Russian Roulette for the Hungarian Media: When Will the Fatal Shot Be Fired?

On May 13, 2025, one of Hungary’s two governing parties, Fidesz, introduced a bill on “transparency in public life” to the Hungarian Parliament. The publication of the text, which officially aims to protect the country from foreign interference, sparked a wave of outrage in Hungary and across Europe. Its examination, initially scheduled for mid-June, has been postponed until the fall. To understand how this bill poses an existential threat to press freedom, the author examines the case of the newspaper Átlátszó, whose precarious situation could spread to other independent media outlets in the country.

On the evening of May 28, a strange scene unfolded around the Hungarian parliament in Budapest. A solemn, chorus-like Soviet march filled the air, while a young woman dressed in the uniform of the socialist Hungarian police marched in step on the esplanade. In the background, construction fences formed enclosures, in which a few people could be seen. “This is a special demonstration against the latest law of Viktor Orbán’s regime,” said the young woman in uniform, whom we shall call Napsugár, in reference to the draft law on transparency in public life proposed by Fidesz.

“Regime” is a strong word, as strong as the bill that is worrying the independent press and Hungarian civil society. This is because the law would enable the government to draw up a list of organizations it considers a threat to “Hungarian sovereignty”—a concept that is rather vaguely defined.

Once on this list, these organizations would no longer be able to receive funds from abroad without authorization, would become ineligible for the 1% income tax donation that Hungarian taxpayers can choose to give to an association whose work they wish to support, and would find it extremely difficult to receive traditional donations. In the event of a violation of the ban on receiving foreign funds, an organization would be liable to a fine equivalent to 25 times the amount received, payable within 15 days.

Finally, these organizations could be subject to in-depth investigations by the Hungarian authority responsible for combating money laundering. Their leaders would be officially considered “political figures” and would be required to submit a declaration of assets.

Like something out of the Kremlin

“It’s really similar to what they did in Russia,” says Napsugár, referring to a series of Russian laws enacted between 2012 and 2022. Officially aimed at protecting Russian sovereignty from foreign influence, these laws actually make it possible to deprive media outlets, NGOs, and any individual initiative opposed to the government of any foreign support and to discredit these organizations by forcing them to declare themselves as “foreign agents.”

“We are protesting against this law by building a prison,” says another protester named Anna, pointing to the enclosures set up in the square, “because [if this law is passed] half of Hungary will be imprisoned,” she says, making an overstatement to emphasize that few people have never received any money from abroad. “So we decided to build this little installation under Viktor Orbán’s former office,” she concludes, pointing to the parliament building.

In addition to having their picture taken in prison, visitors are given the opportunity to declare their foreign income on a fictitious register that records their fingerprints. The performance, which takes place in a schoolboy atmosphere, is organized by the Kutya Párt, or Hungarian Two-Tailed Dog Party, a satirical party that is particularly critical of the policies of Mr. Orbán, who has been in power in Hungary without interruption since 2010.

Átlátszó, or investigative journalism that rocks the boat

To learn more about the consequences of this bill, should it be passed,, a visit to the offices of investigative newspaper Átlátszó—the name means “transparency” in Hungarian—seems in order. Once past the sturdy gates protecting the entrance to the newsroom, the atmosphere is decidedly more feverish. And with good reason: this independent media outlet is the ideal candidate for the sanctions provided for in the draft law on transparency in public life.

Specializing in corruption cases, its journalists have repeatedly denounced the dubious practices of some members of Fidesz (see here or here). In addition, the newspaper regularly criticizes the government’s industrial and environmental policies (here or here), activities that are not without complications. Átlátszó, says the newspaper’s editor-in-chief and founder, Tamás Bodoky, is sued “five to ten times a year.” However, he points out that the newspaper is rarely troubled. “We rely on facts, and we check their accuracy. We do not publish any false information. In the past five years, I don’t think we have lost a single lawsuit.” Átlátszó is therefore not exactly Fidesz’s favorite media outlet, as one might expect.

The Office for the Protection of Sovereignty, a harbinger of turmoil

On the face of it, exposing corruption does not seem to pose a threat to the sovereignty of a state. However, according to Mr. Bodoky, it is precisely these revelations that explain the delicate situation in which the newspaper finds itself. In June 2024, he explains, Átlátszó was investigated by a very specific body, the Sovereignty Protection Office (BPS), an administrative body under the authority of the government whose mission is to conduct and publish investigations into organizations that pose a threat to Hungarian sovereignty.

