US Federal House Bill HB5704

US Federal 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 10/8/25
• Refer: 10/8/25

Caption

Repeal the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2013

Summary

HB5704 would repeal the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2013 and rewrite federal law governing U.S. government information activities abroad and at home. The bill keeps the Department of State and the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM) authorized to prepare and disseminate information about the United States, its people, and its policies for foreign audiences, but it adds explicit limits on the use of social media accounts, websites, and podcasts unless they are official platforms maintained by State or USAGM for foreign dissemination. The bill also tightens domestic restrictions on government-produced international information materials. It would bar those materials from being disseminated within the United States, except for congressional oversight use, and would require archived materials to remain unavailable for domestic distribution for 20 years before being viewable under controlled conditions at the National Archives. After that period, released materials would need clear identifiers showing the producing agency, intended foreign audience, and purpose. The bill further states that no appropriated funds may be used to influence public opinion or propagandize in the United States, while preserving the ability of State and USAGM to provide factual information about their operations, policies, and programs.

Impact

If enacted, the bill would amend 22 U.S.C. 1461 and 22 U.S.C. 1461-1a, restoring and strengthening statutory limits on domestic access to and use of U.S. government information products created for foreign audiences. It would affect the Department of State, USAGM, and their component networks by restricting domestic dissemination, imposing archival and labeling requirements, and clarifying that foreign-information materials are not to be used to influence U.S. public opinion. It would also preserve exceptions for congressional oversight and factual public communications about agency operations.

Sentiment

The available record shows no committee transcript, vote tally, or recorded floor debate, so there is no documented legislative sentiment beyond the bill text itself. The measure’s sponsors appear to support a stricter anti-propaganda framework and greater separation between foreign information activities and domestic audiences. Based on the text, the bill is framed as a transparency and guardrails measure rather than a broad change to foreign policy authorities.

Contention

The main point of contention is likely to be the balance between preventing domestic propaganda and preserving legitimate public diplomacy, transparency, and public access to government information. Supporters would likely emphasize the need to stop federal agencies from influencing domestic opinion, while critics may argue that the bill could unnecessarily restrict access to historically useful materials, complicate agency communications, or create overly rigid limits on modern digital dissemination tools such as websites and podcasts. The bill also narrows how archived materials may be accessed and redistributed, which could raise concerns from media, researchers, archivists, and agency officials.