Reporters Without Borders has released its 2026 World Press Freedom Index, ranking Taliban-controlled Afghanistan 175th out of 180 countries, unchanged from last year but down 53 places over five years.
The organisation said that since returning to power in August 2021, the Taliban have continued to enforce a wide range of laws designed to control the country’s image, suppress oversight of government and impose their own propaganda.
Afghanistan ranked 122nd in 2021 before the Taliban takeover. After taking over power, the country dropped 34 places to 156, then stood at 152 in 2023. Continued repression saw Afghanistan fall to 178 in 2024, before slightly improving to 175 last year.
Unprecedented Global Decline in Press Freedom
For the first time in the history of the index, more than half of countries are now classified as having a “difficult” or “very serious” press freedom situation.
Over the past 25 years, the average score of all countries and regions has declined.
RSF said the steady expansion of restrictive legal frameworks since 2001—particularly those linked to national security—has increasingly undermined access to information, even in democratic countries.
Five Indicators and Rising Criminalisation
The index assesses countries based on five indicators: political, legal, economic, socio-cultural and security conditions. The legal indicator saw the sharpest decline this year, reflecting the growing criminalisation of journalism worldwide.
Conditions worsened in 60% of countries (110 out of 180) between 2025 and 2026, including in countries such as India, Egypt, Israel and Georgia. Repressive laws and misuse of emergency powers have made criminalising journalism a global trend.
Rankings: Norway First, Eritrea Last
Norway has ranked first for the 10th consecutive year, while Eritrea remains last for the 13th year in a row.
Syria recorded the biggest improvement, rising 36 places following the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s government.
The United States dropped several places, while countries such as Ecuador and Peru also saw significant declines.
Lowest Average Score in 25 Years
RSF said press freedom has steadily deteriorated since it began publishing the index 25 years ago. Journalists continue to be killed and imprisoned, while new methods—such as political hostility, economic pressure on media and legal tools—are increasingly used to weaken press freedom.
More than 52% of the world’s countries now fall into the “difficult” or “very serious” categories, compared with just 13.7% in 2002. Meanwhile, the share of the global population living in countries with “good” press freedom has dropped from about 20% to less than 1%.
Wars and Restrictions on Information
RSF said prolonged conflicts in countries such as Iraq, Sudan and Yemen are major drivers of declining press freedom.
It added that the war in Gaza since October 2023 has made the territory one of the most dangerous places for journalists, stating that “220 journalists have been killed in Gaza by the Israeli army.”
In countries such as China, North Korea and Eritrea, press freedom is constrained by political deadlock and repression, with journalists like Dawit Isaak imprisoned for over 25 years.
Eastern Europe and the Middle East have seen some of the steepest declines over the past quarter century.
RSF said Russia under Vladimir Putin remains among the worst countries for press freedom, while Iran ranks 177th due to internal repression and ongoing conflict with Israel.
Misuse of National Security Laws
RSF said that since the 11 September 2001 attacks in the United States, national security laws have increasingly been used to restrict reporting on public affairs. This trend, common in authoritarian regimes, is also evident in democracies, often under the guise of counterterrorism.
Even in democracies, restrictive laws are growing. In Japan, state secrecy laws limit journalism; in the Philippines, terrorism charges are used against journalists; in Hong Kong, strict national security laws have led to the imprisonment of independent publishers; in Turkiye, anti-terror laws are used to suppress media; and in Tunisia, “false information” laws are used to criminalise journalism.
“The US falling apart under Donald Trump”
RSF said that since 2022, the overall ranking of 28 countries in the Americas has declined significantly. It added that Donald Trump has made repeated attacks on the press part of a systematic policy, contributing to the US falling to 64th place.
Cuts to the US Agency for Global Media have had global consequences, leading to closures, suspensions and downsizing of outlets such as Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and Radio Free Asia.
“Latin America in Decline”
Countries affected by organised crime and violence against journalists have seen sharp drops. Ecuador (125th) fell 31 places, while Peru (144th) was affected by the murder of four journalists.
Press freedom guarantees in Venezuela remain uncertain, while Cuba (160th) and Nicaragua (168th) continue to face deep crises and systematic repression of journalists.
Asia-Pacific
In 21 out of 32 countries in the Asia-Pacific region, press freedom is classified as “difficult” or “very serious”.
RSF said the region remains one of the most repressive, driven by legal attacks on the press, defamation laws and strict regulations. Censorship and propaganda tactics led by China are expanding beyond borders.
North Korea (179th) remains one of the most closed regimes, where independent journalism is effectively banned, while in China (178th) authorities continue to expand repressive tools.
