Green Light for EU's 'Democracy Shield' – Critics Fear Restricted Freedom of Expression

The EU’s efforts to protect member states’ democracies against alleged disinformation and foreign influence have now entered a new phase. The European Parliament’s special committee for the European Democracy Shield has adopted its final report—a document proposing a range of new measures to strengthen the Union’s resilience. At the same time, the proposals have sparked a debate about where to draw the line between defending democracy and safeguarding freedom of expression and information.

The report was adopted on June 23 by the European Parliament’s special committee for the European Democracy Shield (EUDS), chaired by Swedish Moderate Tomas Tobé. After the vote, the matter now moves to the European Parliament’s plenary session, where members will consider the committee’s recommendations.

Although the report does not directly introduce any new laws, it is expected to be significant for the ongoing work of the EU Commission and the member states.

The initiative for the European Democracy Shield has arisen from growing concerns within the EU that foreign powers are said to be trying to influence European societies through disinformation, cyberattacks, sabotage, and other forms of so-called hybrid threats.

The issue has gained increased importance after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, but also suspected influence campaigns in connection with elections in several European countries have contributed to the EU’s desire to bolster its defenses against information influence.

When EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen presented her political guidelines for the current mandate, she highlighted a European Democracy Shield as one of the major initiatives to protect the Union’s democratic institutions. The work builds on previous reforms such as the Digital Services Act (DSA), the European Democracy Action Plan, and the European Media Freedom Act.

In December 2024, the European Parliament decided to appoint a special committee tasked with analyzing the threats and developing proposals for how the EU can better address them. The report now presented contains a large number of recommendations.

Closer Cooperation

Among other things, the report proposes closer cooperation between member states regarding information influence and hybrid threats. It also advocates that the EU develop better analytical capacity, strengthen cooperation among authorities, and give researchers greater opportunities to study how disinformation spreads via digital platforms.

Another central aspect is ensuring that the Digital Services Act is fully enforced. The report highlights the need for increased transparency in the algorithms of major social media platforms and how content is recommended to users.

Additionally, it is proposed that a European Center for Democratic Resilience should have a more important role in coordinating research, analysis, and efforts against foreign influence operations.

Tobé: The EU Needs to Do More

During the committee’s work, Tomas Tobé has repeatedly argued that the EU must become significantly better at countering the threats directed against the member states’ democratic processes.

He has previously described the Commission’s original proposal as insufficient and believes the EU needs to move from primarily identifying disinformation to also building up a more operational capacity to detect and counter influence campaigns.

According to Tobé, experiences from elections in Europe, attacks on critical infrastructure, and various information operations show that the threat landscape has become more complex and requires closer cooperation between member states.

Tomas Tobé. Photo: European Parliament, CC BY 2.0

Critics See Risks

The report has also met with criticism. Journalist and social commentator Henrik Alexandersson, who is familiar with the issue, describes the proposals as a step toward increased control over public discourse. He expresses concern that the EU is gradually building structures that could give authorities and institutions greater influence over which information and opinions are disseminated on digital platforms.

The criticism mainly revolves around the fact that terms such as “disinformation,” “foreign influence,” and “information manipulation” risk being too broadly defined, according to critics. If the boundaries become unclear, there are concerns that even legitimate public debate or controversial political views could in the future fall under the measures originally intended to stop organized influence campaigns.

Similar arguments have also been raised by several researchers and think tanks. At the same time, others argue that current regulations are not sufficient to address the methods used by foreign powers and that democracies therefore need to develop new tools.

Part of a Larger EU Effort

The Democracy Shield is not a standalone project but is part of broader work in which the EU has gradually expanded regulations around the digital environment in recent years.

The Digital Services Act already requires the largest internet platforms to deal with illegal content and analyze systemic risks, while the European Media Freedom Act aims to strengthen media independence within the Union.

The Democracy Shield is intended to complement these regulations by focusing on how member states can jointly counteract organized foreign influence.

Next Steps

After the committee adopted the report, it now awaits consideration in the European Parliament’s plenary session. Since the report is an initiative opinion, it does not mean that the proposed measures automatically become law. However, it is expected to serve as a political foundation for the EU Commission’s continued work and for future legislative proposals in this area.

How far the Union will go remains to be seen. What is clear already, however, is that the discussion about how best to protect democracy—and where the line should be drawn between security and fundamental rights and freedoms—will continue in both EU institutions and among the member states.