EU member states

Introduction

In an era of deepening informational volatility, the responsibility of EU Member States to safeguard and foster independent media and information integrity has become central to both democratic resilience and broader strategic policy. National governments — through their development arms, foreign affairs apparatus, and diplomatic platforms — are uniquely placed to influence the supply of reliable journalism, strengthen systemic media ecosystems, and mitigate the threats posed by disinformation, foreign-influence operations and shrinking media plurality. Their role is both domestic (ensuring a healthy media ecosystem at home) and global (projecting outward support and normative leadership).

For Member States, this dual role places them at the interface of four key dynamics: increasing commercial pressures on journalism, evolving technology-enabled disinformation campaigns, geopolitical competition over narratives, and the need to coordinate with EU institutions, donor networks and civil society. As one donor interviewee observed:

“If we only fund individual outlets, we risk bypassing the system dynamics – we still struggle to link journalism support to the broader media ecosystem.”

This observation speaks directly to Principle 3 (Take a whole-of-system perspective) and Principle 4 (Strengthen local leadership and ownership) of the OECD media-development principles. Many Member States report familiar constraints: specialist staff rotate regularly across ministries; media-support budgets are small and fragmented; and internal coordination between development, diplomacy and trade portfolios remains weak.

Yet the opportunities are clear. Member States can leverage their bilateral relations, multilateral commitments and operational presence to bridge gaps in independent media finance, bolster media-literacy and information-integrity programmes, and embed press freedom into broader security and economic agendas. The adoption of the Paris Declaration on Multilateral Action for Information Integrity and Independent Media in October 2025 by 29 governments underscores this collective moment. [link]

Member States that sign and implement such multilateral commitments signal both political will and normative leadership. Equally important, national actors are increasingly judged by independent empirical frameworks — for example, the IMFS Index ranks states according to their support for media freedom abroad.

The Index on International Media Freedom Support, 2025University of East Anglia

In short: the Member States’ role is not optional. To remain competitive, credible and resilient in a strategic environment shaped by information confrontation and democratic back-sliding, they must integrate media and information integrity into security, economic and foreign-policy frameworks. The six-principle framework offers a compass: from do no harm (Principle 1), to invest in knowledge, research and learning (Principle 6). As one MFA official put it:

“When journalists in our partner country are under threat, we are immediately drawn to short-term crisis responses. But what we really need is long-term system strengthening and leadership from our capital.”

By aligning their institutional practices across development agencies, foreign ministries and diplomatic networks, Member States can turn well-intentioned commitments into sustained, strategic action.

💡 Overview task

The table below summarises how EU Member States align with key multilateral frameworks that underpin media freedom and information integrity — including their participation in the Paris Declaration (2025), OECD DAC, the Media Freedom Coalition (MFC), and the Index on International Media Freedom Support (IMFS).

Use this overview to identify where your Member State stands and where further alignment or engagement could strengthen collective EU action.

📊 Paris Declaration / OECD-DAC / MFC / IMFS Grid

Member State

Paris Declaration

OECD DAC

MFC

IMFS 2025 Category

Code

Austria

✅

–

Data gap

🟨

Belgium

✅

–

Data gap

🟨

Bulgaria

✅

–

Data gap

🟨

Croatia

✅

–

Data gap

🟨

Cyprus

✅

–

Data gap

🟨

Czechia

❓ Not listed

✅

–

Data gap

🟥

Denmark

✅

–

Data gap

🟩

Estonia

✅

–

High (Top tier)

🟩

Finland

✅

–

Data gap

🟨

France

✅

–

Data gap

🟨

Germany

✅

–

Data gap

🟨

Greece

✅

–

Data gap

🟨

Hungary

❓ Pending

✅

–

Data gap

🟥

Ireland

✅

–

Data gap

🟨

Italy

✅

–

Data gap

🟨

Latvia

✅

–

High (Top tier)

🟩

Lithuania

✅

–

Ranked #1

🟩

Luxembourg

✅

–

Data gap

🟨

Malta

✅

–

Data gap

🟨

Netherlands

✅

–

Data gap

🟨

Poland

✅ (with reserves)

✅

–

Data gap

🟨

Portugal

✅

–

Data gap

🟨

Romania

✅

–

Data gap

🟨

Slovakia

✅

–

Data gap

🟨

Slovenia

✅

–

Data gap

🟨

Spain

✅

–

Data gap

🟨

Sweden

✅

–

High (2nd place)

🟩

🟩 = Strong alignment 🟨 = Partial / Data gap 🟥 = Not yet aligned Sources: Paris Declaration 2025 (Élysée.fr); OECD DAC Members; MFC Secretariat; Index on International Media Freedom Support (City, University of London, 2025).