.6 billion represents a significant increase. The Media+ strand, designed to strengthen the competitiveness and resilience of the media and audiovisual industries, including production, market access, digital transition, media pluralism, and viability, will account for roughly €3.2 billion of that total – around €457 million per year.
Media+ proposes funding in investigative journalism, digital innovation, and media literacy, to increase access to trustworthy information and tackle disinformation. According to the Commission, it will build on the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD) and will complement the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA) by providing financial support and strengthening editorial independence.
However, it is important to note that the Media+ strand splits between Audiovisual and News objectives, with the first one including films and even video games, and it is not yet known how the €3.2 billion would divide between them, warns Péter Erdélyi, Founding Director of the Center for Sustainable Media. He thinks that this first offer looks very good, and it indeed seems likely that funding will increase compared to the previous period.
MJRC Director Marius Dragomir also welcomes the increase because “journalism is going through unprecedented changes.” Ivana Bjelic Vucinic, Director of the Global Forum for Media Development’s (GFMD) International Media Policy and Advisory Centre (IMPACT), hopes that this reflects a stronger EU commitment to media freedom, civil rights, and democracy.
Determining the Final Numbers for News Media
At the same time, all three experts point out that it is difficult to know how much of the money will actually reach journalism projects, as EU funding mechanisms are complex and often involve many layers of distribution. Bjelic Vucinic notes that the proposal outlines objectives for the News strand, but details of allocations, programme design, and management mechanisms are still unclear. The big question is what will happen during the negotiation period, Erdélyi says, adding that everyone will be lobbying for a bigger share.
In fact, the real battle will start among the Member States. Some governments have already indicated that they reject the budget proposal as it is, while others want to decrease overall spending or adjust priorities significantly, Erdélyi explains. Still, he does not believe that the amount of journalism funding will decrease significantly in the MFF, unless the European political landscape undergoes major changes.
Dragomir agrees: “At the moment, there is considerable support for media and journalism at the EU level. However, this could change depending on wider developments. For instance, if the threat of war in Europe increases, that would obviously have a major impact on how these funds are allocated,” he argues.
Bjelic Vucinic believes, however, that negotiations may reduce the final allocation. “This is why joint advocacy efforts will be essential to preserve funding levels that can meaningfully support independent media and journalism initiatives,” she argues, stressing that preserving and strengthening media freedom depends on strategic allocation of funds. She points to a recent GFMD position paper that recommends providing at least €150 million annually to non-profit, investigative, and small local outlets to achieve real impact. She also emphasises that funding should go beyond short-term project grants and instead ensure operational sustainability, foster innovation, and safeguard editorial independence.
Redesigning Funding for Media Realities
To make EU funding more effective for journalism, all three experts agree that the system needs to be redesigned with the realities of the media sector in mind.
Independent media should be recognised “as a public good essential for democracy,” Bjelic Vucinic argues, adding that funding should be flexible and designed to cover operational needs as well as editorial independence, rather than short-term project grants.
Dragomir says the EU should begin by improving its understanding of the media landscape. He argues that a large-scale effort to map how citizens inform (or misinform) themselves would help to identify gaps in information and reveal which organisations most need support. This, he explains, would allow funding to be better targeted to the needs of both citizens and media outlets.
Erdélyi agrees, stressing that programmes should not lump together vastly different players. He believes that small non-profits with tiny budgets should not be competing against large organisations with tens of millions in resources. Instead, funding should be structured into different schemes, tailored to outlets of different sizes, revenue levels, and capacities. Some outlets, for example small local non-profits, cannot survive under normal market conditions but still provide public service and deserve support. At the same time, he notes, larger organisations could benefit from investment in innovation and competitiveness.
Both Dragomir and Erdélyi also underline that the process of accessing EU money must be simpler, particularly for smaller news organisations that currently struggle with the administrative burden. Erdélyi adds that using intermediaries to distribute funds could help, since they are better placed to handle small grants and have a better understanding of local contexts.
Erdélyi also suggests that the EU could experiment with matching funds, where support would match the income outlets raise from subscriptions or micro-donors, helping to strengthen competitiveness and encourage audience engagement. He also sees potential in incentive schemes, such as giving teachers vouchers to spend on media subscriptions, which would reward quality outlets through market-style mechanisms.
At the same time, Bjelic Vucinic calls for innovation to be prioritised, with funding supporting sustainable business models, quality journalism, and media literacy rather than profit or political goals. She also proposes that EU funds could be used to attract private investment through public–private partnerships, multiplying the effect.
Finally, the experts agree that journalism funding should not be viewed in isolation. Bjelic Vucinic emphasises that support should be embedded in wider EU policy and legislative frameworks.
Beyond AgoraEU
When looking at EU support for journalism, it is important to consider not only the funds proposed under AgoraEU but also a range of other instruments that touch on journalism in indirect ways. Erasmus+, for instance, is a massive programme worth tens of billions in the EU budget. While journalism makes up only a small part of it, Erasmus+ can still support journalism education, including master’s and doctoral programmes, as well as training and skills development.
Programmes such as Digital Europe and Horizon can also play a role by funding tools, research, and digital infrastructure that benefit newsrooms, from AI-based reporting tools to systems for detecting deepfakes and improving cybersecurity. Erdélyi also thinks that other EU programmes, such as the Competitiveness Fund, could be opened to media companies for technological innovation.
Furthermore, Global Europe, the EU’s external funding instrument, also contains media development support, Erdélyi notes, adding that this is especially important because US funding in this field has largely disappeared, and the EU might be trying to take on a greater role in supporting independent media outside its borders.
Independent journalism is essential for democracy, resilience, and public trust, Bjelic Vucinic stresses. At the same time, as Dragomir points out, there is still no clear picture of what it actually costs to sustain a diverse and pluralistic media sector. He believes that the EU should first gather detailed data on who the main actors are, what resources they need, and how much it takes to keep strong media organisations running and able to reach citizens. Only once this knowledge is available, he argues, can the EU realistically estimate the level of financial support required, decide how long it should last, and define the impact it is meant to deliver.
