An anti-establishment force has become the establishment, and it has developed a thin skin.
Nepal's press freedom has worsened even as its global ranking improved — a paradox that reveals how numbers can obscure the lived reality of journalists working under tightening constraints. The government that rose to power on the shoulders of protest and independent media has turned its instruments of control against the very forces that enabled its ascent. This is not merely a Nepali story; it is a chapter in a global reckoning in which elected governments increasingly choose legal suffocation over open suppression, testing whether democracy can survive the slow erosion of the institutions that hold it accountable.
- Nepal's conditions for journalists were quietly downgraded from 'Problematic' to 'Difficult' — a bureaucratic phrase that masks a deepening chill on reporting.
- A YouTuber was arrested for posts deemed critical of the Prime Minister, and media outlets received veiled warnings that 'unverified content' could trigger cybercrime charges under a deliberately vague 2006 law.
- When thousands of families were forcibly evicted from Kathmandu settlements, police blocked journalists, ordered footage deleted, and cited only 'orders from above' — erasing the human record of displacement.
- The Prime Minister holds simultaneous control over both the army and police, and his government redirected all public notices to state media, cutting the financial lifeline of independent regional outlets.
- Globally, press freedom has hit a 25-year low, with elected democracies — from the United States to India — increasingly using legal mechanisms to achieve what authoritarian regimes once did through force.
Nepal climbed three places in the 2026 Reporters Without Borders Press Freedom Index, moving from 90th to 87th — but the ascent is illusory. Other countries fell further. On the ground, conditions for journalists were formally reclassified as 'Difficult,' a downgrade that reflects a troubling shift in how the current government relates to the press.
The government that took power after September protests ousted the previous regime inherited a restrictive media environment and has chosen to deepen it rather than dismantle it. Its primary instrument is Section 47 of the Electronic Transaction Act, a 2006 law penalizing online content deemed harmful to public morality or social harmony. The language is vague by design. Last month, a YouTuber in Panchthar was arrested for posts said to defame Prime Minister Balendra Shah. Shortly after, the Ministry of Information and Communication warned all media that spreading 'unverified content' could invite cybercrime prosecution.
The control extends into physical space. During forced evictions of thousands of families from squatter settlements in Kathmandu, police blocked journalists from interviewing residents and compelled some to delete photographs and footage. The Nepal Army issued a public warning against 'baseless content' about its leadership and announced it was monitoring online activity — a surveillance apparatus now turned inward on citizens and reporters alike.
The Prime Minister holds both the Defence and Home Ministry portfolios, giving him direct authority over the security forces present at those evictions. Among the government's first acts was requiring all official notices to flow exclusively through state media, severing a revenue stream that smaller independent outlets had relied upon.
The irony is difficult to ignore. The protests that brought this government to power were amplified by social media and independent journalism. An anti-establishment movement has become the establishment — and has developed, as observers note, a conspicuous intolerance for scrutiny. The government has also begun legislating by ordinance, bypassing a Parliament where it holds nearly two-thirds of the seats, a choice that signals something beyond political convenience.
Nepal's trajectory mirrors a global one. For the first time in 25 years of tracking, more than half of the 180 countries surveyed now fall into the 'Difficult' or 'Very Serious' categories. The United States dropped to 64th place; India fell to 157th. The pattern is consistent across borders: vague laws, state capture of media revenue, and legal pressure replace overt violence. The question that remains — for Nepal and for democracies everywhere — is whether citizens will recognize the erosion before it becomes irreversible.
Nepal's ranking in the global press freedom index improved this year—but not because the country got better. It climbed from 90th place to 87th place in the Reporters Without Borders World Press Freedom Index for 2026, a shift that happened largely because other nations performed worse. The real story lies beneath the numbers. The assessment of conditions for journalists in Nepal shifted from 'Problematic' to 'Difficult,' a downgrade that reflects a deteriorating reality on the ground.
The decline traces directly to the government that took power after September protests toppled the previous regime. That earlier administration had cracked down hard on the press, banning 26 social media platforms and introducing restrictive laws that chilled speech. The new government, born from those same anti-establishment protests, has not loosened the grip. Instead, it appears to be tightening it in different ways.
The primary weapon is Section 47 of the Electronic Transaction Act of 2006, a law that allows authorities to penalize online content deemed 'against public morality and decency' or content that 'spreads hatred, enmity or disrupts social harmony.' The language is deliberately vague. Last month, a YouTuber in Panchthar was arrested under this section for posts the government said defamed Prime Minister Balendra Shah. Days later, the Ministry of Information and Communication issued a warning to all media outlets: those spreading 'unverified content' could face cybercrime charges. The message was clear, even if the legal standard was not.
