Former Nausėda campaign strategist explains why he broke his promise not to criticise the president

Aistis Zabarauskas, who served as communications director for Gitanas Nausėda’s 2019 presidential campaign, has revealed why he later chose to publicly criticise the president despite an earlier pledge to refrain from doing so, LRT radio programme Pas Nemirą reports.

Zabarauskas, a former journalist turned public relations specialist, joined Nausėda’s team nearly six years ago after working in media and corporate communications. In an interview, he described the internal conflicts that arise when defending political decisions one personally disagrees with—a common dilemma in political communications.

“Working in a political team often means defending decisions you don’t support,” he said. “This creates deep internal tension. I think stepping away from a role that causes too much moral distress is a healthy choice.” He compared the accumulation of unresolved ethical conflicts in politics to “invisible tar”—a corrosive force that can damage personal integrity over time.

His decision to break silence on Nausėda stemmed from a belief that Lithuania’s political system risked imbalance. In 2020, he feared a single party might dominate the presidency, government, and parliament. “As a citizen, I saw Nausėda as an independent counterweight to preserve systemic balance,” Zabarauskas explained. “That was my main motivation to join his campaign.”

Recalling his transition from journalism to PR, he admitted the shift was difficult. “A journalist acts like a prosecutor—exposing problems and holding people accountable. But in PR, you’re more like a defence attorney, advocating for a client’s interests. Many journalists struggle with that mental shift,” he said. After years in corporate communications, he now heads the public affairs firm Debrief.

Zabarauskas initially resisted politics, despite his curiosity—a trait he called universal among former journalists. “We’re endlessly inquisitive. Even on vacation, we’d count grains of sand if it seemed interesting,” he joked. Though he didn’t share the president’s welfare-state vision, he saw Nausėda as a necessary check on partisan consolidation.

His eventual criticism of Nausėda, he implied, reflected the same principle: a belief that unchecked power—even of a former ally—required scrutiny to maintain democratic balance.