Can small, local independent media thrive in an authoritarian environment? A multiple-year-long funding programme revealed that upscaling small outlets can deliver results, but only when paired with strong internal capacity, business-minded leadership, and continued donor engagement.
Supporting Independent Media Under Pressure
Since 2021, the Media and Journalism Research Center (MJRC) has supported independent local media in highly authoritarian environments through a sub-granting programme. For safety reasons, MJRC does not disclose the names and locations of the media outlets in the programme.
Funded by a philanthropic partner, the programme provided core funding to help outlets achieve financial and organisational sustainability, grow audiences, and strengthen resilience. It also fostered collaboration among grantees and evaluated their progress through regular monitoring and comparative analysis, measuring impact across audience reach, revenue, and staffing.
The programme consisted of two phases. In the first phase, MJRC awarded grants to seven local organisations. According to the programme evaluation, it filled a critical gap in local media, offering vital funding, mentoring, and capacity-building. Grantees appreciated the tailored support and local-language administration. Challenges included limited capacities, inexperience running donation campaigns, economic instability in the country, and political pressure.
What Upscaling Looks Like
In the second phase, three of the grantees were selected and received a much larger grant. This phase focused on two core goals: scaling up the infrastructure and impact of the selected outlets and exploring how innovative strategies work in captured media environments. The aim was to help grantees take meaningful steps toward long-term sustainability.
The selection process emphasised operational growth and capacity-building rather than content production, with the jury assessing how applicants could realistically expand their infrastructure, outreach, and impact, based on past performance and readiness for organisational change.
Two grantees received grants almost three times larger than their previous annual budgets, but even the largest outlet experienced a 40% budget increase. In addition to funding, the programme provided ongoing training sessions, peer learning, and mentoring in capacity-building. The organisational development training supported internal improvements, while a needs-based approach ensured tailored support aligned with each outlet’s goals and capacities. The programme aimed to build more sustainable, resilient, and independent media organisations capable of withstanding pressure in challenging environments.
Without this grant, the two smaller grantees would likely have continued to struggle with day-to-day operations, facing little opportunity for meaningful development and little hope of achieving visible impact. In a heavily captured media environment where prospects for press freedom and media sustainability remain bleak, the survival of independent local outlets is largely dependent on donor support. The market simply does not offer the necessary conditions for a small news organisation to become sustainable, let alone to grow or innovate.
The Role of Management and Capacities in Sustainability
One of the key lessons of the project was that smaller outlets often lack the skills and internal capacity required to carry out the kind of strategic and structural transformation that sustainability demands. This became apparent as both smaller grantees faced significant delays in implementing their plans and struggled to use the funds in a timely manner due to insufficient capacities and lack of expertise.
In contrast, the largest grantee was able to deliver on its project goals within the expected timeframe. As a more established organisation with experienced management and a stable internal structure, it was well positioned to absorb the grant and make full use of it.
The size of the organisation and its internal capacity are critical factors in determining how effectively a grantee can handle a grant that dramatically expands its operating budget. While the smaller grantees also experienced a temporary increase in income, primarily through supplementary grants from USAID’s Central Europe programme, the sudden termination of that programme in early 2025 posed a serious threat to their financial stability.
However, the two smaller grantees are not in the same position. One of the most important insights from the project’s earlier phase was confirmed again: outlets led by a business-minded management are significantly better equipped to sustain and grow their operations. This difference became even more apparent after the USAID funding ended. While both smaller grantees lost key financial support, one of them is now in a much stronger position due to its more robust operational staff which has proactively secured new sources of revenue. The other organisation, which lacks a strong business-minded management, has returned to a precarious financial state with potential staff cuts on the horizon and little clarity about the future.
The Limits of Market-Based Models
Long-term sustainability for independent media depends on diversifying revenue streams. Yet in such a hostile and distorted media environment, this is exceedingly difficult. Advertising remains one of the biggest challenges. In captured environments, state advertising often is an important source of media ad revenue but is reserved exclusively for outlets that support the ruling parties. Moreover, in such environments, private businesses are reluctant to advertise in independent outlets, fearing political or economic retaliation.
This makes it all the more important for media organisations to experiment with alternative ways of engaging their audiences. Encouraging regular feedback from readers can help shape editorial strategies that better respond to audience needs. Data on content performance can also reveal which formats or topics are most effective in building loyalty and trust.
Financial sustainability could also benefit from more targeted efforts to understand the audience’s willingness and capacity to pay, whether via donations, subscriptions, or paywalls. Still, in many countries only a small portion of the population is willing to pay for news, therefore audience-based funding, while desirable, cannot yet provide a stable foundation, especially for local outlets with smaller audiences.
Independent local journalism remains indispensable for informing communities and holding power to account. However, without external financial support there is a growing risk of entire regions turning into news deserts where propaganda and misinformation go unchallenged.
Therefore continued donor support is essential. Core funding is the only realistic way to keep small local media running, as the current market offers no viable path to full financial independence. While relying on grants is not ideal, it remains the only available lifeline for independent journalism in countries with declining media freedom.
For more information, contact the Media and Journalism Research Center.
Independent journalism in Europe faces mounting financial and political threats, but a new wave of mission-driven outlets is fighting back. The Journalism Value Project explored how independent media can survive and thrive, offering practical solutions and a vision for a healthy ecosystem.
The Journalism Value Project, run by and for non-profit independent media organisations, including members of Reference – the European Independent Media Circle, and Netzwerk Recherche, aimed to highlight the need to support independent public interest media in Europe and strengthen their financial sustainability. According to Peter Matjašič, former Executive Director of Investigate Europe, a consortium member, the project responded to the “rapid emergence of small, independent media outlets,” which are “countering the decline of traditional media and the rise of misinformation,” yet face serious financial and political pressures.
