Pressure Behind the Scenes
In the days leading up to the #Disinfo2026 summit in Vilnius, officials from the US State Department reached out to several governments asking them to reconsider their support for the annual European counter‑disinformation gathering. Internal documents seen by the Guardian show State Department staff thanking Lithuania for “taking US concerns seriously” and noting that Washington was “grateful” the Baltic state had labelled a panel describing the United States as a foreign information threat “reprehensible and surprising”.
The panel in question – titled “USA as a FIMI threat: adapt, acknowledge, push back” – featured three American speakers, including a former CIA officer, and examined how Europe could build resilience to disinformation without relying on Washington. Sources indicate the State Department focused its diplomatic pressure on this session, which took place on the first day of the conference.
Conference Reacts and Withdrawals
Days before the event, the logos of the Lithuanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the European External Action Service (EEAS) and Global Affairs Canada disappeared from the conference website. Photos obtained by the Guardian show white stickers covering those same logos on printed programmes, suggesting a hasty removal.
Lithuania’s foreign ministry issued a statement that read: Lithuania has cancelled its participation in ‘Disinfo 2026’ as several parts of the conference programme differ from the official position of the Government.
Canada’s Global Affairs spokesperson, Samantha Lafleur, said: Global Affairs Canada “carefully assesses participation in, and sponsorship of, external events on a case‑by‑case basis,” GAC spokesperson Samantha Lafleur said. “Following changes to the framing of several panel discussions, GAC decided to revise its participation in those sessions at the EU DisinfoLab 2026 conference.” Canadian officials are still participating in the conference, Lafleur added.
The EU’s External Action Service also withdrew its branding, with an EU spokesperson confirming: the organisers chose to frame some of the discussions in a way which does not align with the official positions held by the EU.
Despite pulling its official support, the EEAS continues to fund the event.
Transatlantic Tensions Over Free Speech
Critics warned that the US move amounted to an attempt to silence dissent. Nina Jankowicz, a former US official who once headed the Biden administration’s Disinformation Governance Board, commented: What this amounts to is a purported defender of free speech at the state department using the enormous power of the US government to try to pressure Americans from criticizing their government.
France, meanwhile, signalled it would stay the course. A diplomatic source at the French foreign ministry told the Guardian: there’s absolutely no reason for us to change our commitments
when it came to backing the conference, adding that We stick to supporting civil society. It’s not just principled, it’s operational
and describing the summit as a laboratory
for developing European disinformation policy.
What Comes Next
The #Disinfo2026 gathering proceeded as scheduled, with hundreds of researchers, journalists, technologists and policymakers debating how Europe can counter false narratives without relying on American leadership. While Lithuania, Canada and the EEAS have stepped back as sponsors, their representatives remain present in Vilnius, and the EU’s financial backing ensures the conference can continue its work.
The episode underscores a growing friction between Washington’s approach to information policy and Europe’s insistence on maintaining an open, multilateral forum for tackling disinformation. As the US pursues a more interventionist stance on speech and civil society abroad, European partners are weighing how to preserve their own strategic autonomy while still engaging with American allies on shared security challenges.
Why it Matters
The pressure exerted by the Trump administration on Lithuania, Canada and the EU to withdraw support from a premier disinformation conference reveals a stark clash over who gets to define the narrative of foreign interference. By seeking to silence a panel that labelled the United States as a potential source of manipulative information, Washington risks undermining the very principles of free speech and open debate it claims to champion abroad. For Europe, the episode reinforces the need to sustain independent platforms where diverse viewpoints — including critical assessments of US actions — can be examined without fear of diplomatic reprisal, ensuring that counter‑disinformation efforts remain credible, inclusive and effective in the face of evolving threats.