The government's control extends beyond online speech. When journalists attempted to cover forced evictions of thousands of families from squatter settlements in Kathmandu last week, police blocked them from interviewing residents and forced some to delete photographs and video from their cameras. Officers cited 'orders from above.' The Nepal Army, meanwhile, issued an unusual public warning against what it called 'baseless and fabricated content' about itself and its leadership, then announced it was actively monitoring online activity for 'disruptive and lawless' material. The military's surveillance apparatus, once directed at external threats, now trains inward on citizens and the press.
The concentration of power amplifies these concerns. Prime Minister Shah holds the Defence and Home Ministry portfolios simultaneously, giving him direct civilian control over both the Nepal Army and Nepal Police. Both security forces have been present during the evictions. One of the government's first acts was to require that all government notices and public service announcements flow exclusively through state-owned media—a move that cut off revenue that smaller regional outlets had depended on to fund their reporting.
The irony is sharp and bitter. The September protests that brought this government to power, the formation of the interim government that followed, and the ruling party's victory in March elections were all enabled by social media and independent journalism. An anti-establishment force has become the establishment, and it has developed what observers describe as a thin skin. The government has also begun enacting laws by ordinance, bypassing Parliament entirely, despite holding nearly two-thirds of the seats. Without meaningful opposition, such moves were unnecessary—a choice that suggests deliberate dismantling of democratic process.
Nepal's deterioration is part of a global pattern. For the first time in the 25 years since Reporters Without Borders began tracking press freedom, more than half of the world's 180 surveyed countries now fall into the 'Difficult' or 'Very Serious' categories. The average score across all nations has never been lower. The threat no longer comes primarily from outright authoritarian regimes. It comes increasingly from elected governments using legal mechanisms—vague laws, corporate media control, strategic litigation against journalists—to achieve the same result. The United States has fallen from 57th to 64th place under President Donald Trump, whose attacks on the press have become systematic policy. India dropped from 151st to 157th, with new digital privacy laws that restrict publication of information in the public interest if it implicates the government. The technique is consistent: kill journalism rather than kill journalists. The question now is whether democracies and their citizens will resist, or whether the spread of authoritarianism will continue unchecked.
Citações Notáveis
Authoritarian states, complicit or incompetent political powers, predatory economic actors and under-regulated online platforms are directly and overwhelmingly responsible for the global decline in press freedom.— Anne Bocandé, RSF Editorial Director
The spread of authoritarianism isn't inevitable. It is up to democracies and their citizens to stand in the way of those who seek to silence the press.— Anne Bocandé, RSF Editorial Director
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
How does a country's ranking improve while conditions for journalists actually worsen?
It's a statistical quirk. Nepal didn't get better—other countries got worse. When you're ranked against 180 nations, your position can shift without any change in your own situation. But the real measure is the categorical assessment. Nepal moved from 'Problematic' to 'Difficult,' which is a genuine deterioration.
The government that came to power through anti-establishment protests is now restricting the press. How does that happen so quickly?
Power changes people. The movement that used social media and independent journalism to challenge the old regime now controls the state apparatus. They have access to laws, security forces, and the machinery of government. The vagueness of laws like Section 47 gives them tools they didn't have before. And there's no real opposition to push back.
What makes Section 47 so dangerous compared to other media laws?
The language is deliberately elastic. 'Against public morality,' 'disrupts social harmony'—these aren't defined. A YouTuber gets arrested for posts deemed 'derogatory' to the Prime Minister. A journalist covering evictions gets forced to delete photos. The law becomes whatever those in power say it is.
You mentioned the Prime Minister holds Defence and Home portfolios. Why does that matter for press freedom?
It means one person controls both the military and the police. Both forces have been present during the evictions, preventing journalists from documenting what's happening. There's no institutional check. The security apparatus answers to the same person making decisions about what speech is allowed.
Is this unique to Nepal, or part of something larger?
It's happening everywhere. The United States, India, countries across the world—elected governments are using legal mechanisms to control journalism. It's more effective than outright suppression because it looks legitimate. You're not jailing journalists; you're enforcing laws against 'disinformation' or 'threats to social harmony.'
What would it take to reverse this?
According to press freedom advocates, it requires democracies and their citizens to actively resist. The spread of authoritarianism isn't inevitable. But it requires choosing to defend the press, even when it's inconvenient, even when the government claims it's protecting public order.