Through research, podcasts, stakeholder dialogues, and study visits, the project mapped the field, shared best practices, and engaged key stakeholders. It identified significant challenges which public interest journalism has to face in Europe. Journalists encounter violence, harassment, and surveillance, while restrictive laws and SLAPPs (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) silence critical voices. Economic pressure, precarious working conditions, and unsustainable business models further weaken independent outlets, especially at a local level. Media capture and political interference threaten editorial independence, while misinformation, amplified by generative AI, clickbait content, and attacks on journalistic integrity undermine public trust.
Despite some EU efforts, institutional support remains inadequate, and recent shifts in the funding landscape – the USAID funding freeze, changing priorities of some foundations, corporate funders abandoning fact-checking – have created a significant gap that threatens the sector’s sustainability.
What Independent Media Leaders Shared
As Matjašič stressed, the main lesson of the project was that independent journalism is “essential infrastructure for democracy,”; still it remains severely underfunded and exposed to both financial and physical risks. Many independent newsrooms operate with minimal resources and precarious business models, but a new wave of mission-driven, digital-native outlets is stepping in. These organisations demonstrate innovation, community engagement, and resilience, helping to fill the gaps left by declining legacy media.
Matjašič also highlighted that the project’s podcast series produced some of the most surprising insights through interviews with over 20 independent media leaders. These conversations revealed that partnerships with influencers opened new avenues for audience engagement and funding, often from non-traditional sectors such as science and innovation. “Reluctance among donors to support journalism often stems from its role in holding power to account,” he noted, adding that independent outlets have shown creativity in securing alternative support.
Peer learning during study visits was also a very important element of the project. Newsroom leaders shared experiences on membership models and newsletters, among other topics. As Matjašič said, this showed that there is a strong solidarity among independent outlets, and they are eager to share their experiences.
During the consultations and in the podcasts, media professionals from the Reference Circle stressed that sustaining independent journalism requires investment beyond editorial work, such as in subscription systems, CRM (Customer Relationship Management) tools, and community engagement. They highlighted the urgent need to improve journalists’ working conditions and financial security to maintain a skilled workforce and attract new talent. They also saw it essential to grow new audiences and reach underserved communities to expand both impact and revenue.
Stakeholder consultations echoed these concerns. Funders recognised journalism’s social value in combating misinformation, fostering transparency, and promoting social cohesion, but pointed out serious challenges such as distrust in media, misinformation, the lack of charitable status for journalism, and funding gaps.
Impact investors noted that public value and financial sustainability can complement each other, though public value is harder to quantify. Some investors prioritise journalism’s mission over profit, using patient capital to help outlets build resilience. At the same time, think tanks value independent media as partners who help translate complex research into accessible stories, though they recognise capacity limitations.
How to Build Resilient Newsrooms
The project outlined a series of recommendations to strengthen independent public interest media in Europe, focusing on financial sustainability, collaboration, advocacy, capacity building, and public engagement.
A key priority should be the shift from project-based to core funding, which, as Peter Matjašič explained, enables outlets “to focus on their mission, innovate, and build resilience,” whereas project funding restricts long-term planning and flexibility. He added that while some funders recognise the value of core, multi-year support, others are constrained by internal structures or legal restrictions.
Diversifying funding sources is also essential for financial resilience. According to Matjašič, relying on a single income stream leaves media outlets vulnerable. “Business models should be open, with a moral compass about where to accept money from,” he argued, adding that investing in business skills is vital for developing sustainable organisations. “This is where many outlets fail,” as journalists often don’t see these business skills as important and sometimes are even afraid of the word “management,” although they should not be. Without these skills, many journalist-founded outlets struggle to monetise their work or navigate legal and organisational necessities. Coaching in the handling of complex funding structures and managing sensitive information is equally important to help media outlets professionalise and become more resilient against financial and political pressure.
The project also highlighted the need to simplify application processes and refine impact measurement to ease the administrative burden on newsrooms. Collaboration across media outlets and sectors is another cornerstone of the recommendations, which encourage peer learning, resource-sharing networks, and partnerships with think tanks, whistleblowers, and civil society to amplify impact. The project advocates for better legal protections against SLAPPs and the recognition of journalism as a charitable cause across Europe, alongside the allocation of tax revenue to support journalism-focused NGOs.
Finally, fostering public trust and engagement is essential. Transparent editorial and business practices, alongside innovative audience engagement strategies such as live journalism and impactful storytelling, can build trust and increase audience revenue. Nevertheless, robust philanthropic support and thoughtful policy reforms are still essential to securing the future of independent journalism in Europe.
The Essentials for a Sustainable Media Sector
Matjašič emphasised that independent media organisations should balance financial sustainability with editorial independence, and they should seek funding that aligns with their mission rather than chasing money that influences editorial priorities. Transparency about funding sources is critical, as is maintaining clear boundaries with funders. Based on the lessons learned from the project, the Reference Circle – a network focused on non-editorial issues – will continue to advocate for more effective funding and provide opportunities for peer learning and knowledge exchange, he added.
As he argued, although “there is no silver bullet” for a healthy ecosystem, it would combine core funding, diversified revenue streams, and strong business skills among newsroom leaders, alongside collaboration across borders and sectors. Such an environment should be underpinned by legal protections for press freedom, charitable support for journalism, and high public trust built through transparency, engagement, and demonstrated social impact.
Philea has launched a survey on media and journalism funding in Europe, seeking to create an image of the funding landscape and shape a stronger philanthropic agenda for independent journalism in Europe.
Independent journalism is not only valuable in its own right but is essential to the functioning of a healthy democracy. Often referred to as the Fourth Estate, journalism serves as a crucial watchdog that upholds the separation of powers and reinforces democratic checks and balances.
