A panel in Vilnius asked an uncomfortable question about the United States. Before the discussion began, the United States State Department contacted governments that supported the conference. Three public institutions then removed their names, withdrew support, or changed their participation.
The panel still took place.
That sequence places #Disinfo2026 inside the territory Chilling Affect is trying to understand. The expression did not disappear. The conditions around it changed.
EU DisinfoLab, an independent nonprofit based in Brussels, held its annual conference in Vilnius on October 7 and 8. The program brought together researchers, journalists, public officials, technologists, and civil-society groups concerned with disinformation and foreign information manipulation and interference, often shortened to FIMI. The conference was full, with hundreds attending in person. Read the organizer’s conference record.
One session was titled “USA as a FIMI threat: acknowledge, adapt, push back.” Its description asked how the United States had come to be considered a possible information threat to Europe and how European institutions might respond without relying on Washington. Another session considered pressure from the United States government on people and organizations in the field. The program had been public since at least early September.
Reuters reported that State Department officials spent several days urging counterparts in Canada, Lithuania, and France to withdraw support. Its account cites three United States officials familiar with the matter and correspondence reviewed by the news organization. The Guardian separately reported contacts with multiple governments and described internal State Department documents it had reviewed. Neither outlet published the complete correspondence, so its wording and context are not independently available to us. Read the Reuters account and the Guardian’s reporting.
The State Department did not deny objecting. It told both outlets that it could not discuss diplomatic conversations, but said countries should be alarmed that the conference labeled the United States a FIMI threat. It argued that such language, ordinarily associated with influence operations by adversaries, undermined shared goals.
The institutional responses were related, but they were not identical.
Lithuania’s foreign ministry said it canceled its participation because parts of the program differed from the government’s official position. Global Affairs Canada said it revised its participation in several sessions following what it described as changes in their framing; Canadian officials nevertheless continued to attend. The European External Action Service had its logo removed, saying that some discussions did not align with official European Union positions. Reporting by the Guardian says European Union funding continued, and Tech Policy Press found that EEAS representatives remained involved in the program. France maintained its support.
The changes were visible. The names of Lithuania, Canada, and the EEAS disappeared from the conference website. White stickers covered their logos on materials that had already been printed. Le Monde later reported that the three institutions asked not to appear as supporters despite financial contributions. It also found that archived descriptions of the disputed sessions had not changed in the period before the conference, complicating Canada’s reference to changes in framing. Read Le Monde’s post-conference account.
What remained matters as much as what changed. The conference concluded on October 8. The panel about the United States went forward. Tech Policy Press reported from Vilnius that no speakers withdrew, while representatives of Canada and the EEAS continued participating in other ways. Read the conference report and institutional responses.
This is therefore not an account of a canceled conference, a prohibited panel, or silenced speakers. It is an account of government influence around a forum that retained enough independence to proceed.
Public institutions are not required to endorse every proposition discussed at an event they support. They may decide that a program no longer represents their positions. Yet official branding, participation, and funding help determine which discussions acquire a room, an audience, and institutional legitimacy. When governments retreat after a powerful ally objects, that action may affect more than the printed sponsor list. It can help define which questions organizers and prospective supporters consider safe to ask next time.
We do not yet know whether that happened here. EU DisinfoLab declined to comment to Le Monde and had not published its own account of the dispute when this article was prepared. The conference was not recorded or streamed, and no complete transcript of the disputed panel has been located. The exact sponsorship agreements, the full diplomatic correspondence, and the financial consequences remain unavailable.
The surviving panel prevents the story from being reduced to disappearance. It also makes the earlier intervention easier to see. The public discussion continued after institutions around it changed their relationship to the room.
A question to carry into the work: What changes when a discussion survives, but some of the institutions supporting it step away after another government objects?
Reader note: This account draws on EU DisinfoLab’s published program and funding information, reporting by Reuters, the Guardian, Tech Policy Press, Le Monde, and Euronews, and the institutional responses reproduced in those reports. The complete diplomatic correspondence, sponsorship agreements, and panel transcript are not public in the sources reviewed. The original editorial graphic is an AI-assisted interpretation, not a depiction of the conference, its venue, or its participants. Conference photographs and printed materials remain link-only.
Explore the work
- EU DisinfoLab: #Disinfo2026 program and conference record
The organizer’s page records the program, participants, dates, and framing of the disputed subject. The conference itself was not streamed or recorded.
- Tech Policy Press: reporting from inside the conference
This account documents what continued after the changes in official support, including remaining institutional participation and the speakers’ presence.
Links open material at its source. Access and viewing availability may change.
Article history
Dates below describe changes to our account, which may report earlier events.
First published an account of the State Department’s objection, the distinct institutional responses, and the conference and panel that proceeded.
Have a correction, additional evidence, or a response to this story? Write to the editor. Please include the article title and relevant sources.