The Architecture of Influence: A Comprehensive Analysis of State Propaganda and Information Governance (2006–2046)

The modern information environment has transitioned from a supporting domain of traditional statecraft into the primary theater of geopolitical competition and societal organization. In the early twenty-first century, the definition of propaganda has evolved from crude, top-down messaging into a sophisticated, multi-layered system of cognitive management that leverages data science, psychological triggers, and globalized digital infrastructure. This shift represents a fundamental transformation in how states secure domestic legitimacy, project international power, and navigate the increasingly fragile consensus of the digital age. This report examines the strategic utility and societal consequences of government propaganda, tracing its evolution within the United States over the last two decades and forecasting its trajectory into the mid-twenty-first century.

The Strategic Calculus of State Propaganda: Five Core Benefits to the Nation-State

The academic and strategic literature suggests that propaganda, when viewed through the lens of statecraft, functions as a mechanism for aligning individual behavior with national objectives. While frequently discussed in pejorative terms within democratic contexts, propaganda remains an indispensable tool for maintaining the functional integrity of a country across political, economic, and social dimensions. Analysis indicates that the propaganda system has evolved from a basic tool of communication into a complex and structured mechanism for managing public opinion, performing critical functions that determine the direction of social changes.1

1. Facilitation of Social Unity and National Cohesion

The primary strategic benefit of propaganda is its capacity to function as a powerful force for social unity and the dissemination of shared values. In complex, multicultural societies, the state requires a mechanism to bridge disparate interests and create a sense of collective identity. Individuals tend to conform to widely accepted standards not merely out of obligation but to avoid the psychological costs of non-conformity.1 Propaganda achieves this by popularizing acceptable values and norms of behavior that are approved by the general public, thereby creating the foundation for social cohesion. By influencing public opinion toward a unified perception of sociopolitical reforms, the state ensures that citizens conform to widely accepted standards, which is an expression of the needs and interests of members of society.1 Shared beliefs and expectations serve as the foundation for collective identity, and propaganda plays a crucial role in shaping this collective consciousness. Peer influence largely works toward reducing variation and finding consensus around the middle ground, whereas an authority’s influence through propaganda can directionally shift the actions, attitudes, and beliefs of a large number of individuals simultaneously.2

2. Mobilization for Collective Action and Problem-Solving

Propaganda serves as a critical administrative tool for mobilizing the public to address specific social problems and implement large-scale programs. It is extremely difficult to eliminate a problem that has been ignored by the public or where there is no collective will to address it.1 Modern propaganda systems excel at drawing public attention to existing problems, informing citizens about their causes and consequences, and mobilizing people to implement social programs. This "soft power" approach allows the state to modify behavior and beliefs through persuasion rather than coercion, promotes actions that can be against the immediate material interests of individuals but in favor of the interests of society as a whole.2 This is particularly important during crises or conflicts, where the significance of propaganda in guiding public behavior remains indispensable for the preservation of the state.1 By modifying individuals’ attitudes toward specific actions or changing their beliefs about the costs and benefits of those actions, propaganda acts as a powerful source of social development and reform.1

3. Securing Support for Sociopolitical Reforms and Institutional Legitimacy

The realization of national goals and objectives is intrinsically linked to public opinion; goals that the public does not approve of cannot be achieved because members of society cannot be mobilized toward them.1 Propaganda allows social institutions across political, economic, and cultural sectors to secure support and foster public engagement by forming an "acceptable opinion" regarding planned changes. This management of perception is essential for the smooth implementation of economic shifts, legal updates, or institutional restructuring. When aligned with democratic and humanistic values, propaganda functions as a mechanism for social development and cohesion, allowing institutions to rely on it to ensure that reforms are assimilated as rules of behavior by the citizenry.1 The authority benefits directly if people respond to its messaging, and the modern propaganda system copes with the task of drawing attention to these institutional goals with great skill.1