In an era where misinformation and disinformation threaten democratic institutions, the role of independent journalism in defending democracy has become even more vital. It holds those in power accountable, exposes corruption, and ensures citizens have access to accurate and reliable information, an indispensable foundation for informed participation in democratic processes. By elevating diverse perspectives and nurturing open, fact-based public discourse, journalism helps sustain the freedoms and civic engagement at the core of democratic life.
The survey, created by the Journalism Funders Forum, seeks to better understand how foundations support media and journalism in Europe, which areas receive focus, where the funding gaps lie, and what the various approaches are. The insights will help guide new funders and shape a stronger independent journalism sector in Europe.
This study is part of the 2025 work of the Journalism Funders Forum, Europe’s only peer-learning platform for funders committed to independent, quality journalism and its role in democracy.
Combining EU and philanthropic funding, the Investigative Journalism for Europe (IJ4EU) fund has become a model for supporting cross-border investigative journalism with high impact. With 90% public and 10% private funding, the fund has helped expose corruption, influence policy decisions, and protect press freedom, offering donors a vehicle for meaningful media impact.
The recent decision by the Court of Justice of the European Union to outlaw so-called “golden passport” schemes that allowed foreigners to buy EU citizenship marked a significant victory for investigative journalism. In its ruling, the court referred to the work of journalists who had exposed the abuse and malicious intent often underpinning these schemes.
The investigation was only one of many high-profile stories supported by IJ4EU, an initiative dedicated to strengthening cross-border watchdog reporting across the continent.
Launched in 2018, the IJ4EU fund backs investigative journalism that crosses national boundaries, reflecting the transnational nature of pressing public interest issues. The fund is operated by a consortium of four independent organisations committed to press freedom: the International Press Institute (IPI), which leads the consortium, the European Journalism Centre (EJC), the European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF), and Arena for Journalism in Europe.
Timothy Large, Director of Independent Media Programmes and IJ4EU manager at the IPI, underscores the programme’s success. “The jury is no longer out. This model works,” he says. By combining public and private funds, IJ4EU channels money into “the highest quality investigative journalism without compromising editorial independence.” According to Large, 90 percent of the funding comes from the European Commission, while 10 percent is contributed by philanthropies such as Adessium, Fritt Ord, and Isocrates Foundations, as well as the City of Leipzig. Previous donors also include Luminate and Open Society Foundations.
“Implementers make sure that editorial independence is at the heart of the programme,” he adds. IJ4EU’s model of “cascading grants” allows taxpayer and foundation money to flow via neutral intermediaries, with the consortium partners performing the intermediary function. Independent juries select all projects for funding. “All donors can have confidence that recipients are of high quality, while grantees can be sure that there are no strings attached,” Large highlights.
IJ4EU focuses on cross-border reporting. “Big issues nowadays require time and investment and are beyond borders: climate change, migration, corruption,” Large explains.
The demand for such support has been overwhelming: since its inception, IJ4EU has received applications from 1,526 teams seeking over €43 million in funding. It has distributed €6 million to 226 teams, involving more than a thousand journalists working on complex investigations.
An independent external evaluation report of the initiative found that it has made a significant contribution to improving the media ecosystem and, in turn, to fostering a more well-informed public.
IJ4EU offers targeted support through two primary grant schemes. The Investigation Support Scheme, managed by IPI, provides up to €50,000 to carry out resource-intensive investigations. The Freelancer Support Scheme, overseen by EJC, offers up to €20,000 to teams led by freelance journalists.
In addition to the grants, the scheme offers mentoring, training, and legal counselling to address the distinct challenges they face. Large describes the offering as a “full package,” noting that legal assistance and technical support are essential, as legal threats, including SLAPPs (strategic lawsuits against public participation) and defamation suits, have increased. “Weaponisation of legal risks has a chilling effect,” he says, adding that covering such complex topics sometimes also demands mentoring and help with finding partners.
The Fund’s independent external evaluation highlights that its training, mentorship, legal, and editorial support have significantly strengthened journalists’ professional resilience. Many beneficiaries, particularly freelancers, report feeling better equipped and protected in pursuing public interest investigations.
IJ4EU has seen a wide range of topics among grant applications. Many focus on stories related to climate change or the environment, Large explains, adding that since 2022, many teams have started framing their investigations through a security lens; partly to appeal to funders. Stories about EU borders have also been frequent.
Geographically, applications have come from every EU Member State and candidate country, with particularly strong proposals from Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands, he says. There are many applications also from Eastern and Southeastern Europe, with a noticeable rise from Ukraine.
“Some stories have had tremendous impact,” Large says, citing examples such as the story about the Maltese golden passport scheme, or an investigation into corruption in the Danube Delta that resulted in the suspension of EU funds and an OLAF inquiry. The independent external evaluation also confirms that IJ4EU-backed investigations consistently spark responses from policymakers and businesses and are often quoted by other major media. The programme has been particularly impactful in Eastern Europe, where independent journalism often faces more severe threats. These stories are also “building trust in watchdog journalism as a public good,” Large adds.
At the same time, he acknowledges that while IJ4EU has achieved much, it faces various challenges. Fundraising, for example, remains a concern. “It is wonderful to be able to provide this amount, but there is need for more,” he says, describing current support as “a drop in the ocean,” particularly in the context of the worsening funding landscape.
On a human level, he points to the psychological toll investigative journalism can take. Many of these stories are stressful, and there is “a lot of burnout and anxiety among journalists, even trauma,” he notes. Cross-border cooperation, while essential, can also be difficult to manage.
Participating foundations recognise that “independent media is a cornerstone of democracy,” Large says, adding that IJ4EU is a “safe and impactful way of getting into funding journalism.” He hopes that the programme will not only continue, but attract more philanthropic support, as there is a huge demand for such grants. Looking ahead, he imagines a possible future expansion: “Dreaming big, maybe one day the model can be expanded beyond Europe, to become global, because it really works.”
