US-funded Radio Free Asia halts Cantonese service in face of Trump's funding cuts
Radio Free Asia has halted its Cantonese-language service after 27 years due to funding cuts by US President Donald Trump's administration.
In a letter posted to its website on Monday, the Cantonese service said it would cease publishing news from Tuesday – the 28th anniversary of Hong Kong's handover from Britain to China.
'Following funding cuts by the US government, the size of Radio Free Asia's team has continued to shrink. Our Cantonese service… will stop updating news from tomorrow,' the Chinese-language letter read.
'The news on our website will become history and stay there indefinitely,' the letter added.
The letter also said there had been plans since last year to rename Radio Free Asia's Cantonese service as 'RFA HK,' following a huge surge in the Hong Kong audience since 2019, when the city was swept by large-scale pro-democracy protests and unrest.
'After Apple Daily, Stand News, and Hong Kong Citizen News disappeared, with self-censorship at mainstream media outlets in Hong Kong becoming increasingly common, the Cantonese service of Radio Free Asia became one of the news outlets that Hongkongers relied on,' the letter said.
But in March, Trump signed an executive order to defund the outlet's parent agency, the US Agency for Global Media (USAGM), which also funds news organisations such as Voice of America.
Apple Daily and Stand News – both outlets critical of the authorities in Hong Kong – were forced to shut down following government raids in 2021. In January 2022, online outlet Hong Kong Citizen News ceased operations, citing the 'deteriorating environment for the media.'
Last year, two top editors of Stand News were convicted of sedition, while the trial of Apple Daily founder Jimmy Lai on foreign collusion and sedition charges is still ongoing. He faces up to a life sentence if convicted.
The closure of the Cantonese service followed shutdowns of other Radio Free Asia language services last month, including a rare Uyghur news service, as well as those in Tibetan and Burmese. Its Lao service was halted in March following Trump's cuts.
As of this week, production in Mandarin, Korean, Khmer, Vietnamese, and English were still operating.
Ongoing legal disputes
Radio Free Asia has sued the Trump administration over the funding cuts. In April, a federal court issued a preliminary order to the US government to restore funding.
Last month, Radio Free Asia said it would delay layoffs thanks to the preliminary court victory but added that it had yet to receive funding from the USAGM.
Radio Free Asia was established in 1996 by the US Congress to provide reporting to China, North Korea and other countries in Asia with little or no press freedom.
Its Cantonese service began operations in May 1998. But last year, Radio Free Asia closed its Hong Kong office after being labelled 'anti-China' by Beijing-backed newspapers Wen Wei Po and Ta Kung Pao.
Last June, security chief Chris Tang accused Radio Free Asia of endangering national security under the guise of news operations, according to local media reports.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
AllAfrica
43 minutes ago
- AllAfrica
In Trump's game, the US and China win and Europe pays the bill
In the opening moves of Trump's second presidency, a pattern has emerged: Washington sets the agenda, Beijing adapts with precision, and Brussels capitulates. What emerges is a bipolar order where Europe has relegated itself to the role of financier and cheerleader. Trump plays poker, Xi plays go and Europe struggles with simple puzzles. Within five months, Trump secured defense spending commitments previous presidents only theorized about. While China's rare earth export restrictions forced Washington into rapid recalibration, Europe responded with nothing but hollow laments. The asymmetry reveals everything: One bloc wields leverage, another answers with resolve, and the third writes checks. Trump's return exposed the EU's strategic failures. Instead of setting boundaries or leveraging collective power, leaders defaulted to flattery toward Washington and scapegoating toward Beijing. The 'antidiplomacy' weakens the EU on China while offering America servitude without guaranteed returns. Where Mexico and Canada bargained, Europe genuflected without conditions. Where China retaliated decisively, Europe escalated rhetoric and surrendered substance. The latest example: Four days after Washington conceded to Beijing in a rare earths deal, von der Leyen launched a new offensive against China on the same issue – as if the agreement had never happened. Timing shouldn't ruin a well-staged display of servility: Her G7 speech preached toughness