U.S. Pressure Prompts Sponsor Withdrawals From #Disinfo2026 in Vilnius
The Trump administration pressured several governments to withdraw sponsorship from #Disinfo2026, Europe's annual counter-disinformation conference.
Canada, Lithuania and the EU's diplomatic service, the EEAS, withdrew sponsorship after the U.S. pressure. The withdrawals became public as the event opened in Vilnius, according to reporting published on October 7, 2026. The Guardian
#Disinfo2026 is run by EU DisinfoLab, a Brussels non-profit. It is the yearly gathering for Europe's counter-disinformation community, bringing together hundreds of researchers, journalists, technologists and policymakers. It took place Wednesday and Thursday at a hotel in Vilnius, Lithuania. The programme had been set since June, months before Lithuania, Canada and the EU withdrew support.
Days before the conference, the logos of the Lithuanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the EEAS and Global Affairs Canada were removed from the conference website. White stickers were placed over the logos of Lithuania, the EEAS and Canada on official conference materials. Participants could see the changes on site.
Three people familiar with the matter, including European officials, confirmed the U.S. State Department contacted multiple governments about support for the conference. Internal U.S. State Department documents show U.S. officials thanked Lithuania for taking U.S. concerns seriously. Other U.S. communications appeared to come from the office of Sarah B. Rogers, U.S. undersecretary of state for public diplomacy.
France was also contacted by the U.S. over #Disinfo2026, according to French officials. While the conference was being held, the French foreign ministry was the only main remaining sponsor. Intelligence Online
A panel titled 'USA as a FIMI threat: adapt, acknowledge, push back' took place on Wednesday. FIMI means foreign information manipulation and interference, a term for organized efforts to distort public debate. The panel included three American speakers, among them a former CIA officer. Lithuania's foreign ministry said it cancelled participation in Disinfo 2026 because "several parts of the programme differ from the official position of the government."
The organizer describes itself as an independent European platform on disinformation. It states it continuously monitors disinformation activities across major digital and traditional platforms to identify trends and threats, develops tools for expert collaboration, and regularly makes policy recommendations at EU level and to Member States. It invited partners to sponsor #Disinfo2026 to help make the event happen, seeking sponsors and supporters who share its commitment to strengthening the information ecosystem. EU DisinfoLab
The broader context here is sponsorship as diplomatic signal. Removal of a logo does not remove a programme. It removes official association. For practitioners who work on FIMI detection, attribution and response, that distinction matters. The research continues. The politics around it shift. Governments weigh exposure. Host institutions adjust logistics. The stickers in Vilnius showed that negotiation in physical form.
Looking at what this means for transatlantic coordination, the tension is institutional. Washington now treats inclusion of the United States in a threat panel as grounds for demarches, or formal diplomatic protests. European counter-disinformation networks treat all actors, including allies, as in scope for monitoring. That divergence affects convening power. State sponsorship confers access and legitimacy. Its withdrawal narrows both. Future organizers may prefer diversified funding. Future government sponsors may demand programme review.
In my view, Vilnius will shape quiet decisions ahead. Ministries will ask whether visibility is worth friction with Washington. Civil society groups will ask whether official branding helps or limits independent inquiry. Researchers will keep mapping FIMI campaigns regardless of who funds the coffee breaks. Diplomats will keep using cultural and scientific events to press preferences. The question for experts is less about one conference and more about where counter-disinformation work can still gather without becoming a bilateral issue.