The BPS investigation report, published last October, concludes in particular that “Átlátszó’s activities revealed in the report pose a sovereignty problem for Hungary” and that “the extent of the damage caused by [the newspaper] is considerable.” Its authors present the newspaper as a mouthpiece for U.S. influence policy—according to Mr. Bodoky, the newspaper’s two previous budgets received indirect aid from the U.S. Agency for International Development amounting to 10-15%. The authors of the report further emphasize that “funding from foreign networks is a prerequisite for the creation and operation of Átlátszó, without which the organization could not function, or only on a much smaller scale.”

A serious finding without prosecution: to what end?

Despite this finding, no legal proceedings have been brought against the newspaper or its editorial staff. Átlátszó, on the other hand, has decided to take legal action against the BPS investigation report. “We demanded that this office prove its allegations,” explains Mr. Bodoky, “but last week [May 20], there was a hearing and they did not show up. They sent a letter to the court stating that they did not have to prove [their statements] because what they published was merely an opinion.”

A mere opinion, which the newspaper could bet on being forgotten, were it not widely reported to the public. Mr. Bodoky notes that an “increasing proportion of [online] references [to the newspaper] are linked to the BPS,” particularly in the “government media,” which overwhelmingly dominate the Hungarian media landscape—a phenomenon long described by numerous media outlets, including RFI, Le Monde, and  Reporters Without Borders.

However, this is merely an opinion, which seems to be echoed in the text of the transparency bill. In its investigation report, the BPS states that Átlátszó is working to “influence public and social decision-making processes,” while the bill aims to target organizations seeking to influence “the decision-making processes of the state and society.”

A “mere opinion,” then, which resembles a communication campaign aimed at preparing Hungarians for the adoption of the transparency law… whose implementation will rely mainly on the BPS. If adopted, it would be this body, on the basis of its investigations, that would be responsible for submitting a list of organizations threatening Hungarian sovereignty to the government, which would have the power to validate it by decree.

Associations: removing the last bastion

The blacklisting of Átlátszó would be all the easier given that, unlike most of Hungary’s long-established media outlets, the newspaper has non-profit status, one of the categories of organizations targeted by the bill.

Mr. Bodoky explains that he decided to give the newspaper this status in order to guarantee it the greatest possible editorial independence, protecting it from any economic or political conflicts of interest between potential investors and the editorial team. He speaks from experience. Previously a journalist with the news website Index.hu, he encountered difficulties on several occasions when he wanted to publish his first investigative articles in the 2000s.

According to Zalán Zubor, a journalist at Átlátszó specializing in corruption cases involving NGOs, the decision to opt for non-profit status must be seen in the context of an environment that is particularly hostile to press funding. In Hungary, our interviewee explains, advertising revenue is the main source of income for traditional Hungarian newspapers; a source of income that Fidesz is accused of wanting to dry up (by heavily taxing advertising profits) and of manipulating in favor of media outlets close to its political line (by granting them state advertising unrelated to their audience), and has been doing so for several years, as reported by Courrier internationaland RFI.

In addition, Mr. Zubor adds, these practices are coupled with pressure on advertising agencies, to the point that “even large companies no longer dare to advertise in opposition or independent newspapers for fear of being excluded [from potential public contracts].” In order to circumvent what appears to be an attempt by Fidesz and its financial backers to take control of the press, opting for non-profit status has gradually become a necessity for people setting up media outlets wishing to guarantee the independence of their political line.

Foreign aid: drying up the last source

According to Mr. Zubor, for Átlátszó, as for other media outlets founded in recent years, this choice “has proved quite effective” by making newspapers “more resilient.” Mr. Bodoky recalls that six months after Átlátszó was launched in 2011, “I was able to pay my salary, and a year later […] we were able to hire journalists.” The editorial team now has 12 staff. Media outlets with non-profit status are eligible for donations from individuals and 1% of income tax. In addition, this allows them to apply for grants from Hungarian and foreign foundations specializing in press support.

It is this latter advantage that explains the international dimension of Átlátszó‘s finances, as highlighted in the BPS report. “I would say that there is some truth in what they say [about this],” says Mr. Bodoky,because about 50 to 60% of our annual budget comes from foreign grants and projects. But,” he adds, “this is not a single donor, a single foreign entity giving us this amount. We have a dozen or so donors, including programs such as the Journalism Fund [Editor’s note: a Belgian association specializing in support for independent and investigative journalism].“ These funds, the editor explains, come “partly from the European Union and partly from the United States.”

Silence, then elections

For Átlátszó, as for other media outlets with the same status, being placed on the list of organizations deemed harmful under the transparency law would simply mean bankruptcy.

