EU Withdraws Sponsorship from Lithuania’s Disinfo2026 Conference

On Thursday, the European Union explained its decision to pull sponsorship from a disinformation conference in Lithuania, after media reports suggested the move came under pressure from the U.S. government.

The EU’s External Action Service, along with the governments of Canada and Lithuania, withdrew their backing on short notice, and organizers quickly covered sponsors’ logos on event flyers and signage with paper.

According to multiple media outlets, including Britain’s The Guardian, the withdrawal followed pressure from the U.S. State Department.

What explanation did the EU provide for its decision?

EU spokesperson Christian Wigand did not cite U.S. or external pressure on Thursday, though he also did not deny the reports.

“We were not comfortable with the framing of some discussions at the event,” he told reporters in Brussels.

“The organizers framed certain discussions in a manner that does not align with the EU’s official positions,” he said.

He declined to specify which discussions or what framing had troubled the EEAS, and he would not comment on whether any talks with U.S. officials had taken place.

“I do not comment on diplomatic exchanges as a matter of principle,” he said.

What signs of potential controversy emerged at Disinfo2026?

Although several sessions listed on the event’s website for the two‑day conference at the Radisson Blu Lietuva Hotel in Vilnius could have upset sensitive members of the Trump administration, the opening two sessions on Wednesday morning drew particular attention.

The conference opened with an interview featuring Kimberly Prost, a judge at the International Criminal Court, who has faced sustained criticism from the Trump administration during his second term.

This was followed by an hour‑long session titled “USA as a FIMI Threat: Acknowledge, Adapt, Push Back,” referencing Foreign Information Manipulation and Interference, with a former CIA officer among the scheduled speakers.

Strong free‑speech protections under the First Amendment mean the United States has traditionally taken a relatively hands‑off approach to tackling disinformation, both politically and legally. Critics argue this stance has intensified under President Donald Trump, suggesting it stems partly from his own uneasy relationship with the truth.

Source link