Listen to the article
Beijing’s disinformation campaign targeting Japan’s leadership has prompted calls for stronger countermeasures, as pro-China entities work to undermine Japanese democracy and social cohesion. The coordinated effort has specifically focused on Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi and her government through various channels including state media, diplomatic messaging, and online campaigns across the Indo-Pacific.
Japanese authorities have responded by expanding fact-checking capabilities and issuing rebuttals supported by verified information. However, government agencies currently face significant limitations in their ability to block content, penalize those spreading false information, or publicly attribute these campaigns to foreign state actors.
The disinformation effort began intensifying earlier this year when a fabricated narrative circulated in Taiwan claiming that Prime Minister Takaichi’s grandfather was a Japanese soldier involved in beheadings during Japan’s invasion of China. This false story appeared designed to influence public opinion in both Japan and Taiwan, demonstrating how a single piece of disinformation can be weaponized across multiple regional audiences simultaneously.
Security analysts note that the timing of this disinformation wave aligns with Beijing’s broader attempts to pressure Japan, particularly following Takaichi’s firm stance regarding Taiwan. In November 2025, when Takaichi expressed concerns about Japan’s security in a potential Taiwan contingency during a parliamentary address, Chinese state media quickly distorted her remarks, suggesting they signaled possible Japanese military intervention in the Taiwan Strait.
Chinese diplomatic channels further amplified these misrepresentations while simultaneously reviving longstanding territorial claims over Okinawa—a tactic Beijing has repeatedly employed to divide Japanese public opinion whenever seeking geopolitical advantage.
In another coordinated effort, Chinese sources falsely alleged a significant increase in crimes against Chinese nationals in Japan. The Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs responded by publishing verified statistics from the National Police Agency refuting these claims. While the response was swift, the episode highlighted the inherent disadvantage faced by authorities relying solely on reactive fact-correction against fast-moving disinformation campaigns.
Though Beijing has not acknowledged any involvement in spreading disinformation, the online narratives closely mirror China’s official diplomatic messaging. During Foreign Minister Wang Yi’s December 2025 visits to the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan, he emphasized that Taiwan is “an inalienable part of China’s territory” while accusing Japan of “militarism.” Security experts point to this synchronization between diplomatic talking points and online narratives as evidence of coordinated “discourse power” strategies employed by Beijing’s propaganda apparatus.
Japan’s legal framework for combating disinformation remains underdeveloped compared to other democratic nations, including Australia. The country currently lacks direct criminal penalties for spreading disinformation or provisions for seizing profits derived from such activities. Cases involving harmful disinformation must be addressed indirectly through existing penal code provisions covering defamation, fraud, or business obstruction through fraudulent means.
While Japan’s Public Offices Election Act provides some authority to address disinformation threatening electoral integrity, these powers are more difficult to implement when campaigns target public opinion about government policy rather than electoral candidates. Even when confronted with severe disinformation campaigns, authorities can only request—not require—that platforms remove content, creating a significant asymmetry in response capabilities.
Under current Japanese law, many interventions require court warrants, a procedural threshold that demands substantial evidence and time to obtain. Although judicial oversight is essential in a democracy, the existing framework was not designed to address modern information operations that work across multiple vectors simultaneously and can sustain campaigns over extended periods.
Japanese citizens and businesses seeking removal of false content must pursue voluntary action under the Information Distribution Platform Act, which requires victims to approach content providers directly rather than through authorities. With this legislation having been in effect for only a few years, questions remain about its adequacy against coordinated foreign campaigns capable of rapidly regenerating removed content.
As the Takaichi government considers addressing these legal gaps, security experts suggest Japan should look to Australia for practical partnership rather than a model to copy wholesale. Australia has gained international attention for initiatives including its under-16 social media restrictions and its legislative distinction between foreign influence and foreign interference, which has helped focus policy responses and attribution efforts.
Neither country has yet solved the fundamental challenge: how democratic governments can act effectively against state-backed disinformation while avoiding the creation of legal machinery that could potentially be misused to silence legitimate dissent. While Australia and Japan already collaborate on these issues, the pace and complexity of modern information operations—increasingly enhanced by artificial intelligence—are outpacing existing response mechanisms.
Security analysts recommend deepening permanent working-level channels between agencies in both countries while also incorporating civil society researchers and specialized private-sector firms that often detect AI-enabled disinformation campaigns faster than governments. Establishing formal relationships through joint research frameworks, shared early-warning systems, and regular cross-sector exercises could provide both democracies with more resilient defensive capabilities against the intensifying hybrid threats across the Indo-Pacific region.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
10 Comments
The ability of a single fabricated narrative to spread across the region is a concerning demonstration of the scale and coordination of these disinformation efforts. Japan will need to work closely with its partners to develop effective countermeasures.
I agree, the transnational nature of these campaigns requires a collaborative response. Strengthening international coordination and information-sharing will be key to disrupting these networks.
The use of fabricated narratives, like the one about the Prime Minister’s grandfather, to influence public opinion across the region is a worrying tactic. Japan will need to be vigilant and work with allies to identify and shut down these coordinated disinformation efforts.
This report underscores the importance of building societal resilience against foreign disinformation efforts. Equipping citizens with critical thinking skills and the ability to identify manipulated content is crucial, in addition to government-led countermeasures.
This report highlights the challenges Japan faces in countering Beijing’s disinformation tactics. Fact-checking is an important first step, but as the article notes, more robust measures are needed to attribute campaigns and penalize the actors involved.
This is a concerning report on Beijing’s efforts to spread disinformation and undermine Japan’s democracy. Fact-checking alone may not be enough to counter such coordinated campaigns, and stronger countermeasures are clearly needed.
While the focus here is on Japan, this type of foreign state-backed disinformation is a growing global issue. Countries need to invest in building resilience against these attacks on truth and democratic institutions.
Absolutely, disinformation is a serious threat that requires a comprehensive response beyond just fact-checking. Coordinating with allies and building societal resilience is crucial.
The use of fabricated narratives to influence public opinion across multiple countries simultaneously is a concerning tactic. Japan will need to work closely with regional partners to develop a comprehensive strategy to combat these coordinated disinformation campaigns.
Disinformation targeting democratic institutions is a serious threat that must be addressed. While fact-checking is important, the article rightly points out the need for Japan to go beyond that and develop more robust capabilities to counter these coordinated campaigns.