Many PR firms work for brutal regimes — polishing their image, attacking critics, and helping dictators cling to power. Alexander Dukalskis, Christian Gläßel, and Adam Scharpf ask: why does this happen, and what can democratic societies do to stop it?
The Edelman Trust Barometer is an annual survey purporting to show levels of citizen trust in a variety of institutions in countries around the world. Organised by Edelman – a major global public relations (PR) firm – the 2025 report shows that citizens of Saudi Arabia, China, and the UAE had the most trust in their government. Naturally, these governments love to highlight such rankings. But dig even slightly deeper and it becomes clear that Edelman has had multiple contracts with Saudi Arabia and UAE – and extensive operations in China.
Episodes like this are just the tip of the iceberg. PR firms in democratic countries – the US in particular – routinely take money from dictatorships.
Our research in Security Studies shows that dictators’ use of such firms in the US is not new. The practice, however, is growing more common. We sought to gather all contracts from 1945 until 2022 between US-based PR and lobbying firms (in practice, lines are blurry and many companies offer a range of services using different labels in-house) and dictatorships. Using US Department of Justice Data, we found over 7,000 such documents.
It becomes clear that even the most odious dictators can find firms willing to take their cash. As one PR man reportedly liked to say, 'anything is possible with the right amount of money'. From Spain’s Francisco Franco to Zaire’s Mobuto to Saddam Hussein and Augusto Pinochet, dictatorial governments of all stripes have contracted with US PR firms. And as the graph below shows, contracts between dictatorships and PR firms has increased fivefold since 1940.
When dictatorships want to influence foreign audiences, they need help. Otherwise, such audiences may see them as merely spewing crude propaganda. PR firms help craft messages and use their contacts to reach decision-makers and opinion leaders. They have expert knowledge of target audiences, legal requirements, and information ecosystems. They might even resort to smearing the regime’s critics or manipulating Wikipedia entries. Three specific motivations stand out.
First, when they are about to host a major international event like a World Cup or Olympic Games, authoritarian governments seek PR help.
In the lead-ups to the 2008 Summer Games and the 2022 Winter Games, Beijing splashed the cash to highlight China and sideline critics. In late 2021, the Chinese consulate in New York hired a New Jersey-based firm which paid influencers to promote the Olympics, along with 'Beijing’s history, cultural relics, modern life of people, [and] new trends'. Thirty per cent of the content would be devoted to 'cooperation and any good things in China-US relations'.
Authoritarian regimes are most likely to seek a PR boost in the lead-up to hosting a major international event
China is not alone. Qatar hosted the 2022 World Cup, along with several other major sporting events in the preceding years. Its government contracted with several US and UK PR firms, including Portland Communications, Ogilvy, and Levick Strategic Communications. The idea is to showcase a positive image while the world’s eyeballs are trained on the country. As some of our other research shows, this strategy can have far-reaching impacts.
But this relates to a second major reason autocracies are so interested in PR firms: countering criticism. When autocracies become more repressive, they are more likely to hire a PR firm. Concerned about the reputational consequences of repression, autocrats hunt down critics abroad. They also hire Western spin doctors to deflect criticism.
The more repressive an autocracy becomes, the more likely it is to hire a PR firm
In 2012, Bashar Al-Assad was busy crushing domestic dissent in Syria. As he did so, his government — and his family — hired PR firms Bell Pottinger and Brown Lloyd James (BLJ) to deflect criticism. They presented the Assads as bulwarks of security and modernity in a turbulent region. PR campaigns even secured a Vogue cover story presenting the Assad family as 'wildly democratic'. The magazine described Assad’s wife Asma as 'the freshest and most magnetic of first ladies'. A BLJ spin doctor couldn’t believe the firm’s luck, remarking: 'It’s rare you send a journalist on a propaganda tour and they actually print the propaganda'.
Finally, when there is domestic turmoil like a coup or civil war, autocrats reach out to PR firms abroad to stabilise their international support. For example, after his 2013 coup, Abdel Fatah Al-Sisi’s government hired a Washington-based firm to present Al-Sisi as a source of stability and security. The aim was to ensure that military aid and political support would continue to flow into Egypt.
With PR firms' help, authoritarian regimes can present as sophisticated and influential global actors despite their thuggish and sometimes cartoonish public images
Dictatorships always look for ways to influence domestic politics in democratic states. PR firms hand them this opportunity on a silver platter, helping them become sophisticated and influential global actors despite such regimes' thuggish and sometimes cartoonish public images.
So, what can we do? First, transparency registers like the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) in the US (the source of our data), or lobbying registers in other states, should actively record influence efforts. News that the second Trump administration will dilute enforcement of FARA is a step in the wrong direction. FARA was never perfect and never will be, but it is a source of valuable information. Many firms are structured as complex subsidiaries and probably avoid reporting all their activities. Regulators should thus find ways to ensure transparency. More information is important, because it may aid accountability, as a recent lawsuit against PR firms that worked for Qatar’s 2022 World Cup illustrates.
Second, the PR firms themselves have a role to play. Sure, they have a financial incentive to take on authoritarian business. But they also should consider basic ethics. There are, for example, some reasonable standards in the Code of Ethics of the Public Relations Society of America. Strictly construed, however, there is nothing in them that precludes a PR firm taking on a murderous despot. That ought to change.
This research was funded by the Independent Social Research Foundation