while ignoring Europe's real vulnerabilities. Accusing China of 'weaponizing' its dominance while relying on it for 99% of rare earths is like demanding fair play in a knife fight – a measure of how well her de-risking policy proceeds. Apparently, she has yet to grasp what great powers do: They use leverage. Then came the admission: 'Donald is right,' showing how Brussels handed over control long ago. The subsequent defense spending capitulation proved equally abject. Leaders like Merz, Macron, and Sánchez agreed – without any public debate – to raise military spending to 5% of GDP. No questions, no rationale. Trump didn't need to demand it; they volunteered their own surrender. While European analysts obsess over his populism and threats to democracy, they miss what matters – he's getting exactly what he wants. This commitment – announced after NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte also humiliated himself – is a gift to the U.S. arms industry. Trump identified his cashier and Europe submitted a blank check to Lockheed Martin, RTX and Northrop Grumman. Europe funds America's military revival while sacrificing its own autonomy, clinging to the illusion this purchases lasting American protection. Europe's China policy reveals the terminal stage of dependence: performative hostility without leverage, coordination or endgame. Every measure – from 5G restrictions to EV tariffs – originated in Washington's playbook, photocopied by Brussels and rebranded as European autonomy. The irony approaches parody. While Europe imposed sanctions on Chinese technology, Washington extracted concessions through direct pressure. While Brussels moralized about economic coercion, Trump applied tariffs exceeding 50% on European exports. The contradiction exposes Europe's confusion: it has adopted America's adversarial rhetoric toward China while accepting America's adversarial treatment of Europe. The evidence is devastating: Trump slaps 50% tariffs on the EU without justification, blocks key exports, pressures Europe to cut trade with China, insults them at Munich, demands 5% of GDP for American weapons and drains European industry through targeted subsidies. Meanwhile, Brussels accuses Beijing of unfair tactics while Washington applies harsher ones – openly, unapologetically. Moreover, instead of opening diplomatic channels to defuse trade tensions or address critical supply dependencies, European leaders chose moral grandstanding and erratic restrictions. China was labeled 'partly malign,' a 'decisive enabler' of Russia's war in Ukraine, and policymakers crafted new 'security threat' frameworks. Just as Brussels escalated rhetoric, Trump's return exposed the truth: Europe's entire posture was built on borrowed American narratives. The EU leaders' pilgrimages to Washington – while avoiding Beijing – crystallize this blindness. They act as though European relevance ran through American approval alone, neglecting direct engagement with the world's second-largest economy. What could have been triangular diplomacy became linear supplication. Friedrich Merz's case is more scandalous. In his first foreign policy speech, he parroted talk of an 'axis of autocracies,' lumping China, Russia, Iran and North Korea into a undifferentiated threat – while Germany's auto industry wonders who speaks for them. He calls for 'permanent' European naval presence in the Indo-Pacific, a fantasy when Europe struggles to support Ukraine. He warned German businesses that investing in China is a 'great risk' and made clear his government won't bail them out. At Munich, his deference to Washington earned the response it deserved: JD Vance ignored him and met the AfD instead. Message received. Trump, unlike his European counterparts, applies a brutal but coherent approach to China. He values force, not sycophancy. And Xi never bent. When Washington escalated, Beijing responded with precise retaliation, not statements. One bureaucratic move tightened China's grip on rare earths and forced White House recalibration. That's how power works – something Europe refuses to learn. Trump's planned engagement with Beijing – booking flights for normalization talks with top CEOs and high-level diplomatic preparation – demolishes European assumptions about American China policy. Perhaps the plan was never confrontation for its own sake but leverage for a deal. Now it's clear: Trump intended to reframe US-China ties on his terms. The implications devastate Europe. It spent political capital aligning with what it assumed was permanent American-Chinese confrontation, only to discover Washington still views Beijing as a negotiating partner while treating Brussels as a compliant client. Von der Leyen's anti-China