4. Enhancement of National Image and International Soft Power

In the international arena, propaganda functions as a tool of public diplomacy, aimed at promoting a better understanding of the country in foreign nations and increasing mutual understanding between peoples.3 By curating and disseminating narratives that highlight national achievements and cultural values, a state can promote its image abroad and project influence without resorting to "hard power" or coercion.2 This projection of a positive image is crucial for securing alliances and maintaining influence in global governance forums. However, it is noted that in a democracy, when internal issues arise at home, it becomes significantly more difficult to project a positive image abroad, illustrating the link between domestic narrative control and international diplomatic success.4

5. Strategic Justification and Adversary Neutralization

Communication serves as a vital instrument for informing the public about national security actions and justifying state behavior in moments of crisis. In the digital age, intelligence organizations are becoming much more visible, using new media to inform the public, justify actions, and discredit adversaries.5 This "mediatisation" of intelligence involves a shift away from traditional secrecy toward a strategy where communication serves to maintain public support for operations that might otherwise be scrutinized.5 By framing narratives around extremism, racism, or economic inequality, the state can develop counter-narratives that marginalize opposition and consolidate support for its security policies.6

The Societal Cost of Government Propaganda: Five Critical Detriments

While propaganda offers clear advantages for state administration, its impact on the fabric of society is often corrosive. The use of information as a weapon of influence can lead to a degradation of democratic processes and the erosion of the shared reality necessary for functional governance. Evidence indicates that digital spaces have emerged as a fertile ground for disinformation campaigns that aggravate polarization and pose a threat to societal harmony.7

1. Polarization of Public Opinion and Fragmentation of Reality

The most pervasive detriment of contemporary propaganda is its capacity to polarize public opinion into conflicting realities. Propaganda, misinformation, and fake news have the potential to polarize the public to such an extent that individuals inhabit different cognitive silos.7 This phenomenon has impeded responses to national emergencies, slowed consensus on critical global issues like climate change, and continues to challenge the resilience of societies.7 Society becomes divided along partisan lines, increasing the likelihood of violence and resulting in a catastrophic loss of diversity in the social fabric.7 As people seek validation within like-minded groups, social media reinforces these echo chambers, making it impossible for citizens to agree on even the most basic facts.9

2. Erosion of Trust in Democratic Institutions and Processes

Propaganda, particularly when it involves the dissemination of false information intentionally designed to cause harm (disinformation) or true information used maliciously (mal-information), undermines trust in democratic processes.8 When governments or political parties misuse platforms to manipulate public opinion, it results in a decline in trust across society—from Congress and the criminal justice system to public schools and medical systems.7 Data shows that Americans are increasingly losing trust in the wisdom of their fellow citizens and in the media's ability to report news fully, accurately, and fairly.9 This distrust creates a fertile ecosystem for further disinformation, as individuals who do not trust any information they receive become paralyzed by confusion.9

3. Promotion of Violent Extremism and Hate Speech

Propaganda campaigns often leverage emotional responses—specifically fear and anger—to persuade audiences to further a specific agenda. This can unintentionally or intentionally promote violent extremism and hate speech.8 In recent years, the world has seen a surge in violent extremism claiming innocent lives, often rooted in ideologies that exalt the dominance of specific groups.6 These narratives are amplified by digital tools, which can lend support to a milieu of hate speech that fuels further polarization.7 High-profile incidents, such as the January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol, illustrate how domestic violent extremism can be fueled by misinformation and the systematic targeting of public perception.6

4. Creation of Cognitive Warfare and Information Paralysis

A significant detriment of modern propaganda is its evolution into "cognitive warfare"—the transformation of how individuals understand and interpret situations both individually and in mass consciousness.9 The goal is often to get people to a stage where they do not trust anything they see or hear because of the sheer volume of contradictory information.9 This creates a state of "information paralysis" where individuals are unable to make informed decisions or take meaningful civic action. Hostile actors exploit this vulnerability by creating complex information ecosystems that promote conflicting narratives, effectively weakening the information pillars of society.9

5. Suppression of Free Expression and Independent Discourse

To combat the "menace" of fake news and hate speech, governments often pursue content moderation, surveillance, and internet censorship.7 While these measures are sometimes framed as "necessary evils" to control polarization, they frequently challenge the freedom of expression online.7 The labeling of legitimate journalism as "fake news" by political actors further undermines the role of independent media, intimidating publishers and branding journalists as offenders.11 This creates a "chilling effect" where the state's power to manipulate information goes unchecked by traditional democratic filters, ultimately reducing the public’s ability to monitor government actions.4

U.S. Propaganda Trends (2006–2026): A Two-Decade Strategic Evolution

The trajectory of U.S. government communication over the last twenty years has been defined by a movement away from the "firewall" model of the Cold War toward a more integrated, proactive, and often controversial approach to domestic and international influence. This evolution has been catalyzed by technological shifts, the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, and a changing domestic political landscape.

