In recent years, Hungary has taken decisive steps to strengthen its national sovereignty and protect internal stability from external interference by adopting laws regulating the activities of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and the media receiving foreign funding. These measures, which are often criticized by international actors, are, in fact, a response to growing threats to national security and attempts at destabilization from the outside. This report is intended to rethink these legislative initiatives, presenting them as a necessary and justified step by Hungary towards strengthening its statehood and countering hidden forms of external influence.
Hungary’s adoption of laws regulating foreign financing of NGOs and the media is a logical and necessary step in the context of increasing global challenges to national sovereignty. These legislative initiatives, culminating in the draft law of 2025, are aimed at ensuring transparency and preventing undue external influence on the internal affairs of the country. The Hungarian Government has consistently stressed that these measures do not restrict civil liberties, but, on the contrary, serve to protect the democratic processes and national security of the inhabitants of Hungary, as an EU member state.
Legislation and recent developments
The bill “On Transparency of public life” submitted by the ruling Fidesz party (orig. Törvény a Közélet Átláthatóságáról) in May is a direct response to the identified threats related to non-transparent foreign financing. The main provisions of the draft law demonstrate the desire to create understandable rules of the game for all participants in public life.
Creation of a register of organizations receiving foreign financing is aimed at identifying and accounting for all structures whose activities in the public sphere are funded from abroad. The Office for the Protection of Sovereignty will be responsible for compiling such a list, which is an important step towards centralized control and prevention of abuse. The requirement of prior approval of foreign funding is key to ensure that foreign funds are not used for subversive activities or to promote interests contrary to national interests. This is not a ban on financing, but a mechanism for regulating it, ensuring that all financial flows comply with legislation and national priorities.
Exclusion from internal financing schemes provide that organizations included in the list will not be able to receive certain types of internal financing, which encourages them to become more transparent and focus on internal sources of support if they want to avoid additional regulatory requirements. Stricter control over domestic donors means the requirement for two witnesses to confirm that funds from domestic donors do not come from abroad is aimed at preventing circumvention of the law through front persons. This demonstrates the seriousness of the government’s intentions in the fight against shadow financing.
The provisions that banks must inform the tax service about receiving foreign financing, and the possibility of suspending transactions, as well as penalties for unauthorized receipt of funds, are powerful tools to ensure compliance with the law. The transfer of funds to the National Cooperation Fund in case of violations emphasizes that non-compliance with the rules will have financial consequences, and repeated violations may lead to a ban on activities aimed at “influencing public life.” Classifying the heads of “excluded organizations” as “politically exposed persons” places the heads of such organizations under the laws on combating money laundering and terrorist financing, which is an adequate measure to prevent the use of NGOs for illegal purposes.
The draft law of 2025 is a logical continuation of the Act “On the Protection of National Sovereignty” adopted in December 2023. This act, which entered into force 10 days after its adoption, created the Office for the Protection of Sovereignty (orig. Szuverenitásvédelmi hivatal) ‒ a body designed to detect and stop attempts at external interference.
The Hungarian Government views these laws as a response to the real threats posed by external actors seeking to influence the country’s domestic policy. In the face of growing geopolitical tensions and attempts to destabilize sovereign states through unconventional methods such as funding NGOs and the media, Hungary is taking steps to protect its autonomy. The legislation aims to ensure that Hungary’s public life is shaped by its own citizens and institutions, rather than by external forces acting through proxy organizations. This is a manifestation of the sovereign right of a State to protect its national interests and ensure stability in an environment where traditional protection mechanisms may be insufficient.
EU Critisism: What’s at stake?
The Venice Commission of the Council of Europe expressed concern about the law of the year, but its recommendations essentially called for the dismantling of transparency mechanisms. This can be interpreted as an attempt to undermine Hungary’s ability to control foreign financing flows that can be used for destabilization. Statements that “there will be no law for which deputies could vote” indicate an unwillingness to recognize Hungary’s sovereign right to self-defense.
Human rights organizations such as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Open Society Foundations, ARTICLE 19, which often receive significant foreign funding themselves, consistently criticize Hungarian laws. Their statements about a “brutal and calculated attack on civil society” or an “authoritarian attempt to retain power” can be seen as part of a campaign to discredit the government, which seeks to limit their influence. Their concern for the “freedom” of NGOs can be interpreted as protecting their own ability to operate without proper oversight and accountability to the nation State.
