Last updated 3 months ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.
Videos of security forces firing on crowds kept appearing on social media during Iran’s January 2026 internet shutdown. Activist networks continued coordinating. Photographs documenting the crackdown found their way to international news organizations. How did data escape from an isolated country?
The answer is straightforward, though most news coverage has glossed over it: the United States government has been working for years to make sure Iranians could circumvent this kind of shutdown.
On January 8, 2026, the Iranian government severed internet access for approximately 90 million people—a rough estimate given that Iran’s population ranges from about 87 to 93 million depending on the source. Banks went offline. Emergency services lost connectivity. State institutions went dark. For 156 hours, one of the world’s most populous nations vanished from the digital world.
Except it didn’t. Not completely.
While Elon Musk and SpaceX grabbed headlines by offering free Starlink satellite service to Iranians, that’s only the most visible piece of a larger, quieter American effort. Behind the scenes, U.S. government agencies have been funding and distributing circumvention tools designed specifically to defeat Iranian censorship—tools that were already on thousands of activists’ phones when the shutdown hit.
How Iran Built Its Internet Infrastructure
Iran spent nearly a decade building what it calls the National Information Network—a parallel web designed to keep the country’s digital infrastructure running even when disconnected from the global network. When the country first connected to the web in the 1990s, it created only two primary access points: one through a small physics laboratory, another through the telecommunications company.
Because everything went through just a few connection points, Iran could shut it all down easily on January 8. Flip the switches. Sever the connections. Trap 90 million people inside a digital prison.
But here’s the thing about trying to achieve complete isolation from outside data in 2026: satellites don’t care about your national borders. Satellites in low orbit send signals whether Tehran likes it or not.
Starlink terminals had been arriving since 2022, after the Biden administration approved sanctions relief explicitly permitting technology companies to provide communications tools to Iran. What started as a luxury good for the wealthy evolved into an underground network. Human rights activists got terminals first. Then journalists. Then the black market took over, and thousands of middle-class Iranians bought dishes to maintain contact with family abroad.
On January 8, those dishes transformed from luxury goods into lifelines.
U.S. Government Circumvention Programs
The Open Technology Fund is a government nonprofit run by the State Department that develops and distributes tools to get around censorship globally, and Iran has been a priority country for years. The tools it supports—Psiphon, Signal, Session Messenger—were already on Iranian activists’ phones before January 8, waiting dormant until needed.
The strategy is to get people to download these tools before they need them. During periods of normal access, U.S.-funded organizations working with networks of Iranians living abroad distribute software to get around censorship throughout Iran, encouraging activists to download and test the tools. If citizens are familiar with these tools during normal times, they can activate them when censorship suddenly intensifies.
When Iranian authorities tried to block Psiphon during the shutdown, people could tell the government was trying to block Psiphon—which means some users were successfully accessing the platform despite the shutdown. When the government attempted to disrupt Session Messenger by faking its connection to trick users, Iranian users activated alternative pathways they’d been trained to use.
The State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, USAID’s Office of Transition Initiatives, and the Open Technology Fund have collectively invested millions in developing these tools. The specific budget numbers remain partly classified, embedded within broader diplomatic spending lines. But the infrastructure was in place years before this uprising began.
The Open Technology Fund directly funds developers of software like Psiphon and Lantern that helps people get around censorship. USAID’s Office of Transition Initiatives works with local civil society organizations to train activists on secure communications. The State Department coordinates with technology companies to ensure their platforms remain accessible in high-censorship environments.
The money goes through nonprofits so it’s not obvious the U.S. government is behind it. This makes it harder for Iran to figure out who’s getting the money and lets U.S. officials describe the programs as supporting “internet freedom” rather than explicitly undermining foreign governments.
Legal Framework for Sanctions Compliance
The U.S. government can’t hand tools to get around censorship to people in a sanctioned country without navigating a maze of Treasury Department regulations. The government has rules that allow certain software to reach Iran—applications to get around censorship, encrypted messaging platforms, email services like ProtonMail.
The rules allow certain types of software but not others. It’s a distinction that matters enormously for activists trying to document violence without accidentally violating sanctions that could land them in legal trouble.
The Trump administration has maintained funding for these efforts. White House officials have been quietly coordinating with technology companies and activist networks to ensure tools to get around censorship reach Iranian hands, though the specific mechanisms remain largely undisclosed to protect operations.
The Mortal Risks of Using These Tools
Every person who activates a Starlink terminal, every activist who deploys a VPN, every protester who attempts to livestream the regime’s violence faces potential identification, arrest, and execution.