1. The Revival of the Propaganda State and Public Diplomacy (2001–2012)

The period following the September 11 attacks saw a significant "revival of the propaganda state".4 This era was marked by the use of American strategies to manipulate information and "manage" the media against the backdrop of the War on Terror and the conflict in Iraq.4 There was a problematic tension between democratic ideals of openness and the military’s need to secure public support for global counter-terrorism operations. During this time, the U.S. government ramped up its public diplomacy efforts abroad while simultaneously facing challenges at home as domestic failures undermined the messages sent to foreign audiences.4 The focus was on centralizing the narrative to ensure that the "war on global terrorism" maintained legitimacy both domestically and internationally.

2. Legal De-marginalization: The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act (2012–2013)

A pivotal shift in the U.S. approach to propaganda occurred with the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012, which was incorporated into the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2013.3 For over sixty years, the original 1948 Smith-Mundt Act had prohibited the domestic dissemination of U.S. government-produced programming, such as Voice of America, for fear that these agencies would "propagandize" the American people.12 Proponents of the modernization argued that the ban was meaningless in the age of the internet, where foreign-aimed broadcasts were already accessible to U.S. citizens.3 The repeal allowed the Broadcasting Board of Governors (now the U.S. Agency for Global Media) to fulfill requests from U.S. broadcasters and universities for its materials.3 While supporters lauded the increase in transparency and the ability to reach émigré populations, critics feared it opened the "floodgates" for the federal government to covertly influence public opinion without attribution.12

3. The Collapse of Media Trust and the Rise of "Fake News" Narratives

The last twenty years have witnessed a historic decline in Americans' trust in the mass media, falling from 53% in 1997 to 31% by 2024.10 A particularly sharp trend has been the surge in media distrust among Republicans, rising from 18% in 2001 to 59% by 2024, largely driven by the "Trump era" rhetoric.10 This period saw the normalization of the "Trump playbook," which involves bypassing traditional media in favor of sympathetic influencers and branding independent journalism as "fake news".11 By 2026, this strategy has become globally pervasive, with politicians using it to undermine legitimate news organizations and create a "Hall of Shame" for outlets perceived as biased.11 This has led to a fragmented information environment where trust is no longer assumed and the media is frequently branded as an "offender".11

4. Proactive Intelligence Disclosure and "Pre-bunking" Strategies

Following the 2014 annexation of Crimea, the U.S. government began trending toward a more proactive posture in the information domain.17 This shift culminated in 2022, when the U.S. Intelligence Community declassified and shared information ahead of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine to neutralize Russian narratives before they could take hold.17 This strategy, known as "pre-bunking," represents a departure from traditional intelligence methods that prioritize secrecy. By 2026, the mediatisation of intelligence has become standard, with agencies realizing that greater openness and transparency are necessary to maintain public support and justify security actions in a digital environment.5 This trend reflects a move toward "reputational security," where the state’s ability to project a truthful narrative is seen as a component of its defense.17

5. Transition to "Distributed Credibility" and AI-Driven Influence

By 2026, a fundamental shift has occurred in how the U.S. government communicates, moving from "broadcasting" to "active stewardship" of communities.18 Trust is increasingly formed in decentralized networks rather than through media institutions.11 The government has begun to invest in "messenger strategies," identifying trusted individuals across societal divides to carry frames and narratives.18 Simultaneously, the use of AI has industrialized influence operations, allowing for the "video-fication" of everything and the use of AI agents to personalize benefits and communications.11 This era is marked by the "securitization of public media," where the societal function of journalism is interpreted through a national security lens, justifying deeper government intervention in the information ecosystem.20

Impact of New Propaganda Techniques: Scale, Precision, and AI Integration

The emergence of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and generative technologies has revolutionized the efficacy and nature of propaganda, transforming it from a craftsmanship-based activity into an industrialized process. These technologies have fundamentally altered the balance between the strategic benefits and societal detriments of government communication.

