Close Menu
Market Data Newsletter
Thursday, June 18
Global Free Speech

World Refugee Day 2026: Supporting journalists in exile amid transnational repression

News RoomBy No Comments5 Mins Read522 Views
World Refugee Day 2026: Supporting journalists in exile amid transnational repression

Listen to the article

0:00
0:00

World Refugee Day draws attention to journalists who have been forced to flee their home countries due to threats, conflict, or repression. While exile is now recognized as a growing reality for journalists worldwide, the experiences of journalists CPJ supported last year reflect the reality that relocation does not necessarily bring safety. Increasingly, journalists in exile reach out to CPJ for support because they remain at risk, as their home governments continue to target them across borders.

Forced to flee

Journalists are being pushed into exile for a range of reasons, including conflict, widescale repression, targeted threats, or legal pressure. CPJ’s 2025 assistance data shows that forced displacement remained a dominant pattern, with journalists from countries such as Myanmar, Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Afghanistan among those most frequently seeking relocation support.

For many journalists, exile results from an urgent decision made under immediate threat. CPJ reporting shows that journalists often leave their countries within hours, facing risks such as arrest, violence, or retaliation linked directly to their reporting. The process of fleeing can itself be dangerous and is heavily restricted by available visa pathways. Journalists frequently travel through multiple countries and many spend extended periods of time in transit locations without stable legal status or the ability to continue working.

These conditions often leave journalists in precarious situations from the moment they leave, shaping the risks they continue to face in exile. And even for those reaching safer destinations, important risks continue to exist.

Exile does not mean safety

Distance from a hostile government does not fully eliminate the possibility of retaliation, and CPJ often assists journalists who become targets of transnational repression. Certain governments hostile to journalists reach across borders to silence them through various means, including digital and physical surveillance, threats, illegal deportations, abductions, misuse of international mechanisms such as Interpol, and intimidation targeting family members. In some cases, it has escalated to lethal violence.

Individual experiences of transnational repression: What CPJ is seeing

CPJ’s emergency response work in 2025 has highlighted recurring patterns in how journalists experience transnational repression after fleeing their home countries. Data collected by its Emergencies Team shows that, last year, 25 journalists sought and received support while they were facing active acts of transnational repression. Most journalists facing these challenges were from Iran and Azerbaijan, with Belarus, Sudan, Russia, Burundi, Afghanistan, Egypt, and Tajikistan also represented.

Across the cases reviewed, mental health emerged as one of the most consistent concerns among journalists targeted with transnational repression. They frequently required assistance to cope with the psychological impact of prolonged insecurity, reflecting the stress of remaining at risk even after displacement.

Remaining mobile was also a recurring preoccupation. In addition to fleeing their home countries, some journalists required further relocation to remain out of reach of operatives from their home governments, including within host countries, indicating that initial displacement did not always resolve their safety concerns.

CPJ’s data further shows that journalists navigating exile often face ongoing challenges in securing effective protection from host governments, reflecting the vulnerability of their situation even after relocation. This echoes research by Freedom House, which has highlighted gaps in host country responses, noting that protection mechanisms are often inconsistent and that governments do not always take sufficient action to prevent or respond to transnational repression, leaving journalists exposed even in countries where they have sought refuge.

Taken together, these patterns point to a broader trend: For many journalists, exile does not mark the end of threats.

How CPJ supports journalists in exile

In response to these concerns, CPJ provides practical support to journalists facing ongoing risks. This support includes:

  • Emergency grants for relocation and basic needs in exile. In many cases, journalists supported by CPJ required external relocation to leave their home country in the first place, while others needed internal relocation within host countries due to continued safety concerns abroad.
  • Assistance navigating asylum and legal processes. This included support letters to help journalists strengthen their protection claims, reflecting the importance of securing legal status as a first step towards protection.
  • Digital security and physical safety guidance. Journalists in exile have received tailored individual advice from our safety experts aimed at reducing exposure to ongoing threats and improving their ability to stay safe in unfamiliar environments.
  • Trauma-related support. Many journalists have received assistance to cope with the psychological impact of prolonged insecurity, with trauma emerging as a recurring primary need across transnational repression cases.

Through its Emergencies work, CPJ not only provides practical assistance to individual journalists but also gains insight into the evolving risks faced by journalists in exile, including how threats linked to transnational repression continue to shape their experiences after displacement.

Conclusion:

For many journalists forced into exile, safety remains an ongoing concern. While leaving their home countries may reduce immediate threats, journalists from certain countries, in particular Iran and Azerbaijan, are in dire need of support as they face risks linked to transnational repression.

Press freedom organizations such as CPJ provide tailored support that helps journalists deal with ongoing safety challenges in exile. The persistence of these threats nevertheless highlights crucial gaps in existing protection systems, where the refugee status does not always guarantee effective protection against acts of transnational repression.

Read the full article here

Fact Checker

Verify the accuracy of this article using AI-powered analysis and real-time sources.

