Malvinas: Government bill provides for jail time for "disinformation" and raises alarm for freedom of expression

🕒 Estimated reading time: 9 minutes     📅 Updated: September 19, 2026

On Thursday, September 17, the Executive Branch sent to the Chamber of Deputies the draft Law for the Defense of National Sovereignty, presented as a response to the advance of unauthorized oil exploitation in the Malvinas Basin and the long-standing dispute with the United Kingdom. But an article housed in that same text, without direct relation to the territorial claim, unleashed in less than 24 hours a controversy that transcends the issue of the islands: the creation of a new criminal offense for "massive disinformation campaigns", with penalties of between five and up to twenty years in prison, depending on the aggravating circumstance applied.

The project was announced by President Javier Milei on national television and comes as a corollary of a series of measures – including Decree 868/2026 – aimed at toughening sanctions against companies and individuals who exploit hydrocarbons or other resources around the Malvinas Islands without Argentine authorization, reforming the so-called "Solanas Law" (26.659). The initiative also reactivates the construction of an integrated naval base in Tierra del Fuego and creates a new National Security Council, chaired by the President himself, with powers to request information from public agencies and apply an administrative sanctioning regime.

However, within the articles dedicated to "National Security" there are provisions that exceed the declared object of the norm. It is there where the main objections of constitutionalists, opposition legislators and journalistic entities are concentrated.

The central point of controversy is Article 111 of the bill, which incorporates a new Article 225 bis to the Penal Code. The law establishes penalties of between five and twelve years in prison for anyone who, acting on behalf of, order or total or partial financing of a State, organization or foreign agent, carries out activities that seek to alter electoral processes or "manipulate public opinion through coordinated campaigns of mass disinformation." The penalty rises to a range of eight to fifteen years when the conduct is committed through threats, bribes, coercion or the use of criminal structures.

The same chapter includes other figures linked to national security: Article 109 provides for five to fifteen years in prison for anyone who transmits secrets to a foreign State or intelligence service, a scale that rises to between eight and twenty years in the context of armed conflict or external aggression; Article 110 punishes with three to ten years anyone who provides material support to a clandestine foreign intelligence operation. Article 88 classifies as an infraction of National Security the "clandestine, deceptive or coercive" interference of a foreign actor in the decision-making process of the Argentine authorities, while Articles 90 and 97 grant the new National Security Council the power to act as an enforcement authority and to take urgent measures – including exchange restrictions and freezing of assets – in the face of a threat classified as "serious and imminent", even before formally initiating a sanctioning procedure.

The comparison of criminal scales was one of the central arguments of the criticism: the minimum of the aggravated figure of "disinformation" equals the minimum provided for simple homicide, and far exceeds that of fraud against the public administration, a crime for which former President Cristina Kirchner was sentenced to the maximum of that scale in the Vialidad case.

Constitutionalist Andrés Gil Domínguez questioned the fact that the criminal figure is "open and indeterminate," in tension with the principle of criminal legality that requires restrictive and closed types, and warned that the problem is not only of proportionality of the penalties but of substance: in his opinion, the rule is formally unconstitutional and affects the freedom of expression of a democratic system. Another constitutionalist consulted, Félix Lonigro, pointed out that the article opens the door to the prosecution of those who simply criticize the government with data that the authority of the day considers to be "misinforming," and linked it to a setback with respect to the historical elimination of the figure of contempt.

Lawyer Diego Armesto focused on the repeated use of the word "threat" within the bill, a concept that – unlike "aggression", which is more objectively verifiable – leaves a margin of discretion in the hands of the official or enforcement agency, which in his opinion could lead to a borderline case of prior censorship.

On the legislative level, Deputy Nicolás Trotta (Union for the Homeland), vice president of the Freedom of Expression Commission of the lower house, warned that the breadth of the new criminal type could turn it into a tool of censorship and persecution against opponents, journalists and media, and announced that he will promote the rejection of those articles during the debate, in addition to asking that the commission — chaired by La Libertad Avanza and which only met once this year — specifically deal with the chapter. Deputy Mónica Frade (Civic Coalition) described the initiative as unconstitutional because of its "vague and open criminal types" that affect the guarantee of defense enshrined in Article 18 of the Constitution, while her peers Maximiliano Ferraro and the radical Pablo Juliano expressed similar reservations about the risk that political complaints end up leading to criminal cases.

The Argentine Journalism Forum (FOPEA) issued an institutional warning and called for a restrictive delimitation of expressions such as "manipulating public opinion" and "disinformation", in addition to specific guarantees to protect criticism and journalistic information.