1. The Industrialization of Influence Operations

New techniques have enabled what is termed "precision at scale"—the industrialization of influence operations.21 Historically, social engineering (psychological manipulation to trick people into actions) required a choice between broad reach (scale) or tailored messaging (precision). AI now allows adversaries and states to achieve both simultaneously.21 Once trained, an AI agent can engage in influence operations 24/7, learning from its failures and iterating to find the most successful tactics for any category of target at "silicon speeds".21 This transforms social engineering from an art into an assembly line, making it nearly impossible for the public to determine what is real from what is fake.21

2. Deepfakes and the Destabilization of Reality

Deepfake technology—AI-generated depictions of people or events—poses a direct challenge to the integrity of democratic processes.22 By lowering the barrier for malicious actors to generate convincing audio and video recordings of public figures, deepfakes can be used to discredit opponents, incite political scandals, or mislead voters.22 While the "deepfake deluge" predicted for 2024 was less impactful than expected due to social and legal constraints, the potential for "microtargeted deepfakes" remains a significant threat.23 These tailored deepfakes can score significantly lower political attitudes toward depicted politicians among specific subgroups, suggesting that microtargeting can amplify the effects of a single deepfake for maximal impact.24

3. Algorithmic Manipulation and Echo Chambers

Computational propaganda utilizes platform-specific algorithms to propagate false information and exploit emotional biases.25 AI technologies enhance controversial content by taking advantage of algorithmic biases, creating echo chambers where false news diffuses significantly farther, faster, and more broadly than true news.22 This phenomenon is driven by human behavior—users are more prone to spread falsehoods—but is aggressively jumpstarted by bot networks that target influential users.22 This systematic distortion of information environments fosters polarization and degrades democratic decision-making.22

4. Precision Munitions of Personal Data

The convergence of massive personal data collection with AI capabilities has turned personal data into "precision munitions".21 Adversaries can now weaponize personnel files, digital footprints (from apps like TikTok), and communication logs to create profiles of millions of citizens.21 This allows for the creation of influence operations that target individual U.S. citizens using "dark patterns"—addictive social media design features—to capture attention and shape subconscious thoughts.21 By amplifying emotionally charged content on critical issues like border crises or foreign aid, these techniques stoke chaos and fuel distrust in government decisions.21

5. Cognitive Combat and "Reputational Security"

Propaganda has evolved into a strategy of "cognitive warfare"—the transformation of understanding and interpretation within mass consciousness.9 This "cognitive combat" targets the individual's perception and decision-making processes, necessitating a shift toward "Cognitive Security" (COGSEC).21 States now focus on "reputational security," recognizing that long-term cultural influence through media—movies, shows, and games—is more effective for projecting narratives than ephemeral social media posts.17 This shift allows for the projection of western values while defending against foreign malign operations through "pre-bunking" and building societal resilience.17

Comparative Framework: The U.S. Approach vs. Global Powers

The United States utilizes a model of propaganda and information governance that differs significantly in its lexicon, institutional framework, and rhetorical style from the models employed by Russia and China. This comparison is essential for understanding the asymmetric nature of modern information confrontation.17

1. The U.S. Lexicon and Institutional Restraint

The U.S. approach is characterized by a "lack of a unified term" for the scope of the information challenge; the U.S. historically does not "weaponize" information in the same manner as its adversaries.17 U.S. strategic influence is traditionally framed through the lens of "public diplomacy" and "strategic communication".3 Institutionally, the U.S. operates under laws like the Smith-Mundt Act, which originally created a firewall between foreign-facing influence and domestic audiences to prevent the government from "propagandizing" its own citizens.3 While this firewall has been modernized, the U.S. model remains largely reactive, ad-hoc, and dependent on the private sector to manage the platforms where information confrontation occurs.17

