On June 23, 2016, the European Union faced a rupture unlike any since its founding. The United Kingdom chose to leave the club, a decision commonly referred to as Brexit. In the immediate aftermath, Nigel Farage admitted that many promises of the campaign had been misleading and that not acting sooner would haunt the union. The EU’s media director later reflected that the moment also served as a wake-up call for Brussels, a stark reminder of the fragility of political trust.
Six years later, information remains a central battleground as Russia intensified its invasion of Ukraine. The pandemic, already reshaping public opinion, accelerated changes in how information travels and is consumed. Disinformation is not simply a domestic concern; it has the potential to undermine democracy from within and to erode citizen engagement, affecting the very functioning of the Union.
On the global stage, the EU pursues its own interests and works to counter narratives that do not align with its policy goals. The European Parliament seeks to illuminate positive aspects of its institutions and to support journalists and fact-checkers who challenge falsehoods pushed by competitors and opponents alike.
In an environment where reality is increasingly contested, Brussels emphasizes shared values and aims to counter efforts by foreign powers that seek to rewrite the continent’s political map. Statements from nations like China and Russia are presented as attempts to normalize conditions that, in Brussels’ view, do not respect the rule of law or human rights, a view voiced by EU officials and researchers alike.
deterioration from the inside
Yet the battle over the narrative also unfolds within Europe, where internal pressures threaten unity. Among the twenty-seven member countries, concerns have emerged about governments challenging partner interests, while far right movements gain attention as external actors seek to influence continental discourse.
To strengthen its communications, Brussels has backed Media Intelligence Unite, a platform monitoring thousands of media outlets to analyze how the EU is portrayed. Internal reports guide policy makers and inform strategies to counter counter-narratives. The European Commission relies on these insights to correct misperceptions and promote a positive image of the Union, a practice described by Paula Fernandez Hervas, the platform’s head, as essential to maintaining a balanced public conversation.
act by law
Law remains a cornerstone in the fight against disinformation. As early as 2016, the European Commission and major tech companies agreed on a code of conduct to curb hate speech and incitement online. Platforms have not fully met expectations, but there is a clearer balance now between regulation and freedom of expression, according to EU officials.
The European Parliament is preparing a broader Digital Services Act, a major legislative project that will push platforms to curb scams and distortions online. The European Commission will assess whether these platforms are acting effectively, and the law is expected to guide their responsibility in content moderation and transparency.
Threats framed around race, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation may already be illegal, while disinformation remains a more complex issue. Brussels faces pressure to remove harmful content, with potential sanctions looming for platforms that fail to act. Some digital rights groups warn that overreach could suppress legitimate speech, arguing that laws must be harmonized across member states to avoid over- or under-regulation.
There is ongoing scrutiny of how platforms handle content through algorithms that amplify polarizing material. The Digital Services Act will require platforms to evaluate algorithmic impact and adjust as needed, especially during exceptional circumstances like a pandemic or a crisis. A parliamentary rapporteur notes that increased oversight has shifted disinformation into other platforms, which are sometimes harder to regulate, including messaging apps and live-streaming services.
Regardless of current support, some groups advocate ending anonymity online and requiring user identification to curb disinformation. Critics argue that such measures would threaten privacy and civil liberties, while human rights advocates warn against creeping censorship and the erosion of universal standards tracked by international bodies.