Even if, as Mr. Bodoky explains, the newspaper has built up reserves that would allow it to continue operating for a while, the fact remains that Átlátszó‘s reputation for independence would be further damaged in the eyes of the public, since the members of the publishing association’s board would officially be considered political figures. Even more seriously, as the text currently stands, journalists’ sources would be threatened. In the event of an investigation, the anti-money laundering authority could require the editorial staff to hand over various information, “including personal and protected data.”

Such a situation would be disastrous for the independent media still operating in Hungary, but also for other civil society actors with non-profit status, some of whom have also been investigated by the BPS over the past year. This is the case for the NGO Transparency International, which specializes in fighting corruption, and the Hungarian environmental association Göd-ÉRT.

For more than three years, Hungary has ranked last among European Union countries in Transparency International’s annual Corruption Perceptions Index. Göd-ÉRT has distinguished itself through its opposition to the Orbán government’s policy of promoting the establishment of battery manufacturing plants in Hungary. The organization has taken Samsung to court for its failure to comply with environmental standards, as reported by Átlátszó.

To understand this sudden crackdown by the Orbán government on dissenting voices, says József Makai, a journalist covering the Balkans and Ukraine for Átlátszó and a lecturer at Kodolányi University in Budapest, it is “important to put things in context.”

“We are about ten months away from [legislative] elections,” he says. “A new political force [Editor’s note: Peter Magyar’s Respect and Freedom party] is leading in the polls. […] It is clear that he has won the trust of the people. Fidesz is in great danger. So they need to eliminate anything that doesn’t suit them.” Furthermore, according to Mr. Makai, this move would have the advantage of allowing Fidesz to appeal to its electorate by resorting to a tactic that it has benefitted from so far. “This is the core of Fidesz’s politics: having an enemy, fighting a battle, campaigning against someone. […] Always be in conflict, always be looking for a new enemy—or an old one, if they can’t find a new one,” he explains bluntly.

Speaking of long-standing enemies, Mr. Makai suggests that the transparency bill may also have been designed by Fidesz as a means of “getting revenge on George Soros” – a hypothesis also considered by Mr. Bodoky. A renowned philanthropist (a description that the governors of the Bank of England would not necessarily agree with), the billionaire has been accused for years by successive Orbán governments of interfering in the country’s public affairs.

Mr. Soros’s Open Society Foundation (which has supported Átlátszó) campaigns for press freedom, among other things. It provides financial support from abroad to various organizations based in Hungary: targeted by relentless attacks from Fidesz, its leaders decided to close their Hungarian branch in 2018. The event, widely reported in the European and American press, sparked a wave of criticism.

A rumor but no obstacles

But “Orbán and Fidesz are not afraid of conflict,” emphasizes Mr. Makai, whether it be criticism from the opposition (now underrepresented in the Hungarian Parliament, where Fidesz has an overwhelming absolute majority), demonstrations, or even reprimands from MEPs or the European Commission. At the European level, Mr. Makai points out, even legal action has so far proved ineffective.

In June 2024, he recalls, Hungary was ordered to pay a fine of €200 million for failing to respect asylum rights and to pay €1 million per day until its migration policy was brought into line with European rules. However, nothing has changed: to date, the Orbán government refuses to pay. Weary, the Commission has decided to suspend part of the European aid paid to the country. To no avail.

For the editors of Átlátszó, it is not protests, wherever they come from, that will prevent Fidesz from voting on its bill—a source requesting anonymity even indicates that the government is considering adopting a version of the text specifically aimed at the media by decree, even before the general text is examined in the fall.

These same protests are also likely to have no effect on the constitutional amendment proposed by Fidesz in March, which appears to complement the transparency bill. This amendment, also presented as a measure to protect sovereignty, would allow the Hungarian nationality of certain dual nationals considered dangerous to be suspended.

Those targeted could be banned from entering Hungary, as reported by Euronews and Reuters. For Mr. Makai, who has dual Serbian and Hungarian nationality, and for the supporters of the Kutya Párt, these bills and the rhetoric of the omnipresent enemy are reminiscent of the political atmosphere of authoritarian regimes, whether in Vladimir Putin’s Russia, Slobodan Milošević’s Serbia or the USSR. “Remember when the communist regime […] stopped using the Gulag systematically,” he explains. “They first turned to psychiatric institutions [Editor’s note: to intern opponent] and ended up expelling dissidents from the Soviet Union and sending them to the West, to Switzerland for example. They were taken to the airport, then taken off the plane and told, ‘By the way, before I forget: your citizenship has been taken away.’ Well, it reminds me a little of all that. Maybe they’ll put us on a plane… or maybe not.”