In early April, Russia’s ministry of foreign affairs unveiled the Global Fact-Checking Network (GFCN) — a self-proclaimed international alliance of fact-checkers and media outlets.The initiative was first presented at the “Dialogue about Fakes 2.0” forum in Moscow in November 2024. At a press briefing following the April announcement, Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova framed the GFCN as a counter to what she called the West’s “relentless stream of fake stories and disinformation campaigns,” accusing western fact-checkers of engaging in “biased pseudo-fact-checking.““This global civic initiative,” Zakharova said, “will enable us to counter destructive Western actions using our own constructive agenda.”But established fact-checking sites such as Facta and Maldita have raised red flags over the GFCN’s Kremlin-aligned backers, opaque operations, and overtly one-sided narratives.DW Fact check takes a closer look.
Who’s behind the GFCN?
The GFCN was co-founded by TASS, Russia’s state-run news agency, and the Autonomous Non-Profit Organization ANO Dialog — both known for their close ties to the Kremlin.TASS was suspended in 2022 by the European Alliance of News Agencies (EANA) over concerns about its editorial independence. In 2023, the European Union sanctioned ANO Dialog for its role in spreading disinformation and for operating the pro-Kremlin website War on Fakes.Ahead of Russia’s 2024 presidential election, the US Treasury also sanctioned the group under Executive Order 14024, targeting individuals and entities linked to the Russian government.
Does the GFCN meet global fact-checking standards ?
Independent fact-checking relies on transparency, verifiable sourcing, and open methodologies.Leading organizations such as the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) require fact-checks to cite public data and provide transparent methods that others can replicate.DW reviewed several GFCN articles and found consistent problems with sourcing and methodology.In one article titled “The Romanian Elections: How Did the West Win Only on the Second Try?”, the author cites the 2024 Eurobarometer, claiming only 22 per cent of Romanians support aid to refugees, only 14 per cent back the EU’s actions on Ukraine, and only 13% favor Ukraine’s EU candidate status.But these figures are false. DW cross-checked the data and found significantly higher levels of Romanian support for EU policies on Ukraine in the 2024 Eurobarometer, contradicting the article’s core claim.Another piece alleges that the Soros family was the “shadow organizer” behind the “HANDS OFF!” protests against US President Donald Trump’s second administration, which took place across the United States on April 5, 2025. The article argues that, since some organizers had previously received grants from the Open Society Foundations, the Soros family must have orchestrated the protest.That’s misleading. The piece focuses narrowly on two groups — MoveOn and Indivisible — and ignores the broader coalition behind the rallies. While both organizations have indeed received funding from Open Society Foundations, the grants supported general programming, not the April 5 protests specifically. Moreover, these groups list dozens of funders, not just the Soros-backed foundation.Receiving support from Open Society Foundations doesn’t prove direct involvement on the part of the Soros family, whose philanthropic work has long been targeted by conspiracy theorists. These narratives often paint Soros as a puppet master behind protests, migration, or global unrest — claims that have been widely discredited.Another GFCN article titled “Is ChatGPT Prone to Russian Propaganda?” fails to seriously engage with the question it raises. Instead, it spends most of its word count defending TASS and attacking a Norwegian media outlet that questioned the Russian agency’s credibility.The article barely mentions recent investigations — such a report by NewsGuard, which DW covered — which document Russian attempts to manipulate generative AI platforms. The piece’s only conclusion appears in the final paragraph, which vaguely states: “It is incorrect to give a chatbot human qualities and accuse it of ‘preferring’ one of the sources to the others.”
GFCN: Who is writing these stories?
One contributor to the GFCN is Sonja van den Ende, a Dutch journalist living in Russia who has been embedded with Russian troops in Ukraine. Some Dutch media have described her as a conspiracy theorist. On X, she recently posted: “Germany is the country of knife pullers, used to be a country of beer and bratwurst, now asylum seekers, i.e. radicalized rebels from Syria, Iraq etc.”Other GFCN contributors include Tim Anderson, director of the Centre for Counter Hegemonic Studies. He has called the massacre of Ukrainian civilians in Bucha a “scam” and falsely claimed that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine did not involve the targeting of civilian infrastructure.
A familiar Russian playbook: mimic and confuse:
Observers say the GFCN’s name — just one letter removed from the IFCN — is no accident.The International Fact-Checking Network, founded in 2015 by the Poynter Institute, is a respected consortium of more than 150 independent fact-checkers worldwide. It trains journalists, enforces professional standards, and certifies outlets based on transparency and editorial independence.The GFCN, on the other hand, appears to follow a long-standing tactic of the Russian state: imitating legitimate institutions to blur the line between journalism and propaganda. “We do not consider their activities to fall within the professional fact-checking ecosystem,” IFCN director Angie Drobnic Holan told DW, citing Russia’s consistent suppression of independent journalism.“Professional fact-checking requires the ability to independently verify claims across the political spectrum,” she said. “Journalists must be free to publish findings that contradict the government. We are highly dubious that this effort allows for that.”Tommaso Canetta, a policy officer with the European Digital Media Observatory (EDMO), called the GFCN a classic case of political appropriation.“This is a tactic we’ve seen many times; co-opting terms with credibility, like ‘fact-checking,’ and stripping them of meaning,” he explained. “Political actors often label partisan narratives as ‘fact checks’ when they clearly are not.”He stressed that affiliations with networks like the IFCN or the European Fact-Checking Standards Network (EFCSN) help distinguish legitimate outlets from those engaged in manipulation.“Without such standards, we end up with initiatives — like this one from Russia — that pollute the term and muddy the waters.”