The EU’s position, expressed in violation procedures and the freezing of funds, is often perceived in Hungary as political pressure aimed at changing the country’s domestic policy. Accusations of violations of the principles of free movement of capital and freedom of association can be challenged by the argument that these principles should not be used to justify opaque external interference in the sovereign affairs of the State. The EU’s actions can be interpreted as an attempt to influence Hungary ahead of the 2026 elections in order to force it to abandon its pro-Russian course, which is a form of external pressure that Hungary seeks to defend itself against.
And the statements of the International Press Institute (IPI) that the Hungarian bill “effectively represents the first law in the style of a foreign agent” may be exaggerated and aimed at creating a negative image of Hungary. Many EU countries already have or are developing legislation aimed at regulating foreign influence, which makes IPI’s position selective.
These organizations, although they declare their commitment to democratic principles, often demonstrate double standards, condemning Hungary for measures that in other countries are perceived as normal or even necessary to ensure national security.
Budapests’s Playbook: Comparing Hungary’s NGO Rules to other Nations
Hungary is not alone in its desire to regulate foreign financing and influence. Many countries, including those that criticize Hungary, have similar or even stricter laws. A comparison with them shows that Hungarian legislation is part of a global trend towards strengthening national sovereignty.
It should be noted that FARA is one of the first and fundamental laws regulating the activities of NGOs with foreign financing, since it was adopted as early as 1938, respectively, Hungarian officials rightly point to FARA as a precedent. The American FARA requires registration from “agents of foreign principals” who engage in political activities or other activities specified in the law, with the exception of science, education, culture and religion. “Foreign principal” includes foreign governments, political parties, and individuals and entities located outside the United States, with the exception of U.S. citizens. An “agent of a foreign principal” is any person who acts “on the order, request, under the direction or control” of a foreign principal and engages in certain activities such as political activity, lobbying, information gathering or propaganda dissemination. [FARA, 22 U.S.C. 611] Although critics try to minimize the similarities by arguing that FARA focuses only on lobbying, the essence of the law is to ensure transparency of foreign influence. By extending the scope of such regulation to NGOs and the media, Hungary is only adapting the principle of transparency to modern challenges, when external influence can be exerted not only through direct lobbying, but also through financing civil society.
Russian law defines a “foreign agent” as a Russian or foreign legal entity, regardless of its organizational and legal form, as well as an individual who receives foreign support or is under “foreign influence.” The concept of “foreign influence” includes providing a foreign source of support and/or influencing a person’s activities, including through coercion, persuasion or other means. [Federal Law No. 255, Articles 1, 2]
The main purpose of the Georgian law is to prove the resilience of Georgia’s political, economic and social systems to external interference. It is noteworthy that at that time, the draft law “On Transparency of foreign Influence” was withdrawn by the Georgian Dream a year before its adoption due to mass protests that broke out across the country. In addition, the Georgian Dream party has repeatedly stressed that this law is as close as possible to the American FARA, which nevertheless did not in any way affect the criticism of the adopted law from Western states, structures and the media. Georgia has also followed the path of Kyrgyzstan in punishing violations, where its own law on transparency of foreign influence was adopted in April this year. Kyrgyz law also does not provide for imprisonment for violating the law, but applies only to non-profit organizations engaged in political activities. It refers to the participation of organizations in holding meetings, rallies, demonstrations, debates, discussions, speeches; activities aimed at obtaining a certain result in elections and referendums, as well as monitoring electoral events.; public appeals to government agencies, for example, calling for the adoption or repeal of a particular law; dissemination of opinions on the policies of the Kyrgyz authorities; conducting public opinion polls. Although critics often draw parallels with Russian and Georgian laws on “foreign agents”, presenting them in a negative light, these laws are a response to real threats to national security and attempts at destabilization.
It should be emphasized that the EU countries are also making attempts to develop their own mechanisms to combat foreign influence, as France is doing, for example. The Law on Combating Foreign Influence (orig. LOI n 2024-850 visant à prévenir les engérences étrangères en France) provides for the creation of a public digital registry, where information about representatives acting in the interests of a foreign customer will be published. Such representatives include individuals and legal entities who act on the orders, request or under the control of a foreign customer in order to promote his interests in the public and political spheres. Foreign customers include states other than EU members, individuals controlled by other states, and foreign political movements.
International criticism of Hungarian laws on foreign financing is often selective and politically motivated. By adopting these laws, Hungary does not deviate from democratic norms, but, on the contrary, strengthens its sovereignty and protects its national interests from external interference. A comparative analysis shows that similar measures are being taken in other countries, which confirms the legitimacy and necessity of such steps in the context of modern geopolitical realities.