Share.

The FSNN News Room is the voice of our in-house journalists, editors, and researchers. We deliver timely, unbiased reporting at the crossroads of finance, cryptocurrency, and global politics, providing clear, fact-driven analysis free from agendas.

Related Articles

Global Free Speech

On Tuesday 16 June, Baroness Tina Stowell introduced her anti-SLAPP Bill in the House of Lords. Photo: Parliament TV The UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition, which is co-chaired by Index on Censorship, had a significant campaign success this week when coordinated Bills were introduced in both the House of Lords and the House of Commons. On Tuesday 16 June, Baroness Tina Stowell introduced her anti-SLAPP Bill in the House of Lords. The next day, Sir John Whittingdale MP introduced a parallel bill in the Commons. Remind me: what is a SLAPP? SLAPP stands for strategic lawsuit against public participation. The term describes legal threats and actions that are used to intimidate and harass journalists, whistleblowers, campaigners, academics, and survivors of abuse (among others) by burdening them with time-consuming and costly litigation. Anyone who speaks out on an issue of public interest is at risk. Even if a defendant has every chance of succeeding at trial, the lengthy process of preparing a legal defence is so prohibitively expensive that they are forced to quietly submit to the claimant’s demands. This means they are silenced. SLAPPs threaten our right to freedom of expression and our democracy by preventing ordinary people from being able to hold power to account. They also remove information from the public domain, which means that SLAPPs have an impact on all of us. We have published case studies of a small number of the SLAPPs that have crossed our desks in the UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition. From cosmetic surgery patients to environmentalists, abuse survivors and campaigners, you can read them here. So, what would the new bills actually do? The proposal is simple: Anyone who believes that they are facing a SLAPP would be able to ask a judge to examine the case at an early stage. If the court concludes that the claim is being used to suppress public-interest speech, it could be dismissed before huge legal costs begin to accumulate. This “early dismissal” mechanism would shift the balance away from wealthy claimants who can use litigation as a pressure tactic, and towards defendants who currently face years of stress, uncertainty and expense. What these bills definitely won’t do is to protect public-interest speech across the UK. This is a devolved issue, and legislation passed in Westminster will only cover England and Wales. Separate anti-SLAPP bills will need to be passed in Scotland and Northern Ireland to ensure that everyone in the UK is protected from SLAPPs. Why now? Successive governments have acknowledged the problem of SLAPPs, but have failed to bring forward comprehensive legislation. Anti-SLAPP measures were, yet again, left out of this year’s King’s Speech despite repeated and widespread calls for their inclusion. Even after the speech, Deputy Prime Minister David Lammy confirmed that the government would bring forward legislation “as soon as time allows”. The introduction of parallel Private Members’ Bills is therefore as much a political signal as a legislative exercise: Parliament is being asked to show that the issue has not gone away. Will these Bills become law? The honest answer is that we don’t know. The second reading for Whittingdale’s bill is scheduled for late November, and no date has yet been set for Stowell’s bill. However, the impact is immediate as it keeps anti-SLAPP reform firmly on Parliament’s agenda, providing a ready-made legislative blueprint to show that legislation to stamp out SLAPPs can be done effectively and easily within the existing legal framework. In other words, the real question is not whether Stowell’s or Whittingdale’s bills become law exactly as drafted. It is whether the government will finally listen to mounting pressure to back these bills, and put their weight behind ensuring comprehensive anti-SLAPP legislation that will protect anyone who speaks out in the public interest. But I heard that anti-SLAPP legislation has already been enacted. Why then is the UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition pushing for more legislation? Because the UK’s existing anti-SLAPP protections are very limited. The Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act (ECCTA) introduced anti-SLAPP provisions in 2023, but they apply only to cases linked to economic crime. Many abusive cases fall outside that definition. It also depends on a subjective test, forcing the court to undertake a time-intensive process by which the intentions of the SLAPP filer have been identified. That’s why we need a broader law that can protect anyone facing a SLAPP, regardless of the subject matter. What can I do to support the UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition as they continue to call on the government to enact comprehensive anti-SLAPP legislation? You can support the work of the Coalition by writing to your MP, by posting your support for action on SLAPPs using the hashtag #StopSLAPPs, and by signing up to the newsletter of the Anti-SLAPP Coalition here. READ MORE

