US Democracy: Confronting A New Information Age

Just before their 2024 presidential election, 58% of American voters said that the US political system needs a major overhaul. Another survey revealed that only 4% described the system as working “very well” or “extremely well”, and fewer than a quarter said “somewhat well”. Trust in US institutions has long been in a steady decline. Americans voted last year for change, and all signs indicate that Donald Trump is focused on delivering it.

This could be an opportunity for the US government to show its citizens and the world, particularly adversaries, that American democracy is capable of approaching and adapting policy issues—among them the economy, immigration, trade, and security—with fresh eyes and creativity.

But new policies on hot-button issues can move the country only so far. The incoming administration, if it is to be effective, must also address other systemic problems that cut across policy areas. These include a fragmented information space, foreign efforts to undermine US democracy, and, at home, the fraying of community connections. These three challenges degrade American unity and, abroad, its competitiveness.

The Information Free-For-All 

Rapid technological developments mean Americans find themselves in an increasingly complex and fragmented information space. More options for sources of information are not necessarily a negative, but the world is in the midst of a massive transformation in communication. Trust in traditional media is crumbling, as is its audience, and new platforms, voices, and outlets are constantly emerging. At the same time, advances in generative artificial intelligence (AI) offer opportunities for creatives, professionals, and malign actors alike. Quality information is consequently ever harder to identify, in part due to information silos and political polarization. The idea of reaching most Americans with any particular message has become almost impossible.

This presents challenges for a democracy that has long functioned on fierce policy disagreements over shared facts. Now, facts themselves are the subjects of disagreements. This hinders any administration’s ability to connect with a broad swath of Americans, which has significant social impact.

Meta’s recent announcement that it is moving away from content moderation and toward a “community notes”, X-style model signals that the information space battle between content moderation and freedom of speech has been settled, at least for the moment. But that does not negate the need for political leaders to remain engaged in the future of the information ecosystem and help shape it, in part to serve the national interest. Social media companies, for example, should be incentivized to prioritize official sources of information when there is breaking news of great import such as a natural disaster. These companies have sole control over content prioritization decisions.

The incoming administration and other political leaders should play a significant role in helping shape the function and impact of the evolving information environment. This will require understanding competing political and industry interests, and ensuring that platform policies and regulations bolster the democratic fundamentals that have long defined American society.

The Threat From Abroad 

The developing and relatively immature new information space presents an opportunity for American adversaries that seek to benefit from exacerbating domestic US disputes and undermining the country. Russia, China, and Iran may each have its own geopolitical aims and interests, but all stand to gain from a seemingly flailing US democracy. Domestic disarray makes it more likely that Washington’s focus is inward and attention to international affairs limited, leaving ample room for adversaries to make power plays. A United States in turmoil also offers authoritarians a chance to put a gloss on their systems by painting democracy as the epitome of dysfunction.

American adversaries are honing their information operations against the United States and its allies. Using new tools such as generative AI and tactics such as zombie and mirror sites, these foes are engaged in increasingly sophisticated interference efforts. Their operations are often aimed at further polarizing domestic US debates and amplifying Americans’ disenchantment with democracy. The post-election period will see only limited letup in these malign actors’ efforts. 

To be clear, this threat does not only emanate from abroad; domestic players, in fact, drive most social cleavages. But foreign efforts exacerbate the challenge. In August 2023, for example, a China-linked network of social media accounts used AI-generated images and false claims of a “weather weapon” to add to the chaos during the wildfires that decimated parts of Maui. 

Closer to Home

It is easy and logical to assume that adversaries’ efforts to exacerbate division in the United States concentrate on the national level and on elections. That would be a mistake.

Over the last eight years these efforts have expanded to states and local communities, sometimes exploiting the legitimacy of local news outlets or inserting agents into government offices, as was the case in New York. And some activities involve sustained campaigns that have no link to elections at all. They target political communities on the left and the right on issues that matter to both.

This adversarial information environment will not abate, and US communities remain vulnerable in large part because they are unaware. States and communities can adjust to the new information space—and foreign weaponization of it—by raising awareness among political leaders and resilience in the populace. The federal government has a role to play here. In addition to its ongoing responsibility to investigate and prosecute foreign interference, it should communicate widely about the tools and tactics used to combat these operations.

Policy Recommendations 

A second Trump administration should not allow systemic and geopolitical challenges to undermine democratic fundamentals. To shape the information sector of the future, confront US foreign adversaries, and support community connection and resilience the administration should:

• lead a national conversation on the new information space. The administration should spur debate on shaping the evolving information environment. It should convene a task force comprising representatives of social media companies, policymakers from both major parties, and community leaders from across the country to lay out a future for the information sector and the steps for shaping and protecting it.
• fold AI literacy and the information environment into the AI czar portfolio. The incoming czar, David Sacks, has a big portfolio but also a robust team. While it will rightly be focused on legal frameworks, AI industry considerations, and competitiveness, the team should also look at AI’s impact on and role in the information sector. The adoption of an AI literacy framework would better prepare Americans to navigate this increasingly fraught information environment and excel in an AI-heavy economy.
• streamline messaging on foreign interference and information operations. The White House should emphasize in communications about foreign threats to the United States the tactical details and ultimate goals of Iranian, Chinese, and Russian information operations that target Republicans and Democrats. It should build on the pre-election foreign interference reports from the office of the director of national intelligence to depoliticize the issue of foreign interference and information manipulation, and to focus public attention on threats from foreign adversaries and US responses to those threats.
• coordinate with European allies on responses to foreign interference. Despite different approaches to freedom of speech and the information sector, the United State and Europe can agree that foreign adversaries must not interfere in the domestic politics of Western nations. More robust penalties for such efforts can emerge from information sharing and coordinated responses.

Rachael Dean Wilson is the managing director of the Alliance for Securing Democracy at GMF.