🚨 UK Government Admits NATO’s Hidden Hand in COVID Censorship But Refuses to Release Files

On 30 July, I submitted the following Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the UK Government’s Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT)—the ministry that now houses the rebranded Counter Disinformation Unit (CDU).

DSIT’s response arrived on 29 August. This was their answer:

Their explicit confirmation that they hold NATO’s directives, guidance, and communications on countering vaccine “disinformation” during the COVID era—immediately followed by a blanket refusal to release a single line—speaks volumes. No partial disclosure or even redacted summaries were released, just a five-page refusal citing “international relations”(section 27) and “personal data” (section 40) of the FOIA.

Section 27 states:

(1) Information is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be

likely to, prejudice-

(a) relations between the United Kingdom and any other State,

(b) relations between the United Kingdom and any international organisation or

international court,

(d) the promotion or protection by the United Kingdom of its interests abroad.

Although their response recognised the fact that disclosure would “promote government transparency” and “enhance public understanding”— DSIT cited the following reasons for witholding the information requested:

Reason 1:

No specific example of which NATO member would lose trust is provided. Essentially, they claim that NATO would crumble but cannot name one ally, one meeting, or one line that would cause it.

It is noteworthy that in the case of Department for Transport (DfT) v ICO 2025, the DfT withheld information under FOIA Section 27 (international relations) but the tribunal overturned it on appeal, stating “mere assertions of potential diplomatic risks were insufficient without robust evidence demonstrating how disclosure could adversely impact relations with other states.”

Reason 2:

The reason they give of undermining “ongoing negotiations” is baffling, since the FOI request was for the 2020-2023 period.

Reason 3:

No example is given of what could be “misinterpreted.” In addition, they purposefully ignore the use of redaction. It appears, what DSIT is really saying here– they are scared of the headlines resulting from disclosure.

According to the UK’s independent data protection and freedom of information regulator, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), its guidance states: “The prejudice must be real, actual or specific harm... Speculative or generic assertions, such as potential ‘misinterpretation’ by foreign entities without evidence of how it would damage relations, do not meet the threshold.”

Reason 4:

This circular logic: “We can’t release it or they’ll stop sharing” lacks any proof.

It is quite evident that their above “reasons” are vague and unsubstantiated excuses—stonewalling in plain sight.

In response to DSIT’s 29 August letter, I requested an internal review in regard to the handling of my information request— stating the following reasons:

On 31 October, I received the following letter from DSIT revealing the outcome from their internal review.

So, they ran their “checking the boxes” exercise and completely ignored every substantive point I raised.

I would like to remind readers of my recent piece, “NATO’s Mind ‘Games’—Inoculating Dissent?”, which exposed how NATO’s Strategic Communications Centre in Riga, Latvia, turned psychology into warfare. It highlighted NATO’s “Inoculation Theory and Misinformation” report treating vaccine scepticism like a virus that needs pre-emptive treatment. Where “games” such as, Bad News and Go Viral! developed by NATO-backed academics—quietly funded by the UK Cabinet Office and the WHO— “educated” users to spot and reject “anti-vax” claims.

Between 2021 and 2023, the Counter Disinformation Unit (CDU)—nestled inside DSIT—monitored British MPs, journalists, professors, and ordinary citizens for “vaccine hesitancy,” flagging content to social media giants for removal. Big Brother Watch’s 20+ FOI requests confirmed it: the 77th Brigade produced “disinformation reports” on UK civilians; private AI firms were paid millions to scan petitions and tweets. And now we have DSIT confirming in writing, that NATO was part of this apparatus—yet refuses to disclose what was discussed.

They are not safeguarding national security. They are safeguarding the narrative.

If you find value in the work I do, please consider a paid subscription or make a one-off donation.