Global Free Speech

The UK plans to ban under 16s from accessing social media. Photo: Nick Fancher/Unsplash The UK government has announced a ban on social media for under-16s and then some kind of social media curfew at night for children between 17 and 18. I’m pretty sympathetic to the idea that we need to hold social media companies to account for children and young people’s unfettered access to the kind of content that would be pretty bad for me as an adult if I sought it out. I know of young teenagers who have been lured into sending nude pictures to a sexy “woman” online and then told the images will be sent to all their friends unless they hand over a lot of money. And anorexic girls who find others online to compare what food they have eaten and how to outwit the doctors and parents who are trying to help them. And 14-year-old boys who are pushed vile misogynistic content from the manosphere because the algorithm has identified them as being just that, a 14-year-old boy. Most young people will have seen hardcore violent porn – stuff that my generation couldn’t have even accessed in licensed porn shops – by the age of 11 or 12. At one time a few years ago, kids regularly shared videos of beheadings in the playground. When we carried out research for our Gen Z themed issue last year, many young people said they had seen the video footage of Charlie Kirk being shot. But ban children from most social media platforms altogether? What is their right to free expression? YouTube can push you manosphere videos, but many young people use YouTube to learn: from understanding maths to grasping complicated concepts. This is important in general and especially important for dyslexic kids who have problems reading, or for children from poorer households without books. Social media – often a gateway to the internet more broadly – can open up a world that as a teenager you might never experience at home: music, books and culture. Social media often gives people the words to describe how they feel and who they are. Instagram is just as much a place to share dance routines and comedy sketches as it is to learn about politics and news. Social media is a place of protest too, and yes, even for the under-18s. We didn’t object to the revelation that youth revolts against an elderly oligarchy in Nepal were organised via the gaming site Discord, and that a viral video of a schoolboy kicked them off. In 2026 digital rights are a central part of freedom of expression, not just an add-on, and freedom of expression is not just something you get as a grown-up. This is before we consider whether a social media ban is possible. It undoubtedly isn’t. Australia which introduced a ban (although not on YouTube, gaming sites or education sites) has shown us that young people and families can very well circumvent it. At least 60% of young people are still on social media, including on many much less regulated than sites like Snapchat. VPNs make it easier to bypass all national regulation. We use VPNs at Index as an extra layer of security and privacy and we acknowledge the crucial role they play in authoritarian states. Do we want the government to ban them too – or fine children’s parents if they let them use them? How the hell do you police a curfew for 17 to 18 year olds anyway? Will neighbours report young people hanging around the streets after 9pm on their phones? Governments who introduce policies they know won’t work just discredit themselves. The thing that shocked me most about Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s announcement was that there was no mention of the trade-offs between a social media ban and free expression as if it simply wasn’t an issue. No reassurance that the government wouldn’t decide at some stage that the ban on social media and gaming might extend to adults taking part in perfectly legitimate behaviour which the government might disapprove of. Or an admission that the government itself uses social media sites freely to push its own messages (including the latest announcement). In many ways, the government’s ban on social media for children feels like an evasion. The government doesn’t want to address the deep problems social media causes for all of us: that X is a platform run by a US-based trillionaire, Elon Musk, who wants to use it to influence our national politics. Or that Mark Zuckerberg talks a good free speech game but his company, Meta, is trying to suppress a book, Sarah Wynn Williams’ Careless People, about how the company operates. Or that extremist views and racist conspiracy theories – including from bad actors which ban social media in their own countries –  are being used to cause deep societal divisions and bring huge financial rewards for the social media companies themselves. That’s before we even talk about tax evasion and the way our data (and our children’s data) is being monetised.  How social media platforms operate is untransparent, complicated and changing all the time. How children are affected – or not – is doubly complicated. Platforms have vast computing resources – and could be regulated by government to be more transparent about the way they operate without affecting free expression. Then we might all be able to decide democratically what sort of a society we want online –  for us and our children. My kids, now in their 20s, grew up in the current atmosphere. Their generation distrust many things they read online, share tips on how to avoid scams and go on regular detoxes from social media so they don’t endlessly scroll. They have vast networks of real friends online but are increasingly trying to do more things IRL (in real life). They are incredibly lucky to be living in a liberal democracy, which mostly doesn’t restrict access to social media and where the internet has opened up their minds to untold possibilities and ideas. In China, social media is accessed through government-monitored websites centred round WeChat: every interaction can be seen by the censors if they choose to. VPNs regularly get blocked. Russia is tightening its grip on cyber space and people often find the internet has been taken down by the security services. It’s a similar story in Iran, which is just coming out of a months-long internet blockade. And in these countries and others, we regularly hear of people who comment or like a social media post from a person or organisation the government doesn’t like and end up in prison or worse. It would be hyperbolic at this stage to suggest the UK is moving in the direction of China, Russia and Iran. But nor should we downplay what a paternalistic move this is. It bypasses the benefits of the internet for children without actually tackling the risks. The internet, when it started, opened up a world of free expression. Today governments should be thinking about how to protect that right to free expression for everyone including young people, not issuing unenforceable bans that will ultimately punish teenagers and their parents –  and which ministers know won’t work. Perhaps the Prime Minister and his cabinet should be looking a little carefully at the older generation’s behaviour. Recent US research showed that it is the over 65s who are most likely to spread misinformation and fake news online. Or is this the next step? Remove the internet from the teens, next the boomers and then all of us.   READ MORE

Add A Comment
Leave A Reply