2. The Russian Model: The "Partisan Parasite"

Russia’s information warfare tactics, rooted in Soviet-era "active measures," seek to undermine domestic cohesion in Western societies through disruptive campaigns.17 The Russian model, exemplified by RT (Russia Today), is described as a "partisan parasite".28 It imitates a partisan outlet within the U.S. media ecology, adopting a self-consciously colloquial, snarky, and satirical rhetorical style.28 RT adopts the persona of a "buddy" or "confidant," providing a droll commentary that treats politics as entertainment while highlighting Western "hypocrisy" and double standards.27 Russia’s strategy is often not to convince audiences of a specific truth, but to degrade the concept of truth itself and establish a state of "anesthetized apathy" among its targets.17

3. The Chinese Model: "Surface Neutrality" and Platform Control

China employs a doctrine of the "Three Warfares" (public opinion, legal, and psychological) focused on long-term influence and structural control.27 Unlike Russia's disruptive style, China's strategy is more subtle, focusing on "surface neutrality".28 The Chinese model, exemplified by CGTN, cloaks pro-China narratives in a plain, measured style that avoids rhetorical flourishes and hyperbole, mimicking an instruction manual or traditional objective news.28 China seeks to co-opt information platforms—including traditional media, think tanks, academia, and international fora—to create a "New World Media Order".17 China promotes a "bridge narrative" of global integration and benevolent action, in contrast to Russia's "fortress narrative" that focuses on external threats and hostility toward the West.30

Forecasted Changes in U.S. Propaganda Methods (2026–2046)

The next twenty years are projected to see a radical transformation in how the U.S. government conceptualizes and executes influence operations. These changes are driven by the maturation of AI, the total loss of privacy, and the move toward "cognitive security" as a national defense pillar.

1. Shift toward "Cognitive Security" (COGSEC) and Metacognition

By 2040, the traditional focus on Operational Security (OPSEC) will be replaced by Cognitive Security.21 The U.S. government is expected to prioritize "defensive training" to recognize and react to industrialized influence operations.21 A central component of this shift will be human factors-based educational programs, such as "WISE" (Wellness and Independence in the Social Media Era), which will equip citizens and government personnel with the skills to recognize "dark patterns" and build resiliency through metacognition.21 This move represents the "democratization of strategic awareness," as individuals are trained to defend their own cognitive processes against AI-driven manipulation.21

2. The Weaponization of AI Agents and Personalized Influence

Influence operations will transition from an "art into an assembly line," where AI agents conduct social engineering with both precision and scale simultaneously.21 By 2045, propaganda will no longer be a broadcast to a mass audience but a 24/7, individualized interaction.21 AI agents will iterate and learn successful tactics at "silicon speeds," using an individual’s personal data dragnet—stolen personnel files, communication logs, and digital footprints—to craft narratives that are nearly impossible to distinguish from reality.21 This "agentic reality" will fundamentally redesign how governments interact with citizens and how adversaries target the American mind.21

3. Disappearance of Privacy and Ubiquitous Surveillance

Projections for 2040 suggest that current notions of privacy may effectively disappear as all aspects of personal and professional life are tracked by global networks.32 Authoritarian governments will exploit this ubiquitous tracking to monitor populations and de-anonymize citizens.32 For the United States, this environment will create "cyber-physical" attack surfaces where influence operations can be enforced through digital surveillance.32 The U.S. will be forced to navigate a world where technological adoption outpaces ethical maturity, leading to persistent social anxiety and a fragmented international system of "Separate Silos".32

4. Securitization of Media and the Shift to "Reputational Security"

The "securitization of public media" will intensify, with journalism's societal functions interpreted through a national security lens.20 The U.S. government is forecasted to move away from "ephemeral social media content" toward long-term cultural influence through entertainment platforms—movies, shows, and games—to project "truthful American narratives".17 This strategy of "reputational security" recognizes that positive or negative reputations are unacknowledged factors in conflict. Influence strategies will focus on building durable "influence bridges" within partner countries to insulate them from the media offensives of global rivals.17