Iran has drafted a law that would allow the death penalty for using Starlink or other satellite services for purposes involving espionage or anti-government activity, though the law appears not yet formally enacted as of available reporting. The proposed law would also impose imprisonment of 6 months to 2 years for personal use of such services. Multiple credible reports document authorities physically searching for satellite dishes, confiscating equipment, and initiating investigations into users.
When the U.S. government supports these tools—frames it as human rights support, funds the development, coordinates the distribution—it’s implicitly encouraging Iranian citizens to accept mortal risks. Whether the U.S. should be helping or should stay out of Iran’s problems remains contested among human rights organizations and international law experts.
Farzaneh Badiei, a researcher who studies Iran, argues that documentation saves lives: “Every time the government has shut down the internet they have killed many more people than when people had access to internet and could report it and could livestream it.” From this perspective, support for these tools enables accountability that constrains violence.
Others worry that external support for efforts to get around censorship deepens U.S. involvement in what remains fundamentally an internal Iranian political conflict, potentially drawing the country toward military confrontation.
International Response
Russia’s Foreign Ministry condemned what it called “subversive external interference in Iran’s internal political processes.” China signaled its position through strategic ambiguity, with Chinese and Iranian foreign ministry officials communicating without China explicitly endorsing intervention.
There’s a real legal question: is giving people tools to talk to each other interfering in another country? By calling it a human rights issue instead of saying it’s anti-government, U.S. officials can claim they’re supporting human rights, not trying to overthrow the government, while providing material support to forces seeking to organize against the leadership.
France, the United Kingdom, and Germany jointly issued a statement expressing “deep concern about reports of violence” and stating that Iranian authorities must allow freedom of expression and peaceful assembly. The European Union moved toward additional sanctions, though without explicitly endorsing threats of military intervention.
The Trump administration has been publicly weighing options ranging from targeted military strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities to cyber operations against government systems to pure diplomatic engagement. Helping people get around censorship is less extreme than military action but more than just talking.
Why the Shutdown Failed
The Iranian government deployed military-grade electronic warfare equipment to jam Starlink signals, similar to technology Russia uses against Ukrainian Starlink access. Authorities conducted physical searches for satellite dishes. The penalties for possession escalated to potential execution.
And yet data continued to leak out.
Iran’s government clearly saw that people could still communicate. By January 14-15, authorities began selectively restoring limited connectivity to certain sectors—primarily banking and services. This wasn’t giving up on censorship. It was admitting that shutting everything down was breaking the economy.
ATMs remained inoperable. Cash withdrawals were limited. But basic transactions could resume, because even authoritarian governments need functioning economies.
The partial restoration revealed something important: the sophisticated National Information Network, built over nearly a decade specifically for moments of internal unrest, still couldn’t achieve true isolation when satellites exist. The technical capacity existed to shut down terrestrial infrastructure. But wanting to shut things down isn’t enough when satellites can send signals in, and determined activists with pre-installed tools can find pathways out.
Future Implications for Authoritarian Control
What happened in Iran shows how governments will try to control the internet in the future. It demonstrates that even advanced governments can’t completely shut down the internet when satellite systems provide alternative pathways and networks of Iranians living abroad backed by foreign governments provide technical tools and operational support.
The web cannot provide protection against bullets. Cannot prevent executions. Cannot by itself transform political power structures. It can only let people see what the government is doing.
Other authoritarian governments are watching and learning. Russia has invested heavily in similar national network infrastructure, designed to function independently of the global web. China’s “Great Firewall” already operates as a sophisticated filtering system that allows the government to control access without complete shutdowns. Both countries are building weapons to knock out satellites and block their signals specifically to neutralize the Starlink advantage that Iranian protesters exploited.
As tools to get around censorship become more sophisticated, so do censorship and surveillance capabilities. The partial failure in January 2026 will likely prompt other authoritarian regimes to invest more heavily in signal jamming, satellite detection, and penalties for using these tools. The moment when Iranians could use satellites before the government figured out how to stop them might not last for future protest movements in other countries.
Activists who use satellite terminals or software to get around censorship leave digital traces that governments can potentially track. The same tools that enable communication can expose users to identification and arrest. This tension—between the benefits of connectivity and the risks of surveillance—defines the landscape for dissidents in authoritarian states.
International human rights organizations face difficult choices about how to support activists in these environments. Providing tools and training can save lives by enabling documentation of abuses. But it can also endanger the people who use those tools.
As of mid-January 2026, the Trump administration continues weighing its options. Military strikes remain on the table. Cyber operations targeting government communication systems are under discussion. Economic sanctions continue escalating. And quietly, behind all of that, U.S. government agencies continue coordinating to ensure tools to get around censorship reach Iranian hands.
The U.S. government has chosen to be part of this story—not through dramatic military intervention, but through the quiet, technical work of ensuring that when authoritarian governments try to make their violence invisible, the tools exist to make it seen.
Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.