Criminalisation from India to the Philippines
Even in more democratic settings, legal frameworks are increasingly used to silence newsrooms. In India (157th), judicial harassment of independent media is intensifying. In Pakistan (153rd), the press faces ongoing restrictions amid political tensions.
In the Philippines (114th), terrorism charges have become a preferred tool to silence journalists.
Democracies Under Pressure
Even established democracies face legal pressures. In Japan (62nd), secrecy laws contribute to self-censorship. In South Korea (47th), government efforts to counter disinformation have raised concerns among press freedom groups.
No country in the region ranks among the top 20 globally. New Zealand (22nd), despite a slight decline, remains a regional model for press freedom.
The conflict between Afghanistan and Pakistan has entered a dangerous new phase since late February, raising serious concerns about regional stability.
Pakistan has carried out multiple airstrikes in the provinces of Kabul, Kandahar, Paktia, Paktika and Nangarhar, while the Taliban have responded with ground assaults and drone attacks.
The United Nations said 143 people were killed in a Pakistani airstrike on a drug treatment centre in Kabul, although the Taliban put the death toll at as many as 400.
The UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan, or UNAMA, reported that from late February to the present, between 75 and 212 Afghan civilians have been killed, with hundreds more wounded.
A key question remains: if civilians are being hit, why is Pakistan not targeting the Taliban’s senior leadership?
What is Pakistan’s Calculated Approach to War?
Based on strategies previously used against leadership figures in Iran, the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan, or TTP, and al-Qaida, eliminating leaders in ideologically driven militant groups often leads to the rapid emergence of successors who may be even more radical and harder to contain.
Retired Pakistani General Inam-ul-Haq said Islamabad is not pursuing an all-out war against the Taliban, but is instead applying what he described as “calibrated” pressure. According to him, Pakistan is deliberately avoiding direct strikes on Taliban leaders and is not cutting ties with the ruling authorities. Instead, it is focusing on weapons depots, mid-level commanders and border posts in an effort to keep the Taliban under sustained pressure.
Haq said Pakistan does not want to cross a “red line” that could turn the conflict into a full-scale crisis.
He said one of Islamabad’s concerns is that killing senior Taliban leaders could create a power vacuum in Afghanistan, widen the conflict and further destabilise Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan, making both provinces harder to control.
Pakistan’s assessment, he said, is that the Taliban do not have a well-organised replacement leadership, and that the loss of top figures could endanger the wider region. Foreign militant groups now operating under Taliban influence could expand their activities into China, Central Asia and Pakistan itself if the Taliban leadership were removed.
For that reason, one option for Islamabad is to seek co-operation from within the Taliban and among aligned groups.
Haq said Pakistan is also monitoring networks of influence inside the Taliban. Groups such as the Haqqani network are viewed as relatively close, while greater pressure is being applied to other factions that have more limited co-ordination with Pakistan. Most of the areas targeted in Pakistani airstrikes lie outside Haqqani Network’s influence, he said.
Local sources say many Taliban fighters deployed along the Durand Line are from Kandahar and aligned with Mullah Hibatullah Akhundzada, with little involvement from the Haqqani network. One reason, they say, is that Hibatullah has appointed many loyalists in districts in south-western Afghanistan to military and government posts.
Haq views this distribution of power within the Taliban as part of an “internal balance” policy that helps preserve the group’s structure.
Several Afghan analysts share a similar assessment, interpreting Pakistan’s decision to spare the Taliban leadership as a deliberate choice.
Military Analysts’ Perspective
Azim Rahimi, a former professor at Kabul University and an expert in military affairs, said targeting the Taliban leadership remains an option for Pakistan, but one that is neither used constantly nor immediately.
“Pakistan will only use this option when there is a ‘need’ and a ‘political and security calculation’,” he said. “At this time, Pakistan does not genuinely seek the fall of the Taliban regime, but is instead applying limited pressure.”
He added that regional experience from past wars in Iraq and Afghanistan shows that toppling a ruling system can create long-term crises.
Why Are TTP Leaders Not Being Targeted?
From February 27 to March 13, Pakistan’s airstrikes in Afghanistan primarily targeted Taliban border posts, brigades, battalions, and arms and ammunition centres.
Retired Pakistani Brigadier Mahmood Shah said the main driver of Pakistan’s conflict with the Taliban is the activity of Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan, or TTP. After the Taliban returned to power, he said, attacks in Pakistan’s tribal areas increased, including assaults on military bases and police, as well as attempts to seize border posts, deepening Islamabad’s concerns.
