The landscape of global information is currently undergoing a seismic shift, one where the truth is increasingly treated as a political casualty rather than a shared foundation for society. At the GlobalFact conference in Vilnius, Nina Jankowicz, a central figure in the recent history of American discourse, offered a candid and stirring post-mortem on the state of misinformation. Having served as the head of the U.S. Disinformation Governance Board—a short-lived agency that collapsed under a barrage of partisan pressure in 2022—Jankowicz’s presence served as both a cautionary tale and a rally for those still committed to holding the line. She characterized the current moment not merely as a technical challenge, but as a crisis of courage, noting that while autocrats and bad actors are playing for keeps, the institutions tasked with defending the truth have largely opted for withdrawal, leaving a vacuum where chaos now thrives.
Jankowicz did not hold back in her critique of the U.S. government, which she accuses of “unilaterally disarming” in the face of rampant deception. For her, the irony is profound: in an era defined by deepfakes, AI-generated manipulation, and targeted influence campaigns, the very infrastructure built to identify and neutralize these threats has been dismantled or defunded. She pointed to a troubling pattern where the Biden administration, wary of the political fallout that cost her her own position, retreated into a defensive silence rather than engaging in the necessary work of education and transparency. By forbidding public advocacy and bowing to the pressure of those who mischaracterized her mission as “censorship,” the government arguably fueled the very fire they were meant to extinguish. This abandonment, she argued, has left independent researchers and fact-checkers feeling isolated and exposed to the same vitriol that ended her tenure.
Perhaps most piercing was her critique of the fact-checking community itself. Jankowicz admitted that, in the heat of the organized harassment campaigns directed at her, she felt a haunting lack of unified support from colleagues who perhaps feared that standing by her would taint their own reputations or invite further scrutiny. This internal fragmentation is, in her view, a strategic blunder that mirrors the very divide-and-conquer tactics used by those trafficking in lies. She urged her peers to move past petty turf wars and embrace a spirit of “solidarity and audacity.” The core of her argument is that the field has been too focused on the technical, dry mechanics of debunking while ignoring the emotive, visceral power of the stories being told by bad actors. Trying to bring a spreadsheet to a street fight, she suggested, is a losing strategy that ignores how people actually process information.
However, Jankowicz’s message was far from one of defeatism; rather, it was a call for a radical pivot in how the defenders of truth operate. She insisted that there is no need to abandon the principles of accuracy or descend into the moral gutter by utilizing “AI slop” or personal digital abuse. Instead, the focus must shift to meeting the public where they actually exist—using language and narratives that connect on a human, emotional level without sacrificing the integrity of the facts. This is the premise behind her new venture, the American Sunlight Project: a realization that the defense of truth must be as compelling and accessible as the misinformation it seeks to counter. It is a transition from acting as detached arbiters to becoming active communicators who can withstand the pressure of a hostile political environment.
The dangers she described extend well beyond the borders of the United States. Jankowicz painted a global picture of an “autocratic drift,” where authoritarian regimes from Russia to China are emboldened by the lack of resolve seen in Washington. When the U.S. fails to prioritize transparent regulations—and even actively lobbied against tools like the European Union’s Digital Services Act—it sends a signal that misinformation is a low-cost, high-reward strategy. She warned that researchers worldwide are being systematically intimidated, from the weaponization of visa denials to punitive congressional investigations that seek to turn the act of reporting into a legal liability. By refusing to organize and push back against these intimidations, the community is allowing its own leverage to be eroded by those who profit from global confusion.
Ultimately, Jankowicz’s address was an affirmation of the work that remains to be done. Her closing sentiment was a rallying cry: they have not been attacked because they were wrong; they have been attacked precisely because they are effective. The campaigns against her and her peers are proof that the truth remains a significant threat to those who seek power through manipulation. She challenged the audience to harden their operational security, to demand transparent legal processes rather than complying with performative subpoenas, and to stop apologizing for standing up to deception. The fight against misinformation is grueling, and it is fraught with personal risk, but as she poignantly observed, the price of silence is far higher. The path forward requires a renewed, fearless commitment to the truth, delivered with enough resilience to outlast those who believe that facts are negotiable.