Dawn of Nemunas (Nemuno aušra, NA)

EU RANK: 188 (Tier 5: High Risk)

Dawn of Nemunas (Nemuno aušra, NA) is a nationalist‑populist party that combines right‑wing identity politics, social conservatism and strong anti‑establishment rhetoric. Led by Remigijus Žemaitaitis, it emerged rapidly before the 2024 Seimas election, where it won around 15% of the vote and secured 20 seats, becoming the third‑largest faction and a controversial coalition partner for the Social Democrats and the Union of Democrats.​

Disinformation and alternative media

NA’s communication strategy is highly personalised around Žemaitaitis, who uses Facebook, other social networks and sympathetic nationalist‑leaning outlets to broadcast provocative messages on migration, national identity and history. Party narratives frequently challenge mainstream media and expert accounts, including on sensitive topics such as the Holocaust, Israel and minority rights, and have been criticised by Jewish organisations and civil‑society groups as spreading distorted or inflammatory claims. While NA does not operate a large formal media empire, it benefits from the amplification of its leader’s statements through partisan portals and social media, where content can circulate with limited editorial control.

Analyses of disinformation in Lithuania point to the role of nationalist platforms like Respublika and to far‑right online ecosystems that often echo or support Žemaitaitis’s messaging, especially when it targets minorities or international institutions. This ecosystem, combined with NA’s reliance on sensational statements and culture‑war themes, positions the party at the higher‑risk end of the spectrum for contributing to polarised and sometimes fact‑distorting information flows.​​

Foreign influence and external alignments

NA formally supports Lithuania’s EU and NATO membership but frames many issues in sovereigntist, anti‑“globalist” terms and is sharply critical of Western liberal norms on minority and migration policy. Its rhetoric on Israel, Jewish history and the Holocaust has attracted strong criticism at home and abroad, with observers warning that it undermines Lithuania’s reputation as a state committed to remembrance and the fight against antisemitism. The party has not been shown to maintain structured ties with Russian state institutions or other authoritarian regimes, but its nationalist, grievance‑fuelled discourse can intersect with narratives promoted by hostile actors seeking to exploit social divisions.

International coverage of Lithuania’s 2024–2025 politics highlights the dilemma faced by mainstream parties in cooperating with NA: including it in governing arrangements risks legitimising a movement whose leader is under criminal prosecution and later conviction for antisemitic hate speech, yet excluding it leaves a significant protest electorate outside institutional channels. This context raises NA’s external‑alignment risk, not because of proven foreign control, but because of the normative and reputational implications of its messaging in the Euro‑Atlantic community.

Media capture, advertising and public service media

NA does not own major media outlets; Lithuanian law bars direct party media ownership and the country’s large broadcasters are controlled by private conglomerates such as MG Grup, TV3 Group and Ekspress Grupp. The party’s media leverage stems instead from Żemaitaitis’s ability to generate controversy that receives extensive coverage in LRT, commercial TV and digital portals, as well as from the support of nationalist‑leaning platforms that give him a sympathetic audience. There is no evidence that NA has tried to weaponise parliamentary oversight of LRT in the same sustained way as LVŽS; rather, its influence is informal and attention‑driven.​​

In financing terms, NA benefits from Lithuania’s generous state subsidy system and from individual donations under strict disclosure and cap rules, though precise per‑party figures for this new formation are not yet stabilised in the 2024–2025 data. Public subsidies provide the resources for advertising and digital campaigning, but VRK’s rules on corporate‑donation bans and published accounts constrain opportunities for covert media‑capture via funding, and there have been no reported VRK sanctions against NA as a legal entity up to 2025.

Corruption, litigation and institutional integrity

NA’s central integrity issue is not classic financial corruption but hate‑speech and constitutional‑oath violations by its leader. In 2023 Lithuania’s Constitutional Court ruled that Žemaitaitis had grossly violated his parliamentary oath and the Constitution through antisemitic statements and incitement of hatred, leading to his mandate being revoked in 2024. He subsequently returned to politics as leader of Dawn of Nemunas and, in December 2025, a Vilnius district court convicted him of inciting hatred against Jews and trivialising the Holocaust; he has appealed the ruling.​

These judgments, while formally directed at Žemaitaitis personally, directly implicate the party’s integrity profile, as his leadership and messaging define NA’s identity. There are no major party‑as‑entity corruption convictions against NA in 2015–2025, but the combination of constitutional‑oath breach, criminal conviction for antisemitic hate speech and continued leadership in government places the party at the high‑risk end for institutional‑integrity concerns, particularly regarding adherence to constitutional values and minority protections.​

Press freedom, harassment and treatment of critical media

NA’s leadership frequently attacks critical media and journalists, accusing them of bias, political correctness and participation in alleged conspiracies against “true Lithuanians”. Žemaitaitis has targeted outlets that report on his antisemitic remarks or on Jewish community concerns, sometimes using inflammatory language that civil‑society groups say contributes to an atmosphere of intimidation and normalisation of hate speech. Although there is limited evidence of systematic defamation suits or formal attempts to censor outlets, the combination of hostile rhetoric and online supporter campaigns can exert chilling pressure on journalists covering antisemitism, minority issues and historical memory.​

Press‑freedom assessments of Lithuania continue to rank the country highly but identify the political rise of an openly antisemitic leader and his party’s entry into government as a serious warning sign. Jewish organisations and international observers argue that tolerating such rhetoric in a governing partner undermines the rule of law and could embolden further attacks on critical voices. NA therefore represents a significant risk factor for media freedom and the broader climate of public discourse, even in the absence of direct ownership or large‑scale legal harassment campaigns.​

Dimension	Risk level	Short justification
Disinformation & alternative media	High	Relies on provocative, polarising messaging via social media and nationalist‑leaning outlets; statements on Jews, history and minorities have been condemned as misleading and inflammatory.
Foreign influence & external alignments	Medium–High	Formally pro‑EU/NATO but strongly sovereigntist and hostile to liberal norms; antisemitic rhetoric damages Lithuania’s international standing and is exploitable by hostile actors, though no direct foreign control is documented.
Media‑capture & advertising / PSB control	Medium	No ownership of major outlets, but controversy‑driven agenda‑setting and nationalist media allies give outsized visibility; operates within a concentrated media market using public subsidies and donations.
Corruption & institutional‑integrity risk	High	Party leader found to have violated the Constitution and convicted (subject to appeal) for antisemitic hate speech and incitement; raises serious concerns about commitment to constitutional values and minority protections despite absence of classic graft cases.
Press‑freedom & harassment of media	High	Aggressive attacks on critical outlets and journalists, especially on antisemitism and minority coverage; watchdogs warn of chilling effects on media and a deteriorating climate for open, inclusive public debate.