Why NATO’s private meetings with filmmakers are being called propaganda

That is why critics are reaching for the word “propaganda”: they worry that what looks like entertainment could become a vehicle for security messaging that viewers cannot see, question or trace.

What has been reported

Multiple outlets citing The Guardian report that NATO has held private meetings with film and television professionals in Europe and the United States, including screenwriters, directors and producers.

According to those reports, meetings have already taken place in Los Angeles, Brussels and Paris. A further meeting is planned in London with members of the Writers’ Guild of Great Britain, the UK body representing professional writers; the stated theme is “the changing security situation in Europe”.

The initiative is reported to be coordinated through NATO’s public diplomacy division and aimed at building relationships with the film and TV industry. One detail has drawn particular attention: an email seen by The Guardian reportedly said the meetings had already inspired participants to undertake three different projects.

Why the word “propaganda” is being used

1. The meetings are private, so influence is hard to measure

If the talks are closed-door, outsiders cannot easily know what was said, what materials were shared, what advice was offered, or whether any later film or television project was shaped by the encounter.

That opacity is central to the criticism. Some participants reportedly view the initiative as an attempt to influence film and television content, or as a form of propaganda rather than neutral background briefing.

2. The audience is not policy experts — it is storytellers

Briefing defence analysts is one thing. Briefing screenwriters and producers is different, because their work does not usually persuade through policy papers or news commentary. It persuades through characters, conflicts, emotional stakes and images of danger.

Even without a NATO official editing a script, a security briefing can shape how creators imagine threats, alliances, military institutions and moral choices. That is why some invitees reportedly fear they are being asked to “contribute to propaganda for NATO”.

3. The “three projects” claim makes the outreach look consequential

The reported email saying previous meetings inspired three separate projects has made the initiative look less like a casual exchange of views and more like something with a possible creative pipeline.

If a meeting leads to projects, critics can reasonably ask what those projects are, whether NATO will have any continuing role, and whether audiences will be told about that relationship.

Screenwriter Alan O’Gorman criticised the framing of the initiative, telling The Guardian it was “tone-deaf and crazy” to present it as a positive opportunity, according to Sweden Herald’s account of the report.

The broader context: NATO and the battle over narrative

The reported meetings also land in a wider debate about how security institutions communicate with the public.

In 2024, the Center for Strategic and International Studies hosted a programme titled “Hollywood Goes to NATO: Telling the Story of the Alliance,” which asked Hollywood screenwriters what NATO’s future story ought to be and why the alliance would be needed for another 75 years. That CSIS event is not evidence of the newly reported closed-door meetings. But it does show why critics are sensitive to the issue: parts of the security policy world are openly interested in how popular storytellers can explain NATO’s purpose and value.

To supporters, that may sound like public education. To critics, it can look like an effort to seed favourable narratives into culture.

What has not been proven

The available reports do not establish that NATO has directly rewritten scripts, financed productions in exchange for favourable portrayals, or forced filmmakers to include specific propaganda messages.

So the careful conclusion is not that NATO propaganda films have already been proven to exist. It is that the combination of private meetings, a military alliance, creative professionals and reportedly inspired projects has created a legitimate transparency problem.

What would reduce the concern

The key test is not whether NATO is ever allowed to speak with artists. The test is whether those contacts are transparent and whether creative independence is protected.

The propaganda criticism is likely to grow if the following questions remain unanswered:

• Who attended the meetings, and under what conditions?
• What agenda, materials or briefings were provided?
• Did NATO offer access, expertise, introductions or other practical help?
• Would any NATO involvement be disclosed in credits or public notes?
• Does NATO have, or seek, any say over scripts, settings, characters or military depictions?
• Would critical or sceptical views of NATO also be welcome in resulting projects?

At the heart of the dispute is a simple concern: viewers may think they are watching independent drama or entertainment while hidden institutional influence has helped shape the story. That possibility — more than the mere fact of contact between NATO and filmmakers — is why the meetings are being described by critics as propaganda.