Reported by 1 source

The short version

  • The US State Department pressured Lithuania, Canada, and the EU to withdraw support from #Disinfo2026 due to a panel framing America as a disinformation threat.
  • Organizers removed sponsor logos from digital and physical materials just days before the event, though the EU continues to provide funding despite withdrawing its branding.
  • Officials from participating nations cited misalignment with their official positions on US foreign policy, while critics argue this represents an attempt to silence domestic criticism.

A leading European conference dedicated to combating disinformation has undergone a sudden and visible restructuring of its sponsorship lineup following intense diplomatic pressure from the United States. The event, known as #Disinfo2026, is scheduled to take place in Vilnius, Lithuania, and serves as an annual gathering for researchers, journalists, technologists, and policymakers focused on countering foreign information manipulation. In the days leading up to the summit, the logos of three major supporters—the Lithuanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the European External Action Service (EEAS), and Global Affairs Canada—were removed from the conference website. Physical materials distributed at the venue also show evidence of this abrupt change, with white stickers placed over printed logos, suggesting a last-minute effort to distance these organizations from the event’s content.

Internal documents reviewed by reporters indicate that US officials were actively engaged in contacting multiple governments regarding their support for the conference. The State Department expressed gratitude to Lithuania for taking American concerns seriously, noting that Washington appreciated Vilnius finding a specific panel “reprehensible and surprising.” That session, titled “USA as a FIMI threat: adapt, acknowledge, push back,” explored strategies for Europe to build resilience against disinformation without relying on the United States. It marked the first time the conference appeared to consider the possibility that the US itself could be acting as a disinformation actor within Europe. The panel featured three American speakers, including a former Central Intelligence Agency officer, and appears to have been the primary focus of Washington’s objections.

News Journal

Communications regarding the controversy appear to have originated from the office of Sarah B. Rogers, the US Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy. Nina Jankowicz, a former US official and disinformation expert who briefly led the Biden administration’s Disinformation Governance Board in 2022, stated that she understood Washington had pressured both Lithuania and Canada to withdraw their involvement. French officials also confirmed that Paris was contacted regarding its support for the event. Jankowicz characterized the actions as an attempt by a department purportedly dedicated to free speech to use government power to discourage Americans from criticizing their own administration.

In response to the situation, official statements from Lithuania, Canada, and the EU emphasized that the conference program did not align with their respective governments’ views on the role of the United States in global information security. Lithuania’s foreign ministry announced it had cancelled its participation because several parts of the schedule differed from the government’s official position. Similarly, an EU spokesperson confirmed that the EEAS withdrew its support because organizers framed discussions in a manner inconsistent with EU policy. Despite removing its branding as an official supporter, the European Union continues to fund the conference, highlighting a distinction between political endorsement and financial backing.

Global Affairs Canada stated that it carefully assesses participation in external events on a case-by-case basis. A spokesperson noted that following changes to the framing of several panel discussions, the department decided to revise its involvement in specific sessions at the EU DisinfoLab 2026 conference. However, Canadian officials remain present at the event, indicating that while sponsorship was withdrawn, diplomatic engagement has not been entirely severed. The timing of these withdrawals is notable, as the controversial program had been established for months prior to the decision to pull support, dating back to June.

The controversy underscores a growing divergence in how Western allies perceive information threats. In its latest report on foreign information manipulation and interference, published in March, the EU’s diplomatic service identified Russia and China as primary threat actors without making any negative references to the United States. This official stance contrasts sharply with the content of the Vilnius panel, which sought to examine the US as a potential source of interference. The removal of sponsor logos and the hasty adjustments to conference materials suggest that the pressure applied by Washington was both immediate and effective in altering the public face of the event.

Not all European partners yielded to the diplomatic pressure. A source at the French foreign ministry stated there was no reason to alter France’s commitments to supporting the conference. The official emphasized that backing civil society is both principled and operational, describing the summit as a laboratory for developing key policies around disinformation. This stance highlights a fracture within the transatlantic alliance regarding how openly member states can discuss the role of the United States in global information ecosystems.

The incident raises broader questions about the boundaries of diplomatic influence on academic and civil society discourse. While governments often seek to align sponsored events with their foreign policy objectives, the explicit targeting of a panel that critiques US actions marks a significant escalation. The presence of former intelligence officials on the panel suggests that the discussion was grounded in professional analysis rather than mere political rhetoric. As the conference proceeds, the absence of key sponsors serves as a visible reminder of the tensions between transatlantic cooperation and the desire for independent critical inquiry.

Looking ahead, the impact of this diplomatic intervention may extend beyond the current summit. The EU Disinfo Lab, an independent Brussels-based non-profit that runs the event, must now navigate a landscape where discussing US information practices carries significant political risk. Other nations may reconsider their support for similar initiatives if they fear retaliation or strained relations with Washington. The episode illustrates how quickly diplomatic pressure can reshape the agenda of international conferences, potentially chilling open debate on sensitive topics within allied circles.

The removal of logos and the withdrawal of sponsorship do not erase the content of the discussions that have already taken place or are scheduled to occur. However, they signal a clear message from the US State Department about the limits of acceptable criticism. For observers of international relations, this event serves as a case study in how modern diplomacy intersects with information warfare narratives. The question remains whether such pressure will lead to greater self-censorship among European institutions or if it will galvanize further efforts to maintain independent analysis of global information threats.

Sources behind this briefing

Go to the original reporting