OPINION:
Earlier this month, the start of one of the largest international assemblies dedicated to the critical task of countering Russian hybrid warfare and propaganda was abruptly overshadowed by last-minute opposition from a faction within the U.S. government.
In a surprising turn of events, elements within the Trump administration — which successfully pressured officials from Canada, Lithuania, and the European External Action Service to withdraw their support for DISINFO2026, an international summit on disinformation — opposed a provocative scheduled panel on the uncomfortable question of whether the United States itself has become a source of disinformation.
DISINFO2026, held Oct. 7 and 8 in Vilnius, Lithuania, was designed as a platform for international experts to collaborate and exchange research to combat the sophisticated tactics Russia uses in information warfare.
People were interested in these podcasts
The objections were specifically to sessions suggesting that the U.S. could be contributing to foreign information manipulation. According to media reports, Sarah Rogers, the U.S. undersecretary of state for public diplomacy and public affairs and a fierce critic of European measures to curb online disinformation, is behind the protest.
Ms. Rogers portrays the EU’s Digital Services Act and Britain’s Online Safety Act as harmful policies that effectively pressure social media platforms to censor lawful expression.
By framing her opposition as a defense of free speech — a fundamental American principle — she inadvertently undermined the very rationale she used to vilify her European counterparts, undermining the American panelists’ capacity to engage in the discussions she claimed to endorse.
This diluted the panels’ ability to illuminate the issues she hoped to raise and eroded the trust of a previously supportive, pro-U.S. cohort of international experts who had relied on American leadership to navigate these pressing global challenges.
Instead of fostering a vibrant and productive debate, the proceedings were overshadowed by an unprecedented attempt to suppress meaningful dialogue.
President Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance have ardently championed free speech as essential to democracy, arguing persuasively that governments should protect political dissent. Mr. Trump’s January 2025 executive order explicitly opposed federal censorship, while Mr. Vance’s February 2025 address in Munich fervently criticized European restrictions on free expression and emphasized the need to include dissenting political voices in the conversation.
Despite the turbulence of this episode, the Trump administration has indeed prioritized the critical task of countering malign propaganda, as articulated in the National Security Strategy of November 2025. This strategic document clearly identifies destructive propaganda, influence operations and cultural subversion as significant threats to national sovereignty.
It calls for resolute action to resist foreign manipulation of U.S. policy and public discourse and urges collaboration with partners to counter hostile influences while upholding free speech, religious liberty and freedom of conscience. These guiding principles provide a solid foundation for countering foreign propaganda and underscore the importance of these efforts in U.S. international strategy.
After this unfortunate misstep, the Trump administration now has a critical opportunity to advance its real priorities and reconnect with those alienated by the protest.
European officials are eager for an open-ended debate on the implications of the Digital Services Act and the prospect of forging alliances to counter malign information and advance White House objectives. The divide between Europe and the United States over this legislation mirrors an ongoing debate within American society.
In Europe, the debate over the Digital Services Act pits proponents — who view it as indispensable to safeguarding democracy and holding platforms accountable — against critics who warn that it could impede free speech and suppress legitimate political expression.
The United States must navigate this complex terrain with decisive action, assume a leadership role in cultivating a more transparent and equitable discourse and continue to reinforce the already unprecedented, positive efforts to formulate effective responses that safeguard democratic societies.
• Josh “Bugsy” Segal, a retired Naval Information Warfare officer and arms control negotiator, has nearly 40 years of experience in national security policy and operations and now serves as an independent adviser to the Department of Defense on countering Russian hybrid warfare.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.