When a crisis hits, the truth is often one of the first casualties. Wars, elections, natural disasters, and public health emergencies create chaos, fear, and uncertainty—and disinformation thrives in that space, spreading faster than accurate reporting can often keep up. That is exactly why the European Fact-Checking Standards Network (EFCSN) launched its Emergency Response Support Grants under the FACTEUR project. This initiative is designed to help professional fact-checking organisations across the European Union and DEP-associated countries respond quickly and effectively when false or misleading information threatens public understanding and safety. The programme is built around a simple but powerful idea: fact-checkers need rapid, flexible financial support to scale up their work in times of urgent need. With a total budget of €450,000, the grants offer up to €15,000 per project, covering half of eligible costs as a lump sum. By lowering the financial barrier, the programme allows fact-checking teams to move quickly—hiring staff, buying tools, launching investigations, and building stronger systems for the future. It is not just about putting out fires; it is about making sure those fires are less likely to become infernos next time.
The programme is split into two funding streams, each addressing a different side of the crisis-response challenge. The first, Emergency Fact-Checking Grants, focuses on immediate action. This stream supports rapid verification, debunking of false claims, investigative journalism, analysis of disinformation ecosystems, and the creation of counter-narratives or explanatory content that helps the public make sense of complex events. Imagine an election where manipulated videos of a candidate go viral, or a flood where old images are recycled to claim the damage is worse than it actually is. These grants help fact-checkers meet those moments head-on, with the resources to confirm what is real and what is not before lies take root. The second stream, Emergency Capacity-Building Grants, takes a longer view. It helps organisations improve their preparedness for future information crises by investing in technology, staff training, organisational security, legal protection, crisis communication plans, and cross-border cooperation. The two streams complement each other: one helps fact-checkers respond to the crisis of today, while the other strengthens their ability to face the crises of tomorrow. Whether the need is immediate or structural, the programme is designed to be flexible enough to make a real difference.
What makes these grants particularly valuable is the breadth of activities they can support. Fact-checking is not just about writing articles; it is a complex operation that requires people, tools, and planning. Under this programme, eligible costs include staff salaries, consultant fees, equipment, travel, translation, legal costs, and production expenses. That means a fact-checking desk can use the funding to bring in extra freelance investigators during a sudden surge of misinformation, or purchase AI-detection software to identify deepfakes and manipulated content. It can also be used for more strategic investments, like developing crisis-response protocols, running training sessions for journalists, strengthening cybersecurity, or creating better ways to communicate with audiences under pressure. Monitoring disinformation using technical tools, analysing coordinated campaigns, and even collaborating with fact-checking organisations in other countries are all considered eligible activities. The grants also allow indirect costs to be covered, up to a maximum of 10% of direct project costs, which helps organisations manage the overhead that often makes small grants difficult to use effectively. This flexibility recognises that effective fact-checking is not an isolated editorial act—it is a team effort that depends on secure systems, skilled people, and the ability to adapt quickly.
Of course, not every organisation can apply. The programme is aimed squarely at professional fact-checking organisations and teams that are legally established and based in the European Union or DEP-associated countries. Applicants must be able to show that fact-checking is a substantive part of their editorial work, not just something they do occasionally when the mood strikes. They must publish at least four original fact-checking articles per month, and they must either be EFCSN certified or demonstrate that they follow the European Code of Standards for Independent Fact-Checking Organisations. This ensures the funding goes to organisations that are committed to rigorous, transparent, and ethical fact-checking practices. Both for-profit and non-profit entities are welcome, and eligible consortia can apply as well, which encourages collaboration rather than isolation. At the same time, there are clear rules about what makes an organisation ineligible. If fact-checking is only a small part of an applicant’s work, or if the organisation does not meet the geographical, editorial, or legal requirements, it should not apply. Applicants also need to pay close attention to the rules about receiving multiple grants during the programme, so they do not accidentally put their eligibility at risk.
The application process is designed to be accessible, but it still requires thought and preparation. It starts with identifying the problem: what disinformation challenge is the organisation trying to address, and why is it urgent? For emergency fact-checking projects, this means explaining the crisis context and why rapid verification or investigative reporting is needed. For capacity-building projects, it means clarifying the organisational, technical, security, or preparedness gap that needs to be filled. From there, applicants choose the funding stream that best fits their proposed activities, then build a clear project plan. A strong plan should cover the disinformation problem, the target audience, the activities, the expected outputs and impact, a realistic timeline, and the resources required. The budget must follow the programme’s rules, with the maximum grant capped at €15,000 and a 50% funding rate, meaning applicants need to secure the other half of the financing through their own resources. It is also important to distinguish direct costs from allowable indirect costs and make sure every requested expense is genuinely connected to the project. Finally, applicants need to demonstrate eligibility by providing documentation of their legal status, their professional fact-checking record, their publication output, and their adherence to the code of standards. Submitting a complete, well-organised application is essential, since missing information can delay or disqualify a proposal.
A successful proposal is not just a wish list; it is a focused, practical plan with measurable results. Strong applications clearly define the disinformation threat, explain why the need is urgent, and show exactly how the grant will make a difference. They also demonstrate value for money, which means every euro requested should have a clear purpose and a plausible connection to the project’s goals. Equally important, applicants should aim to show how their work will benefit the public, who will be reached, and how the investment will help the organisation prepare for future crises. Common mistakes can be avoided by staying specific and realistic: proposals that are too broad, budgets that are unclear, or activities that do not directly respond to an information crisis are less likely to succeed. The EFCSN Emergency Response Support Grants are a meaningful opportunity for fact-checking organisations that need extra capacity when it matters most. By providing fast, targeted funding for both immediate response and long-term preparedness, the programme strengthens not only individual organisations but the entire European fact-checking ecosystem. For those who are eligible, the message is clear: identify the need, craft a clear plan, build a realistic budget, and submit a proposal that shows how the funding will help protect the public from the harmful effects of disinformation. In an age when lies can spread in seconds, supporting the people who verify the truth has never been more important.