Consulted by the press, official sources maintained that the project was designed within the institutional functioning provided for by the Constitution and that any decision adopted by the Executive Branch or the National Security Council will be subject to judicial control. The government rejects that the new body can act as a power without limits and stresses that it is an administrative sanctioning regime with procedures, the right of defense and the possibility of review before the Courts. They also argue that the new tools respond to "non-kinetic" threats – clandestine operations, foreign influence – that are no longer limited to conventional military aggression, and that there are precedents in legislation of other countries in matters of national security. Legislators from La Libertad Avanza, for their part, relativized the impact of the initiative and pointed out that the final text can still be modified during its parliamentary treatment.

The bill was introduced by the Chamber of Deputies and is expected to be discussed in committee between the end of September and the beginning of October. The opposition has already announced that it will seek that the Freedom of Expression Commission analyze in particular the chapter on National Security, and that – if it is not convened by the presidency, in charge of La Libertad Avanza – it will promote an informal meeting with journalistic entities outside that channel. The parliamentary debate will have to resolve, among other points, what constitutes a "coordinated campaign of mass disinformation," how the link with foreign financing or agents will be proven, the proportionality of the penalties compared to other crimes in the Penal Code and the scope of the powers of the new National Security Council.

❓ What is the draft Law for the Defense of National Sovereignty?

It is an initiative sent by the Executive Branch to Congress on September 17, 2026 that toughens sanctions against those who exploit resources in the Malvinas Islands without Argentine authorization, creates a National Security Council and reactivates a naval base in Tierra del Fuego.

❓ What exactly does the article in question establish?

Article 111 incorporates Article 225 bis into the Penal Code, with penalties of 5 to 12 years in prison (and 8 to 15 in its aggravated form) for anyone who, on behalf of or financed by a foreign actor, carries out coordinated mass disinformation campaigns or seeks to manipulate public opinion or alter electoral processes.

❓ Why does it generate concern among journalists and constitutionalists?

Because the criminal type does not define precisely what constitutes "disinformation" or "manipulation of public opinion," which — according to the specialists consulted — could generate an intimidating effect and lead to self-censorship or political persecution, despite always requiring a connection with foreign financing or agents.

❓ How did the government respond to these criticisms?

Official sources maintain that all decisions will be subject to judicial control, that it is an administrative regime with defense guarantees, and that the new figures respond to unconventional external threats, with precedents in other countries.

❓ When will the bill be debated in Congress?

The treatment in committees of the Chamber of Deputies is expected between the end of September and the beginning of October 2026; the opposition asked that the Freedom of Expression Commission specifically analyze the chapter on National Security.

Title tag

Malvinas Law: penalties for "disinformation" and alarm over freedom of expression | midire.ar

Meta Description

The draft Law for the Defense of National Sovereignty includes sentences of up to 20 years for "mass disinformation." Constitutionalists, FOPEA and the opposition warn of the risk of prior censorship.

Suggested Slug

/politics/malvinas-law-disinformation-freedom-expression-congress

Target keywords

●Malvinas Sovereignty Law disinformation (main, high topicality)

●Article 111 of the Penal Code disinformation

●Freedom of expression, Malvinas law, censorship

●Argentine National Security Council

●Milei Malvinas Law Project Congress

JSON-LD — NewsArticle

{ "@context": "https://schema.org", "@type": "NewsArticle", "headline": "Malvinas: the government's bill provides for jail time for disinformation and generates alarm for freedom of expression", "datePublished": "2026-09-19", "author": {"@type":"Organization","name":"midire.ar"}, "publisher": {"@type":"Organization","name":"midire.ar"}, "about": "Law for the Defense of National Sovereignty", "articleSection": "Politics" }

JSON-LD — FAQPage

Structure the five questions and answers in the FAQ section as Question/acceptedAnswer entities within a FAQPage block, replicating the content already written, to maximize the eligibility of featured snippet in search engines on a topic of high information demand.

Open Graph / Twitter Card

●and:title = Title tag

●and:type = article

●and:locale = es_AR

●twitter:card = summary_large_image

E-E-A-T Signs

●Primary sources cited: text of the bill, direct statements by constitutionalists (Gil Domínguez, Lonigro, Armesto) and legislators (Trotta, Frade).

●Contrast of the official voice with the criticisms, following the standard of informative balance.

●Date of publication and visible update; subject verified with multiple media (Infobae, El Litoral, Perfil, EFE).

Core Web Vitals — goals

●LCP < 2.5 s: no embedded heavy images; references by external link.

●CLS < 0.1: Dimensions reserved for tables and citation blocks.

●INP < 200 ms: no blocking scripts on initial load.

Accessibility — WCAG 2.1 AA

●Minimum contrast 4.5:1 verified on title page, tables, and featured citations.

●Semantic header hierarchy (single H1, H2 per section).

●Descriptive links ("View source") instead of "click here".

Editorial Note

This development reflects the state of the parliamentary debate at the time of its publication (09/19/2026). The text of the bill may undergo modifications during its treatment in committees; it is recommended to update the piece as the legislative process progresses.

⚖️ 🇦🇷 ⚖️   midire.ar — Political analysis and current affairs in Argentina

Close