TikTok has been rapidly emerging as a major news source, particularly for younger audiences. Its preference for relatable, personality-driven content offers new opportunities for newsrooms to increase their reach among these younger age groups – but also comes with challenges.
TikTok’s Growing Influence in News Consumption
At the start of April 2025, there were 5.31 billion social media users globally, 64.7% of the world’s population. Among all platforms, TikTok now ranks fifth and continues to grow rapidly. The 2024 Reuters Institute Digital News Report (DNR) identified TikTok as one of the fastest-rising platforms for news engagement, particularly among young users. Furthermore, Gen Z adults (aged 18 to 24) spend a significant amount of time, an average of 77 minutes per day, on the app. According to a fresh study by the Thomson Foundation and the Media and Journalism Research Center (MJRC), it has all but taken over in Romania, where 47% of the population uses it – the highest proportion in the EU.
TikTok is now much more than dance trends or weird challenges. It has become too big to ignore. “News media have to follow where the audiences are,” says Ali Mahmood, Audience Revenue and Engagement Expert at FatChilli for Publishers. “Algorithmic distribution is now the reality for a significant segment of the news-consuming population.”
Since the Covid-19 pandemic, audience preferences have shifted toward video-based platforms such as YouTube, TikTok, and Instagram, which have grown in importance as news sources. The DNR notes that 13% of respondents now use TikTok for news, surpassing X (formerly Twitter). Among younger audiences, this shift is even more significant. As Freddy Tran Nager, Clinical Associate Professor at USC Annenberg, points out, around 40% of young people now get their news from TikTok, though this comes with risks, as there is a lot of misinformation on the platform. He believes that it is the responsibility of professional journalists to provide credible information.
The Thomson-MJRC study found that only 9.9% of Romanian teens follow journalists, highlighting a shifting ecosystem shaped by influencers rather than traditional newsrooms. Mahmood stresses that with the growing influence of news-focused content creators, “you don’t want to be left out and have people (mis)informed only by them.”
However, as younger users are less likely to trust institutions than individuals, both he and Nager agree that news brands must be represented by real people to successfully connect with audiences. “They need a face,” Nager emphasises. Furthermore, according to a study by Zinc Network, presented at the Central European Media Trends conference in Warsaw in December, the majority of paying subscribers regularly seek out news content from identifiable personalities such as journalists, influencers, and podcast hosts, showing a strong preference for personality-driven content.
Still, TikTok also offers an opportunity to increase brand awareness. For many young adults, it may be the first platform where they encounter a news brand.
How Newsrooms Are Adapting
Across Europe, many news executives have been grappling with how to make their outlets relevant to younger audiences, and there are many examples of successfully turning to TikTok. Spanish start-up Ac2ality quickly became one of the pioneers when its founder, Daniela McArena, realised that traditional news sources lacked context and clarity for younger readers. Ac2ality set out to deliver news in a “quick, concise and comprehensive manner,” tailored specifically for Gen Z on TikTok.
A similar success story unfolded in France where Hugo Travers, known online as Hugo Décrypte, has become a leading news source for young people. There are also promising examples from Central and Eastern Europe. Mahmood points to Romania’s Project F, run by journalists from PressOne, which focuses on women’s issues and involves the audience directly by asking what topics interest them. In the Czech Republic, Czech News Center experimented with distributing sports journalism via TikTok, targeting content to Gen Z by focusing on sports relevant to them. After hiring a Gen Z journalist to ensure an authentic tone, the initiative exceeded expectations and is now inspiring other teams within the organisation.
Traditional outlets have also begun to adapt. BBC News created a dedicated TikTok team, while The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal use the platform to reach new readers, even without monetisation. As Erika Marzano, Deutsche Welle’s Audience Development Manager argues, “TikTok has evolved from a platform of minimal output to one where posting at least once daily is necessary for growth.”
To connect with TikTok audiences, authenticity and relatability are essential. Mahmood emphasises that successful content addresses the audience’s real information needs. Rather than merely echoing existing coverage, journalists should offer explanation, context, and a human touch. “You have to be relatable,” he says, adding that journalists don’t need expensive equipment: a smartphone is enough, what matters is engaging storytelling. Seemingly casual, lo-fi content often garners more trust on the platform than polished productions.
Nager highlights that young audiences expect creators to have a visible personality. “It is not good to be neutral,” he argues. Showing emotion in a professionally restrained way, and being open about one’s perspective, can actually increase credibility. Encouraging reporters to be transparent, vulnerable, and even share personal experiences can foster stronger connections. This also means, according to Nager, that TikTok is not for everyone: journalists should not feel pressured to perform on the platform if it doesn’t suit their strengths. Ultimately, success comes from being real, not rehearsed.
Navigating the Algorithm
TikTok’s algorithm creates a highly personalised feed for each user, meaning no two people see the same content. This makes it difficult to know what kind of news others are encountering. Nager notes that creators must be patient as early videos may get little attention, and even followers might not see every post, as distribution is driven by the algorithm.
As many of the users are on the platform to learn something, he suggests using short, context-rich explainers to engage them and create a bridge to other platforms, such as websites or newsletters, adding that “one email address is worth 100 followers.” However, Mahmood cautions against pushing audiences to leave TikTok. As he points out, users are deeply engaged on the platform and attempts to redirect them may not be successful. Instead, success lies in adapting content to how users prefer to consume information within the app itself.
As digital journalist and TikTok creator Sophia Smith Galer advises, consistency is key: regular posting helps content appear on users’ For You pages rather than relying on follower shares. Journalists should return to and evolve their niche while actively engaging with users through comments. Originality also matters: TikTok content must be authentic, personal, and designed specifically for the platform, not recycled from traditional media.