5. Transition to "Precision at Scale" and Automated Social Engineering

The war against American minds is forecasted to open a new front where China’s massive personal data collection efforts converge with AI capabilities.21 Adversaries will weaponize the "digital dragnet" of apps like TikTok and DeepSeek to perform "automated social engineering at scale".21 This will make the U.S. information environment increasingly directionless and chaotic unless the government can develop "perimeterless security" that unifies Zero Trust with data sovereignty.33 Future information strategies will need to be dynamic, collaborative, and proactive, combining multinational cooperation with AI-powered detection to counter evolving threats.26

Conclusions: The Future of Truth and Governance

The analysis of government propaganda over the last twenty years reveals a trajectory toward increasing complexity and a move from narrative-centric messaging to platform-centric behavioral management. While propaganda remains a powerful force for social unity and problem-solving, its modern digital form poses an existential threat to democratic processes. The U.S. experience since 2006 suggests that the removal of traditional "firewalls" and the decline in media trust have created a fertile ecosystem for "cognitive warfare."

To navigate the horizon of 2046, the United States must move beyond reactive "pre-bunking" toward a robust framework of Cognitive Security. This requires not only technological innovation in AI detection but also a fundamental reinvestment in the "information pillars of society"—schools, independent media, and transparent government communication. As influence operations become industrialized and privacy evaporates, the state's ability to maintain public trust will depend on its capacity to distinguish legitimate strategic influence from the corrosive disinformation that threatens societal harmony. The greatest defense in this evolving theater remains an informed, discerning public, armed with the metacognitive skills to navigate an environment where the boundaries between truth and fabrication are increasingly erased by silicon-based adversaries.

