Identification of the principal and agent in the case study of Lithuania’s total defence approach by analysing official documents. Identification of what constitutes a total defence approach in Lithuania by scrutinising both official documents and semi-structured interviews. Determining the implementation of the total defence approach by considering official documents and semi-structured interviews. To understand the deeper context, qualitative research methods are employed. The analysis includes primary documents and semi-structured interviews, which provide the opportunity to identify casual links that may not be evident from document analysis alone. In the case study strategy, specifically focusing on the implementation of Lithuania’s total defence approach, a deeper understanding is essential, and this naturally requires the in-depth insights that the interview method can offer. Empirical data from Lithuania highlights that the misalignment is not only due to information asymmetry, shifting priorities, or weak oversight but also to differing perceptions of what total defence entails. The Lithuanian Parliament, as the principal, envisioned total defence as a broad, inclusive strategy involving all sectors of society and business. In contrast, the government and military, as agents, prioritised military professionalisation and NATO integration, treating civilian involvement as secondary. This difference in perspective led to the deprioritisation of elements, such as citizen mobilisation and resilience-building. The data also shows that inconsistent definitions of total defence among institutions hindered effective policy implementation. Thus, principal–agent theory needs to account for these perceptual differences, suggesting that misalignment can arise from interpretive differences, rather than deliberate manipulation.