TikTok is often misunderstood as a passive, entertainment-first platform, but research from Weber Shandwick shows that its users are highly engaged, with the comments section serving as a space for learning, fact-checking, and interpretation. This has important implications for newsrooms. As Mahmood points out, TikTok should not be treated as a traditional marketing channel where one simply posts a video and adds a link. Instead, active engagement is key: if a comment attracts significant attention, it can serve as the basis for a follow-up video.
Nager agrees that meaningful interaction boosts visibility on the platform but cautions journalists to avoid engaging with commenters with antagonistic intent. He also notes that the algorithm rewards both engagement and regular content output, so creators should be mindful of their time.
Collaborating with content creators who already have a large follower base can help news organisations build credibility and reach on TikTok. However, Nager stresses the importance of vetting collaborators carefully. He recommends working with professionals who already use TikTok responsibly. Mahmood adds that successful partnerships require mutual understanding and benefit. While some fear reputational risks, he argues that collaboration is similar to recruitment: it simply requires proper due diligence.
Balancing Engagement and Risk
While TikTok offers promising opportunities for audience growth, it also comes with risks. One main concern is misinformation: the platform does not prevent the spread of inaccurate content. This is especially troubling given that 27% of TikTok users say they struggle to assess the trustworthiness of news they see – more than on any other platform.
There is also the danger of over-reliance. News organisations may risk repeating the same mistakes made with Facebook, where dependency on a single platform left them vulnerable to algorithmic shifts.
Nager advises treating TikTok as one of several options, not the only one, highlighting other viable channels such as YouTube, Instagram, BlueSky, or newsletters. Still, as the Zinc Network study suggests that those most likely to pay for news tend to use multiple platforms, it is an opportunity that media outlets would be wise to explore.
Donor dependency, wherein media outlets rely heavily on external grants, has become a major challenge for independent media. While crucial for the survival of many outlets, it comes with substantial risks, as the recent freeze on US funding has demonstrated. Experts emphasise the need for revenue diversification to ensure long-term sustainability.
Donor dependency occurs when an organisation relies predominantly on external grants from philanthropies or other donors to sustain its operations. This has become particularly common among independent media operating in challenging environments where alternative revenue streams are scarce.
Anya Schiffrin, Director of the Media, Technology, and Communications specialisation at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs, notes that donor dependency is not a new phenomenon. However, concerns related to it were different two decades ago. When new donors entered the field and started to fund reporting on certain topics, it raised concerns about editorial independence. Later, “donors started to fund too many outlets,” which began to compete for the same resources.
The landscape changed after the 2008 financial crisis. “Everyone needed money,” Schiffrin argues, adding that a lot of news organisations improved their fundraising capabilities in the process. As her study highlighted in 2019, advertising remained difficult to secure and audience-based revenue models often failed to generate sufficient funds. A report by Free Press Unlimited further reinforced that many public interest media, especially those operating in difficult environments, became highly dependent on donor funding, as many struggled to generate commercial income.
In regions like the Western Balkans and Central and Eastern Europe, “donor support has been part of media business models,” argues Davor Marko, Central and South East Europe Programme Manager at Thomson Foundation. While grants were crucial in establishing independent voices after the wars in the Balkans, donor dependency has now become a threat, as many media outlets have neglected sustainability and capacity building.
The Consequences of Donor Dependency
While donor support is often essential for independent media, particularly in restrictive environments, over-reliance on external funding creates significant risks. One major consequence is financial instability. Newsrooms that fail to develop independent revenue streams risk severe financial crises or even closure when donor funding ends. A striking example is the recent USAID funding freeze, which has left many news organisations struggling to stay afloat.
Donor dependency can also distort market dynamics and weaken audience engagement. Donor-funded media often neglect sustainable revenue strategies. As a result, they may capitulate to donor priorities over audience needs, failing to cultivate a loyal readership or produce content that people are willing to pay for. This undermines long-term viability.
In authoritarian or hybrid regimes, donor dependency also exposes media outlets to political pressure. These governments frequently label donor-funded organisations as “foreign agents” or tools of foreign influence, using this narrative to restrict their operations or damage their credibility.
How Can Newsrooms Reduce Donor Dependency?
Reducing donor dependency requires a shift in mindset and a commitment to exploring new revenue streams. For years, many media outlets operated under the assumption that donor funding, particularly from US-funded programmes, would be reliable, Marko notes, adding that this led to a complacent approach wherein newsrooms did not prioritise exit strategies. Now, with US funding drying up, the urgency to adapt has never been greater. Schiffrin warns that European countries are unlikely to fill the gap in journalism support left by US funding, and she expects widespread layoffs. “I am definitely worried. There will be a bloodbath,” she says.
Diversifying revenue to mitigate the risks associated with donor dependency is a critical step. This could include subscriptions, memberships, advertising, and commercial services. Some media outlets have successfully experimented with alternative business models, such as offering video storytelling or live streaming services. Marko points to a newsroom in Serbia that has leveraged its expertise to provide video production at competitive prices. However, these strategies are not one-size-fits-all, he argues; local market conditions must be considered when designing new business models. “The Thomson worked with 100+ media outlets in Central and Eastern Europe and the Western Balkans. 10% of them were successful in creating something new and sustainable,” he says.
Audience engagement is another key factor in financial sustainability. Encouraging reader support through crowdfunding or membership programmes can help newsrooms build financial independence. However, securing this support is not easy, as it requires trust and consistent value delivery to readers.
Collaboration may offer additional opportunities. Anya Schiffrin suggests smaller newsrooms consider partnerships with other outlets or even universities. Academic institutions could provide resources such as office space or even students, although increased bureaucracy might be a trade-off.
Despite these possibilities, the overall outlook remains uncertain. The media development sector is undergoing dramatic changes, and without strategic-level thinking, many outlets will struggle to survive, Marko concludes.
The sudden freeze on USAID funding has sent shockwaves through independent newsrooms across Europe. With grants halted and uncertainty looming, many smaller outlets face closure, while larger ones brace for financial strain. As autocratic leaders may seize the moment to tighten control, experts are calling on European institutions and private donors to fill the sudden gap and prevent long-term damage to media pluralism.