positioning, designed to curry favor with the White House, has guaranteed Europe's exclusion from the bilateral reset that will define global economic architecture. Europe could have defined clear priorities, protected economic interests and maintained equidistance between superpowers. It could have set red lines with Trump, defended its industrial base, and engaged China pragmatically. Instead, it chose deference, moralism and transatlantic vassalage – the worst possible mix in any negotiation. Europe's path leads to managed decline disguised as alliance loyalty. Defense budgets will drain social spending while importing American weapons that compete with European manufacturers. Trade will fluctuate between American demands and Chinese retaliation, with European industry losing market share to both. Diplomatic initiatives are subjected to prior Washington approval while Beijing builds alternative partnerships. The few leaders who resist – notably Italy's Giorgia Meloni – speak for themselves, not Europe. There is no common voice, no compass, no coherent narrative. What remains is a bloc that reacts, adapts and concedes, but never leads. In the meantime, the US and China play for long-term leverage. This leaves Europe with two choices: first, triangular diplomacy: Rather than picking between Washington and Beijing, Europe must make both capitals compete for European cooperation; second, Europe's industrial policy must prioritize technological autonomy over ideological alignment: Critical supply chains, defense production, and digital infrastructure require European control regardless of American preferences. If Europe continues subsidizing American defense industries while alienating Chinese markets, moralizing about values while depending on others, it will face the hard truth: True autonomy requires the ability to enforce its interests. For now, Europe's performance of independence guarantees irrelevance. Speeches earn your minions' applause; leverage delivers results. Hence, Europe would do well to recall the wisdom of one of its most influential thinkers: It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both. Sebastian Contin Trillo-Figueroa is a Hong Kong-based geopolitics strategist with a focus on Europe-Asia relations.
South China Morning Post
3 hours ago
- South China Morning Post
Trump's Golden Dome: will the numbers add up to deter China in the Indo-Pacific?
America's view of China as a 'pacing threat' has shaped its defence priorities as the military seeks to maintain an edge over a rapidly modernising PLA. In the first of a three-part series on how US budget tensions will affect efforts to deter China, we look at the Golden Dome missile defence system. Advertisement China's expanding military footprint in the Indo-Pacific is now a focus of America's defence strategy, with a renewed emphasis on space-based capabilities since Donald Trump returned to the White House. Central to this is Trump's ambitious bid to revamp the US Space Force and create a 'next generation' missile defence system – the so-called Golden Dome Analysts say that if it gets built, the multibillion-dollar shield could bolster the US' capacity to protect itself from long-range missiles while also deterring China's military in the Indo-Pacific region, including in the event of a conflict near the Taiwan Strait. But questions remain over the feasibility and cost of the project, which would rely on a network of satellites and space-based sensors to intercept missiles. 'Signal to China' The project was announced days after Trump was inaugurated in January, when he issued an executive order calling for an 'Iron Dome for America' – borrowing the name of Israel's vaunted missile defence system.
South China Morning Post
3 hours ago
- South China Morning Post
Elon Musk renews criticism of Trump spending bill, calls for new political party
Billionaire Elon Musk reiterated his criticism of US President Donald Trump's spending legislation on Monday, arguing that it underscores the need for a new political party. The Tesla chief slammed the 'insane spending' of the bill, particularly the measure that increases the debt ceiling by US$5 trillion. 'It is obvious … that we live in a one-party country – the PORKY PIG PARTY!! Time for a new political party that actually cares about the people,' Musk wrote on X. Musk has repeatedly expressed frustration with what he sees as bipartisan indifference to ballooning government debt. Earlier this month, he publicly clashed with Trump over the bill before backtracking later. The bitter public feud has led to volatility for Tesla, with shares of the company seeing wild price swings that erased around US$150 billion of its market value, though it has since recovered.