He said Pakistan initially tried to negotiate with the Taliban, but turned to airstrikes after those efforts failed.
However, Pakistani Taliban leaders, whose presence Islamabad has used to justify its operations, have not been targeted, or at least no evidence of such strikes has been shared with the media.
Sources in Afghanistan and Pakistan’s tribal areas told Afghanistan International that some TTP leaders returned to their areas of influence in Pakistan at the same time as the attacks in Afghanistan. They also said signs of TTP activity and influence have increased near cities including Peshawar, Bannu, Lakki Marwat and Mardan.
That has raised further questions about the true targets of Pakistan’s airstrikes.
If Pakistani militants were the main target, why were strikes carried out at Bagram Airfield, in Kabul, and against Afghan brigades where there is no known TTP presence and no confirmed bases?
Many analysts believe Islamabad is seeking to destroy American weapons in Afghanistan, a goal they say aligns with joint US-Pakistan interests.
US Weapons In Afghanistan
Official US reports show that from 2004 to 2016, the United States supplied the Afghan National Army and police with 599,690 firearms, including light and heavy weapons. Most were light arms, including 358,530 rifles such as M16s, M4s and sniper rifles.
During the same period, 16,191 support devices were also delivered, including night-vision goggles, communication monitors, small reconnaissance drones such as the ScanEagle, and surveillance balloons. The overwhelming majority were night-vision goggles, totalling 16,035 units.
In aviation, a total of 208 aircraft were delivered to Afghan security forces between 2004 and 2016. They included 110 MI-17 and MD-530 helicopters, 60 transport aircraft, including the C-208, C-128, C-130, T-182, G-222 and AN-32, 20 A-29 attack aircraft and 18 PC-12 reconnaissance planes.
In addition, the US supplied 75,898 vehicles, including Rangers, Humvees, lorries and tanks. Of those, 42,604 were Rangers and 22,174 were Humvees, making them the most widely used. Some of the vehicles later became inoperable because of explosives, suicide attacks or prolonged use.
Over the past five years, Pakistan has repeatedly complained to the UN Security Council about US weapons left behind by Afghan forces and the United States, saying some of them ended up in the hands of TTP fighters.
Taliban Mediation And Relations With Pakistan
The Taliban government has officially acknowledged mediating negotiations twice between Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan and Pakistan, saying the process had reached 90 percent progress. However, it said changes in Pakistan’s military leadership and the fall of Imran Khan’s government disrupted those efforts.
A significant faction within the Taliban sees Pakistan’s top military leadership as an obstacle to relations, referring to them as the “special circle”. Members of that faction believe the new Pakistani military leadership opposes talks with armed Pakistani groups and instead pushes them towards taking up arms.
Those uncertainties, combined with the fact that neither TTP leaders nor Taliban leaders have been targeted, have fuelled conspiracy theories about the Taliban-Pakistan conflict.
Political analyst Roshan Karwar described the crisis as a “manufactured war”, arguing that external threats can sometimes help strengthen states. He said Pakistani airstrikes on Kabul gave the Taliban an opportunity to build public support. He added that the fact TTP and Taliban leaders have been spared lends weight to the theory of an engineered conflict.
Pakistan’s Recent Approach
Mohammad Fayyaz, a professor at Lahore University, described Pakistan’s foreign policy over the past two years as “co-ordinated and systematic”.
He said Pakistan does not want to trigger a new domestic or regional crisis, and is instead prioritising border security, economic support and avoiding steps that could threaten the survival of the Taliban regime.
He said expanding the war against the Taliban would fuel new waves of radicalisation. In his view, Islamabad is seeking to contain Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan, or TTP, as an immediate threat without challenging the Taliban’s overall hold on power.
Since the conflict began, however, trade routes between Afghanistan and Pakistan have been closed. The Taliban have shifted their trade focus towards Central Asia and India, while the border between the two countries has been marked by violence and disruption.
Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar said the operations are part of Islamabad’s counterterrorism strategy. Analysts, however, say the actual targets remain unclear.
Although the strikes are publicly framed as an effort to contain the TTP threat, TTP leaders have not been targeted in practice, their Taliban supporters have been spared, civilian casualties have mounted, and tens of thousands of people have been displaced on both sides of the Durand Line.
The movement of residents out of the area, along with tightened security measures, could leave the border exposed to new waves of insecurity.
Analysts suggest several possible explanations. One is that Pakistan has not yet finalised its strategy and is still testing pressure tactics. Another is that its real objectives are more complex, and more concealed, than officially stated.