On January 20, US President Donald Trump issued an executive order requiring all federal agencies to halt foreign development aid for 90 days. The directive, which took effect on January 24, applies to foreign funding managed by the State Department and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The administration stated that the review aims to ensure alignment with the President’s foreign policy.
USAID’s Critical Role in Supporting Independent Media
The US has long been the world’s largest provider of humanitarian aid. Through USAID, it has distributed billions of dollars in development assistance in more than 100 countries. The US government has also been the largest public donor to media development, supporting independent media as a core component of USAID’s mission since the 1980s.
“US public funding has played a crucial role in strengthening independent public interest journalism throughout the world. Particularly in Central and Eastern Europe, it has been one of the few key funders,” says Ebru Akgün, Programme Manager at Adessium Foundation and a Co-Chair of Journalism Funders Forum.
In the 2022 financial year, USAID invested approximately $130 million (EUR 123.9 million) to support media and the free flow of information. In 2023, the agency funded training and support for 6,200 journalists, 707 non-state news outlets, and 279 media-sector civil society organisations dedicated to strengthening independent media. For 2025, US Congress had allocated $268,376,000 (EUR 255.8 million) in foreign aid funding to support independent media and access to information.
USAID programmes have helped journalists expand their reach, secure sustainable revenue, and leverage digital tools to engage audiences. The agency has also worked to protect journalists from digital, legal, psychological, and physical threats while promoting professionalism and media management skills.
“USAID grants have allowed many independent media outlets to survive, especially in challenging environments,” says Marius Dragomir, Director of the Media and Journalism Research Center (MJRC). “For most independent media, grants are a major source of income. In many cases, they represent the largest part of their budget,” he continues.
Zselyke Csaky, a Senior Research Fellow at the Centre for European Reform, does not believe that these funds will return. According to her sources, with the shutdown of USAID’s Central Europe programme, originally launched in 2022, only 10-30% of grant funding will remain available in the region compared to three years ago.
The Financial Fallout
“This freeze means that some news outlets will be hit disproportionally, which will undermine the role of journalism in holding power to account. This will have consequences for all journalism funders, including funders like Adessium Foundation who do not fund news outlets directly in the region. The network of our grantee partners will be affected and thus the entire ecosystem we aim to support,” notes Akgün.
According to the European Federation of Journalists (EFJ), the freeze affects dozens of news organisations in more than 30 countries. The announcement came as a shock to many of them. “The general feeling is panic. Panic is the only way to describe the situation,” Karol Luczka, Eastern Europe Advocacy Lead at the International Press Institute (IPI), told Voice of America.
Local, national, and international journalist organisations have all been affected. For example, the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) received $7 million (EUR 6.7 million) from US government programs, which constitutes about 38% of its budget. “We are operating as if the reduction in funding will be permanent. Almost all grants have ended to our member centres, and global training, security, cloud computing, and country level programs have been affected,” says Drew Sullivan, OCCRP’s Co-Founder and Publisher. “82 percent of our partner subgrants were cut and almost all funding by OCCRP has stopped to our media member centres. Some of them lost most – or even all – of their funding and are struggling to continue operating,” he adds.
“The best-case scenario is that many organisations will have to downsize operations. Many of our contacts have commented that the freeze is a major blow for them. Dozens have already lost their jobs. There are outlets that will face closure,” explains Dragomir, adding that larger organisations with more diverse funding sources will be less affected, but many smaller ones “will face extinction.” Csaky agrees: “The freeze will cause the most problems for smaller, rural news organisations, especially in countries where diverse funding sources are not yet available.”
According to Reuters, Hungary is one of the countries most affected by the freeze. One of the most important projects to support independent media has been suspended, which amounted to HUF 173 million (EUR 430 thousand), affecting dozens of projects aimed at strengthening and sustaining independent local and national public-interest media, or at supporting media literacy and journalism training.
Other USAID-funded media programmes in the country have also been suspended. Tamás Bodoky, Managing Editor of Átlátszó, an investigative outlet, told Reuters that USAID indirectly funded 10-15% of their budget in 2023-2024. They will now seek new donors and expand crowdfunding efforts. Others will have to postpone planned projects, such as the weekly Magyar Hang, where USAID grants constituted 5% of the budget. As its Editor-in-Chief Zsombor György told Balkan Insight, the outlet had planned to invest in a studio and equipment but will now postpone the project.
Ágnes Urbán of Mérték Media Monitor, an NGO, warns that while larger outlets may endure, smaller regional media could suffer serious consequences, as they lack the resources to invest in their future. According to MJRC sources, for some rural outlets, where these grants made up nearly half their funding, survival itself is now in jeopardy.
There are serious consequences in other countries in Eastern Europe and the Balkans. In Moldova, Anastasia Condruc, Editor-in-Chief of Moldova.org, described the situation as ‘dire’. “Around 75% of our budget comes from European and American grants. For now, we have the budget for salaries for the month of February and a bit of March,” she said to The Fix. SDK in North Macedonia is also under severe threat. “[USAID-funded] projects contribute 25% of the newsroom’s budget,” Editor-in-Chief Goran Mihajlovski said. The uncertainty is forcing newsrooms like SDK to reconsider their financial strategies to ensure their survival.
The situation is even more critical in war-torn Ukraine, where media outlets heavily depend on international funding. “Almost 90% of Ukrainian media receives foreign funding,” notes Csaky. Bohdan Lohvynenko, founder of the online news portal Ukraïner, revealed to The Guardian that more than 80% of their funding came from the US, leaving them in a precarious position. “There is no viable advertising market for war reporting, leaving us with community support or a paywall model,” he explained. Raising funds in a country at war, however, remains a major challenge.
