Every year on April 2, fact-checkers celebrate International Fact-Checking Day. Usually it’s a time for celebration, fun, even for a little irreverence. This year, for example, the British actor Stephen Fry is giving fact-checkers a shout-out and asking people to think before they share.
But this year’s fact-checking day also marks a very serious moment for the fact-checking community. We are facing multiple challenges to our ability to do our journalism, and it’s not clear what the next few years will bring. As director of the International Fact-Checking Network at Poynter, which connects 170 organizations around the world all adhering to high standards in fact-checking, I see a community under intense pressure. Not everyone loves fact-checking, and there are powerful political forces that would simply like it to go away.
This is indeed a crisis for fact-checkers, but it’s even worse for the general public. Disinformation hurts people. It has real-world consequences. Without fact-checking, more grandparents will fall victim to financial scams. Adults will refuse to vaccinate children against proven killers like measles. Teens will read faked reports of current events with no way to tell them apart from the real thing.
Two heavy blows hit fact-checking in 2025. In January, Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg announced his decision to end its third-party fact-checking in the United States. The program paid fact-checkers to help Meta identify and flag hoaxes and other false information on its platform; the program’s end means less money for fact-checkers and less distribution via one of the world’s largest social media companies. Right now, only U.S. fact-checkers will be affected, but it may end up being rolled out to the rest of the world in 2026.
The other blow came from President Donald Trump’s administration, when billionaire Elon Musk pointed his Department of Government Efficiency at the U.S. Agency for International Development. The abrupt ending of USAID meant an immediate end to funding independent international journalism, which included support for fact-checkers in Eastern Europe, Africa, Latin America and Asia. Some of these fact-checkers have suffered quietly, trying to find other ways to fund their work. Others have been the target of harassment and even government repression, as in Serbia, where government authorities raided their offices.
Yet fact-checking is resilient. What began as a few quirky experiments in online journalism between 2007 and 2014 has blossomed into a mature array of fact-checking newsrooms around the world. They are sites like PolitiFact and Factcheck.org in the United States; Full Fact in the United Kingdom; Maldita and Newtral in Spain; Chequeado in Argentina; Pravda in Poland; Aos Fatos and Lupa in Brazil; and so many others in countries large and small.
This ecosystem was in place and growing in 2016 when Meta announced it would start paying fact-checkers to help identify hoax content on Facebook. That jump started the growth of fact-checking. The public funding that Elon Musk is trashing was another factor in the growth of fact-checking; groups like USAID thought that funding fact-checking overseas would empower democracy and accountable government. I remember an international development officer telling me that fact-checking encouraged fact-based public debate on important public issues and therefore encouraged stable societies.
That hopeful vision hasn’t played out, but it doesn’t mean that fact-checking isn’t needed. On the contrary, with lies on the march, fact-checking is more important than ever. Fact-checking’s effectiveness, in fact, may be why it is under such harsh attack in 2025. Fact-checking holds the line on reality for history’s sake. It builds evidence-based records that can withstand political pressures. Politicians who want to create their own realities are fighting hard against fact-checking, and they’re strong-arming tech companies and social media platforms into helping them.
Fact-checking holds the line on reality for history’s sake.”
But these social media platforms are also under pressure from their own users. The public expects social media platforms to provide a positive user experience, and that means that users don’t have to wade through feeds full of hoaxes, scams and conspiracy theories. And in fact, nearly two-thirds of American adults tell pollsters they support independent fact-checking journalists reviewing social media posts.
Meta has promised to unveil a new system of content moderation on its platforms, imitating the “community notes” program that Twitter launched before it became X. But community notes aren’t a great way to counteract harmful disinformation. They rely on everyday users to sort out fact from fiction by attaching notes to content, so they tend to be slow to appear. They also require widespread agreement among users who often have raging political disagreements.
I hope community notes evolve to include fact-checkers. Fact-checkers could speed the process and create more notes based on evidence and sourcing. A recent study showed that community notes users are already citing published fact-checking regularly. Meta and X’s commitments to community notes show that they know they can’t simply ignore the public’s desire for accurate content.
Right now, social media’s turn away from fact-checking is being driven by political agendas and political pressure. Musk has poured millions of dollars into supporting Trump and his campaign. Zuckerberg’s comments and those of his lieutenants suggest his decision was expressly made to win the favor of the new administration. When directly asked whether Zuckerberg was responding to his threats, Trump himself said, “Probably.”
Politicians have led the charge that fact-checking is “censorship,” but that self-serving argument is fundamentally a mischaracterization of what fact-checkers do. We’re more like nutrition labels for online content. Nobody thinks a nutrition label on a bag of potato chips or a gallon of milk is censorship. Similarly, fact-checking adds information to the public debate and public action. Trump and his supporters want an information environment where lies can multiply and go viral without anyone contradicting them. That is the real infringement on freedom of speech. As Stephen Fry says in his video praising fact-checkers, “Fact-checkers aren’t the enemies of free speech, they are its guardians, ensuring the debate is grounded in reality rather than fantasy.”
We’re more like nutrition labels for online content. Nobody thinks a nutrition label on a bag of potato chips or a gallon of milk is censorship.”
What happens over the next 24 months will be critical to the future of accurate information online. Fact-checkers have weathered criticism, threats and financial challenges before. The current crisis, though serious, will push fact-checkers to innovate. Some are exploring membership models. Others are partnering with libraries and educational institutions. Many are developing AI tools to help identify claims worth checking. They’ll have to have courage and be strong in the face of ongoing harassment.
Thankfully, our community has many examples of colleagues persevering under far worse conditions. In the Philippines, Rappler continues to publish despite years of government harassment. In Brazil, Aos Fatos thrives even in the face of nuisance lawsuits. In Ukraine, fact-checkers like StopFake, Vox Ukraine and Gwara have worked through war and bombardment. They inspire the rest of us because they understand what’s at stake. We’ve seen the consequences play out in countries where authoritarians have dismantled independent media. Democracy dies not just in darkness, but in confusion and ignorance.
The challenges fact-checkers face aren’t just logistical or financial. They are also cultural. We must make fact-checking vital to people’s daily lives, reaching beyond traditional audiences. We must defend the credibility and usefulness of evidence-based reporting. We have to remind people why truth-seeking is an honorable, patriotic activity that knows no party or political agenda. The IFCN’s Code of Principles sets standards for nonpartisanship that we should rightfully be proud of.
This International Fact-Checking Day, I’m asking the public to join us in whatever way they can. Subscribe to the newsletter of a fact-checking organization. (You can find a list of fact-checkers who adhere to the high standards of the International Fact-Checking Network here.) Share their work when it helps clarify confusing claims. Challenge misinformation wherever you encounter it. Support educational programs that teach students how to verify what they see online. And yes, if you can, donate to fact-checkers — they provide a public service that benefits everyone.
To the philanthropic community, if you haven’t reordered your priorities since the beginning of the year, now is the time to do so. Your funding could make all the difference to a small newsroom struggling to survive.
Whether fact-checking flourishes or founders in the coming years depends on whether enough of us are willing to fight back against those who claim the truth is whatever they say it is. We have to insist on evidence, on facts, on integrity. If we want a society that respects truth, now is our time to fight for it.
You can support fact-checking organizations by donating to them directly through their own websites. To support the International Fact-Checking Network, make your donation through the Poynter Institute and mark the IFCN as your reason for giving.
Comments