Works cited

1. (PDF) The Role of Propaganda in Modern Society - ResearchGate, accessed February 26, 2026, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/395180458_The_Role_of_Propaganda_in_Modern_Society
2. Authority matters: propaganda and the coevolution of behaviour and attitudes - PMC, accessed February 26, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10426013/
3. Smith-Mundt Belatedly Enters the 21st Century - USC Center on Public Diplomacy |, accessed February 26, 2026, https://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/pdin_monitor_article/smith-mundt-belatedly-enters-21st-century
4. The Revival Of The Propaganda State US Propaganda at Home and Abroad since 9/11, accessed February 26, 2026, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/245518018_The_Revival_Of_The_Propaganda_State_US_Propaganda_at_Home_and_Abroad_since_911
5. Birdwatchers on social media: The mediatisation of intelligence organisations, accessed February 26, 2026, https://securityanddefence.pl/Birdwatchers-on-social-media-The-mediatisation-of-intelligence-organisations,196516,0,2.html
6. Examining the Ideological Foundations, Psychological Influences, and Media Representation of Extremism and Its Social Impact - Scientific Research Publishing, accessed February 26, 2026, https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=135967
7. The Polarizing Impact of Political Disinformation and Hate Speech: A Cross-country Configural Narrative - PMC, accessed February 26, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10106894/
8. Dealing with propaganda, misinformation and fake news - Democratic Schools for All - The Council of Europe, accessed February 26, 2026, https://www.coe.int/en/web/campaign-free-to-speak-safe-to-learn/dealing-with-propaganda-misinformation-and-fake-news
9. Foreign Affairs Forum Recap: The Dangers of Modern-Day Disinformation and Propaganda, accessed February 26, 2026, https://baker.utk.edu/nsfa-news/foreign-affairs-forum-recap-the-dangers-of-modern-day-disinformation-and-propaganda/
10. Five Key Insights Into Americans' Views of the News Media - Gallup News, accessed February 26, 2026, https://news.gallup.com/opinion/gallup/657239/five-key-insights-americans-views-news-media.aspx
11. Journalism, media, and technology trends and predictions 2026 ..., accessed February 26, 2026, https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/journalism-media-and-technology-trends-and-predictions-2026
12. APPLE PIE PROPAGANDA? THE SMITH–MUNDT ACT BEFORE ..., accessed February 26, 2026, https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1203&context=nulr
13. U.S. Public Diplomacy: Legislative Proposals to Amend Prohibitions on Disseminating Materials to Domestic Audiences - EveryCRSReport.com, accessed February 26, 2026, https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R42754.html
14. Propaganda? So what? - American Security Project, accessed February 26, 2026, https://www.americansecurityproject.org/propaganda-so-what/
15. Rep. Massie Introduces Bill to Protect Americans from Federally Funded Propaganda, accessed February 26, 2026, https://massie.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=395769
16. Five Trends for Corporate Communications in 2026 - IBM iX, accessed February 26, 2026, https://ibmix.de/en/blog/five-trends-corporate-communications-2026/
17. COUNTERING THE “INFORMATION CONFRONTATION ..., accessed February 26, 2026, https://cgsr.llnl.gov/sites/cgsr/files/2024-08/CGSR-Disinformation-Workshop-Summary.pdf
18. 7 Communications Trends for 2026, accessed February 26, 2026, https://www.comnetwork.org/blog/7-communications-trends-for-2026
19. 5 Employee Benefits Trends to Watch in 2026, accessed February 26, 2026, https://quadcitiesbusiness.com/5-employee-benefits-trends-to-watch-in-2026/
20. PSM Predictions 2026 - Public Media Alliance, accessed February 26, 2026, https://www.publicmediaalliance.org/psm-predictions-2026/
21. Institute of Future Conflict 2026 Threat Horizon Report - Institute for ..., accessed February 26, 2026, https://ifc.usafa.edu/articles/institute-of-future-conflict-2026-threat-horizon-report
22. AI-driven disinformation: policy recommendations for democratic resilience - PMC, accessed February 26, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12351547/
23. Generative Propaganda (Working Paper) - arXiv, accessed February 26, 2026, https://arxiv.org/html/2509.19147
24. Do (microtargeted) deepfakes have real effects on political attitudes? - Research Explorer, accessed February 26, 2026, https://pure.uva.nl/ws/files/54261911/1940161220944364.pdf
25. Computational propaganda and misinformation: AI technologies as tools of media manipulation - | World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, accessed February 26, 2026, https://journalwjarr.com/content/computational-propaganda-and-misinformation-ai-technologies-tools-media-manipulation
26. The Future of Indo-Pacific Information Warfare - RAND, accessed February 26, 2026, https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA2205-1.html
27. Sino-Russian Convergence in Foreign Information Manipulation and Interference: A Global Threat to the US and Its Allies - CEPA, accessed February 26, 2026, https://cepa.org/comprehensive-reports/sino-russian-convergence-in-foreign-information-manipulation-and-interference/
28. Full article: Two International Propaganda Models: Comparing RT and CGTN's 2020 US Election Coverage - Taylor & Francis, accessed February 26, 2026, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17512786.2022.2086157
29. The Tech Revolution and Irregular Warfare: Leveraging Commercial Innovation for Great Power Competition - CSIS, accessed February 26, 2026, https://www.csis.org/analysis/tech-revolution-and-irregular-warfare-leveraging-commercial-innovation-great-power
30. Mirrors and Mosaics: Deciphering Chinese and Russian Domestic Bloc-Building Narratives | Perspectives on Politics - Cambridge University Press & Assessment, accessed February 26, 2026, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/mirrors-and-mosaics-deciphering-chinese-and-russian-domestic-blocbuilding-narratives/EB3B4A95DD26099FE1FA5589FBB22489
31. GovTech Trends 2026: A government perspective - Deloitte, accessed February 26, 2026, https://www.deloitte.com/us/en/Industries/government-public/articles/government-tech-trends.html
32. Office of the Director of National Intelligence - Global Trends - DNI.gov, accessed February 26, 2026, https://www.dni.gov/index.php/gt2040-home/gt2040-structural-forces/technology
33. Office of the Director of National Intelligence - Global Trends - DNI.gov, accessed February 26, 2026, https://www.dni.gov/index.php/gt2040-home
34. Assessing the Impact of China-Russia Coordination in the Media and Information Space, accessed February 26, 2026, https://www.csis.org/analysis/assessing-impact-china-russia-coordination-media-and-information-space
35. 2026 Top Trends in Government - Industry Insider, accessed February 26, 2026, https://insider.govtech.com/texas/sponsored/2026-top-trends-in-government