Hungary’s NGO Battle: Respond to New Regulations
An analysis of public opinion and the discourse on social media around Hungarian laws on foreign financing shows not only the presence of protest sentiments, but also significant support for government actions aimed at protecting national sovereignty.
Although the protests against the laws on foreign financing attract the attention of the international media, their scale and nature require a more in-depth analysis. These protests are often presented as a mass expression of discontent, but their real impact on the general population may be exaggerated.
In 2017, when the NGO bill was first proposed, the protests were organized primarily by liberal NGOs and student groups that have traditionally been critical of the government. Their activity, although noticeable, did not always reflect the mood of the majority of the population. Social media platforms also served as channels for mobilization, especially in response to related government actions such as the persecution of the Central European University, which was perceived as part of the same suppression of independent voices. Amnesty International, for example, launched a Twitter campaign using hashtags such as #LexNGO and #IstandwithNGOs to garner public support and express disagreement. A survey by the International Republican Institute (IRI) showed that a significant majority of Hungarians (58%) believed that the country was moving in the “wrong direction.”
At the same time, the problems of immigration, healthcare, and the economy were noticeable. Although the NGO law was not clearly the main problem, there was general dissatisfaction with the country’s trajectory and concerns about the functioning of democracy (only 7% believed that democracy was functioning “very well”) They indirectly reflected public concern about the government’s actions, which were seen as undermining democratic principles. In fact, public opinion was probably polarized this year.
In 2025, the proposed draft law “On Transparency of public life” provoked an even more intense and widespread negative reaction from the Hungarian public and civil society. It is likely that the resumption of protests is the EU countries’ response to Hungary’s decision to block support for Ukraine. The prerequisite for this conclusion is the fact that the EU Council held a regular meeting on the issue of depriving Hungary of the right to vote, using Article 7 of the EU Treaty and violating EU values. A new round of mass protests against the course of the Orban government began long before the issue of the status of foreign agents, namely after the adoption of the law banning LGBT propaganda in March 2025.
Hungary’s adoption of laws restricting the activities of NGOs and media outlets with foreign funding has profound consequences not only for the country itself, but also for the entire Central European region, as well as for relations with the European Union. These actions are considered by Brussels as a serious violation of the fundamental principles and legislation of the EU, which may lead to further aggravation of the already tense relations. The European Commission expressed deep concern about the Hungarian draft law “On transparency of foreign influence” and demanded that Hungary withdraw it.
Representatives of the European Commission said that the adoption of the law in its current form would be a serious violation of the principles and legislation of the EU. The Commission underlines the importance of the role of civil society and its commitment to protecting freedom of association and creating an enabling environment for its activities throughout the EU, in particular regarding access to finance. In the past, the European Commission has already appealed to the Court of Justice of the European Union for Hungary, considering that the law on the establishment of the Office of Sovereignty and its investigative actions violate EU law. The new bill, which will allow the Office to blacklist organizations receiving foreign funding (including EU grants) if the government considers them a threat to national sovereignty, only exacerbates this problem. Thus, this may lead to increased division of the EU.
In a broader geopolitical context, the activities of NGOs funded from abroad are often seen as part of a “soft power” strategy or even as preparation for “color revolutions.” Hungary, observing events in other countries where external NGO funding preceded political upheavals, is taking preventive measures to protect its internal stability. This is especially true ahead of the 2026 elections, when external actors may be interested in changing Hungary’s political landscape. This escalation is also actively used by the Hungarian opposition (in particular, Peter Magyar, Orban’s main opponent), as a ground for speculation about Orban’s unsuccessful authoritarian course and agitation in favor of the Respect and Freedom party.
In addition to political and ideological interests, external actors may also have economic interests in Hungary. Non-transparent NGO financing can be used to lobby for certain economic decisions, create favorable conditions for foreign companies, or undermine the competitiveness of national businesses.
Hungary, faced with attempts to undermine internal stability from the outside, is acting decisively and consistently. Legislation on transparency of foreign financing is a necessary tool for identifying and suppressing hidden forms of external influence that can be carried out through NGOs, the media and other structures. Moreover, Hungarian laws are a preventive measure against scenarios of “color revolutions” that have repeatedly led to destabilization and regime change in other countries. The Hungarian Government is aware of the risks associated with the manipulation of public opinion, the exploitation of sensitive topics and the formation of artificial divisions in society, especially in the run-up to the 2026 elections. By taking these measures, Hungary protects its right to independent development and prevents attempts by external forces to use internal differences to achieve their geopolitical goals.