Other Ukrainian outlets are similarly affected. As Anna Babinets, Editor-in-Chief of Slidstvo.Info, stated, “80% of our financing is from US government money.” The uncertainty is already causing job losses across the sector. “Some will survive, but many will not,” said Katerina Sergatskova, co-founder of the 2402 Foundation, which supports and trains journalists.
In Belarus, where the independent press already faces harsh repression, the freeze could be catastrophic. Natalia Belikova of Press Club Belarus noted that 70% of their funding comes from US federal sources. “They are at risk of fading away and gradually disappearing,” she warned, emphasising that without independent media, state propaganda would dominate public discourse.
The funding freeze has hit exiled media outlets even harder, and they may need drastic measures to stay afloat. Katerina Abramova, Communications Director for Meduza, a leading exiled Russian outlet, told Reporters Without Borders (RSF) that funding reviews could drag on indefinitely. “We can’t monetise our audience, and crowdfunding has limits—especially when donating to Meduza is a crime in Russia,” she said.
Csaky warns of another consequence of the freeze: many news organisations supported by USAID also received EU grants, which usually require co-financing. However, for some, these two were essentially the only sources of funding, meaning they could now lose both, as they will no longer be able to co-finance EU-supported projects.
The Dangerous Ripple Effect of the Freeze
The freeze on funding could have far-reaching consequences beyond financial constraints. In Hungary, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, who has reshaped the media landscape by capturing the regulatory body and the public service broadcaster and forcing private media outlets to close or fall into the hands of pro-government owners, has quickly stated his intention to eliminate “foreign networks” of NGOs and media critical of his regime. According to news reports, at a party meeting he specifically mentioned that those organisations that received funding from USAID should be “banned from Hungary.”
This has raised concerns that the freeze will encourage other illiberal governments to crack down on media deemed unfriendly, as autocratic leaders now feel empowered, says Csaky. Similar measures, such as imposing “foreign agent laws,” will make the financial situation of independent media even more difficult. “Even if new donors emerge, actually accessing their grants will be very difficult in such environments,” she argues.
Dragomir also warns that similar trends are likely to emerge elsewhere. In countries with a high level of media capture and limited space for independent journalism, the situation will worsen, leading to a “growing dominance of the government-funded media model” and further damaging the news ecosystem.
The decline in independent news outlets could also lead to an increase in misinformation, Clayton Weimers, Executive Director of RSF US argued to The Guardian. “When you pull reliable sources of information, that vacuum will be filled with less reliable sources [such as] state propagandists,” he said. Babinets added that, since the funding freeze, fake stories have already started to circulate on anonymous Telegram channels and websites, echoing Russian disinformation narratives.
What Donors, Governments, and the Public Can Do
According to Sullivan, affected news organisations “should explore any revenue generating option that they have not pursued yet, including donations from readership, fees for service programs, and advertisement. Donors are likely overwhelmed with requests for support, but they could look toward local philanthropy first for commitments. They should also consider changing their business models and starting to publish on some of the platforms that offer revenue from readership such as Substack.”
The funding freeze has indeed forced some news organisations to turn to their audience for financial support. For example, Moldova.org launched a crowdfunding campaign on Patreon and sought new revenue sources. SDK in North Macedonia also relies on donations, but the impact has been minimal, covering only 3–5% of the budget. Meanwhile, the Kyiv Independent, itself unaffected by the freeze, has fundraised to support struggling outlets. Slidstvo.Info has also launched an online campaign, hoping to secure additional funding. However, with the ongoing war, donation appeals are easily overlooked.
Dragomir offers a pessimistic view, emphasising that there is little to be done in the short term. “For many organisations, it took years to build their business model, and grants were a major source. This dependency is not ideal, of course, and some were aware of it, but nobody thought that something like this would happen,” he says. “New revenue takes time to develop and is not an instant solution. We are trying to help them as much as possible, and we have set up a regranting mechanism to assist them in their transition. Any donations are welcome,” Sullivan notes, adding that “realistically, the opportunity for local funding is minimal. Some local audiences have little or no disposable income. In some cases, some organisations will close.”
While media outlets must diversify their revenue streams, many have already been attempting to do so for years, with limited success. In the short term, “mobilisation across Europe is needed,” Dragomir argues.
Akgün highlights the responsibility of funders in ensuring the survival of independent media. “As funders, we need to collaborate to make sure that the infrastructure that has been built for decades can continue to do the crucial work that is needed to protect and foster democracy,” she notes. The European Federation of Journalists echoes this sentiment, with President Maja Sever calling on European institutions and foundations to coordinate efforts in safeguarding media pluralism and supporting independent journalism. “The European Union and other donors cannot abandon to their fate journalists who are the best bulwark for defending the rule of law and democracy in countries where they are under threat,” she wrote in a statement.
The Global Forum for Media Development has also issued an urgent call for action, urging governments, donors, and stakeholders to respond immediately. They advocate for unrestricting existing grants to allow greater flexibility in fund allocation, establishing emergency budget lines for public interest media, and increasing funding while streamlining administrative processes. They also stress the need for better donor coordination and the importance of addressing long-term structural challenges to build resilience within the sector.
A quick reaction is most important, says Csaky: “These outlets need the money now, within the next couple of months; otherwise, they may have to shut down.” She believes that now is the time for new donors to step up, as rebuilding the news ecosystem after a collapse would be much more difficult. “Governments that recognise the importance of independent media could introduce incentives to make supporting it worthwhile, which would add significant value,” she continues, adding that pooled funds could also offer a viable solution, as they ensure that grants do not depend on a single donor.
Nevertheless, Dragomir thinks that in the long term, “news organisations need to start to understand their public better. They need to try to start a dialogue with them, but also to engage more with the private sector beyond advertising.” As he argues, there are businesses that understand the importance of independent media, but “a more proactive approach is needed from media outlets to make them more aware of the situation,” and understand why supporting independent media would be mutually beneficial.