Follow the Money: How Authoritarian Regimes Sponsor Western Propagandists to Act as Their Mouthpieces
When we think about paid agents of influence, the first image that often comes to mind is the stereotypical suitcase full of money—or at least an envelope stuffed with cash. But in reality, the mechanisms of modern influence are far more nuanced, subtle, and sophisticated.
Many agents of influence are not even aware that they are acting on behalf of an authoritarian regime. Often, these individuals are not recruited with overt offers of money or clear political directives. Instead, they are shaped over time through a combination of flattery, access, exposure, and opportunity. Their careers may be quietly supported in ways that seem apolitical at first: invitations to exclusive conferences, prominent speaking engagements, or interviews that elevate their public profile. Gradually, their perception of reality can shift. They begin to internalize the worldview they are constantly exposed to—one that often aligns with the strategic narratives of authoritarian powers.
This process can happen in journalism, academia, activism, or the arts. A journalist might be invited to cover international events under favorable conditions, given selective access to high-level officials or elite cultural experiences. An academic may be offered research funding, publication opportunities, or collaboration with prestigious institutions abroad. These rewards are rarely framed as propaganda tools; instead, they are presented as professional growth opportunities. But the underlying goal is to shape discourse, reframe narratives, and build a cadre of sympathetic voices who—wittingly or not—amplify the ideological and strategic interests of authoritarian regimes.
The line between influence and control is often intentionally blurred. In contrast to the Cold War model of spies and secret agents, today’s agents of influence often operate in full public view. Their legitimacy is enhanced by the fact that they are not directly employed by a foreign state, allowing them to deny affiliations and retain plausible deniability. This ambiguity is one of the most effective features of modern information warfare.
When it comes to politics—particularly politicians and parties in democratic societies—support can take more technical forms. One of the most powerful tools authoritarian regimes use today is algorithmic manipulation. By flooding online spaces with supportive content, amplifying favorable narratives, and artificially boosting engagement through bots or coordinated networks, regimes can shape political discourse without ever writing a check. This is a form of invisible influence, which can mimic grassroots support and distort public perception. It operates as a kind of indirect campaign financing.
This algorithmic support is particularly dangerous because it can be hard to detect and nearly impossible to trace. Voices aligned with authoritarian interests may find themselves growing in popularity, being shared widely, or trending more often—not because of their ideas alone, but because those ideas serve broader strategic objectives. Meanwhile, dissenting voices may be drowned out, downranked, or targeted by coordinated harassment campaigns.
This type of support can extend to influencers, commentators, bloggers, and even lifestyle content creators whose platforms subtly normalize or echo narratives beneficial to authoritarian regimes. The ideological spectrum of those affected is broad—ranging from far-right nationalists to far-left anti-globalists. What unites them is not a coherent political philosophy but a shared hostility toward liberal democratic institutions, transnational cooperation, or Western alliances—making them useful amplifiers for authoritarian messaging.
This also includes the vast world of travel influencers, who represent a growing market for whitewashing authoritarian regimes. These influencers are often paid—directly or indirectly—by proxies of the very governments they portray. Their content typically highlights only the most attractive and curated aspects of life in these countries, while downplaying or outright denying repression, censorship, or human rights abuses. We have seen this with influencers promoting regimes in Syria under Bashar al-Assad, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Putin’s Russia, or even North Korea. One of the most prominent examples is China, where travel influencers are frequently invited and sponsored by state-affiliated entities. In this case, Western influencers are not just used for international image management—they are also repurposed for domestic propaganda, to show Chinese citizens that Westerners admire and praise their system. This orchestrated positivity serves to legitimize authoritarian rule while deflecting international criticism.
There are also more direct examples. Some Western influencers have reportedly received payments through intermediaries or shell organizations connected to foreign state actors. This can take the form of consultancy fees, sponsorship deals, media contracts, or vague "research support." Because these payments are often routed through proxies or friendly organizations, the source of the funding remains obscured. In many cases, these financial flows are funneled through complex networks of shell companies, oligarch-linked entities, and intermediaries—often routed via countries like Cyprus to conceal the true source. The result is a sophisticated financial web that enables plausible deniability and legal ambiguity, all while advancing foreign policy goals.
Even more opaque are the informal and casual collaborations that leave no paper trail. A book author might receive sponsorship for their work from a foreign-linked foundation or an individual oligarch. One such author later insisted that this support had no influence on the content of their book. Whether or not that is true is impossible to verify—but the existence of such financial relationships raises significant concerns.
The basic principles of how agents of influence operate—how they shape public opinion, lobby decision-makers, and gain traction in foreign societies—are not new. These tactics were already being employed by the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and other regimes have since adapted and modernized them. One classic example is the use of so-called “front organizations”—entities that present themselves as independent or neutral while covertly advancing a hidden agenda. In some cases, existing NGOs or civic groups are infiltrated and subtly redirected to serve foreign interests, creating the illusion of grassroots legitimacy while spreading tailored messaging. This tactic allows authoritarian states to influence civil discourse from within, often without detection.
In many instances, the public never learns about these arrangements. The reality is that covert or semi-covert ideological sponsorship is common and often legal. The marketplace of ideas can be distorted when seemingly independent voices are amplified through hidden subsidies. Anti-Western books, for example, are published in large numbers and often sold through mainstream platforms. Sometimes, these books are purchased in bulk to artificially raise their rankings. This tactic not only increases visibility and sales but also adds a veneer of popularity and legitimacy. It allows fringe narratives to penetrate the mainstream.
A particularly revealing case occurred in Slovakia, where a well-known spreader of pro-Russian narratives and the host of a notorious online website was caught receiving money from an employee of the Russian embassy. As reported by Le Monde:
“In Slovakia, the disinformant was paid by Moscow. A video (clearly made by local security services) shows a deputy military attaché from the Russian embassy bribing a contributor to the country's largest disinformation website, which has since been blocked.”
So how can we summarize what we know about the various ways authoritarian regimes support Western individuals who spread favorable narratives?
There is a spectrum of influence that ranges from direct payment and formal employment, to subtle seduction through luxury, access, and public praise. Between openly working for a foreign government outlet and simply being flattered or rewarded with visibility, there are many shades of collaboration. Sometimes, no money changes hands at all—just access, attention, and validation.
Support can also mean amplification—boosting the reach of certain actors or shielding them from criticism. In the modern attention economy, reach is power. A critical voice may struggle in obscurity, while a regime-friendly commentator is widely shared, praised, and promoted. The difference between the two is often not merit but manipulation.
To put it very simply: imagine a scenario where you receive praise, attention, and growing influence every time you echo a pro-authoritarian narrative—and a storm of online abuse whenever you take a critical stance. Faced with this dynamic, some individuals choose the easy way. Others may not even realize they have made a choice.
