The lights are on, the screens are full, and the Slack channels are constantly buzzing when you walk into almost any small fact-checking newsroom these days. However, the chairs surrounding the desks are less occupied than they once were.
Layoffs are discussed by editors in the same manner as current weather. These offices have an odd atmosphere that lies somewhere between tiredness and obstinate pride. There has never been a larger audience. There has never been more financial strain. The contradiction is difficult to ignore.
| Field | Details |
|---|---|
| Topic | State of the Fact-Checkers, 2026 |
| Sector | Journalism, media verification, digital governance |
| Global Network | International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN), Poynter Institute |
| Active Organisations Worldwide | Roughly 450, spread across 110+ countries |
| Audience Reach | Record highs in 2025, particularly during election cycles |
| Major Funding Shock | Meta ended its third-party fact-checking program in the United States, January 2025 |
| Replacement Model | Community Notes-style crowd-sourced labelling |
| Key Pressure Points | Funding collapse, political backlash, platform withdrawal |
| Regions Most Affected | United States, parts of Latin America, Eastern Europe |
| Notable Concerns | Transparency, legitimacy, public distrust |
| Reference Research | European Journalism Observatory, Reuters Institute Digital News Report |
| Outlook for 2026 | Election-heavy year across the U.S., Brazil, Hungary, France, Bangladesh |
The field of fact-checking is going through one of its most peculiar years. There is occasionally a sharp increase in traffic. Political turmoil, Donald Trump’s comeback to the White House, tense elections in Brazil, Hungary, and France, as well as an impending constitutional referendum in Bangladesh, have all caused readers to return to verification websites in numbers that even the editors in charge of them were taken aback. Nevertheless, their finances have quietly collapsed in the same year that demonstrated their relevance.
The largest setback occurred in January 2025 when Meta terminated its US third-party fact-checking collaboration and substituted it with a Community Notes-style system. That one choice instantly eliminated a sizable portion of many organizations’ yearly budgets. Some had assembled whole teams around the initiative. Others reorganized in a matter of weeks. Speaking with professionals in the field gives the impression that the sector was viewed as a switch that could be easily turned off.
In particular, European fact-checkers appear to be in a difficult situation. They see community-based moderation as a helpful addition rather than a substitute. However, they are concerned about the consequences of platforms hiding behind the crowd. The tech companies have very little, if any, transparency. Institutions, including their own, continue to lose people’s trust. According to a recent qualitative study of European fact-checkers, the profession demands multi-level, adaptive governance rather than a reset button that says “let the users handle it.”
The pressure is only increased by the political context. In 2025, Coface’s global political risk index hit a record high of 41.1%. 2026 is expected to be even more chaotic, with the U.S. midterm elections, presidential contests in Brazil and Colombia, Peruvian general elections following Dina Boluarte’s impeachment, Hungary’s most competitive election in fifteen years, and a series of elections throughout Africa where democratic regression has become the norm. In reality, no fact-checking team can adequately cover all of these elections.
Inside these newsrooms, you hear strange anecdotes. In order to support her team, a Madrid-based verification editor began accepting freelance translation jobs. A small Polish organization that relies on grant funding and receives it slowly, if at all. During one election cycle, a Brazilian fact-checker refuted the same false claim six times, and each time they saw it spread. The work is still ongoing. The money doesn’t.
The question of whether the public genuinely desires what fact-checkers provide looms over all of this. According to polls, people are becoming less trusting of the very organizations that are there to verify. However, the traffic figures reveal a different story—one of readers who continue to return despite claiming not to believe. The industry has yet to resolve this contradiction.
As this develops, it’s possible that fact-checking will either completely change its funding model in 2026 or begin to disintegrate. The foundations are stretched. Platforms have retreated. Governments don’t want to be perceived as funding the truth. There must be a compromise. The individuals working on this project are aware of it. Nevertheless, they continue.