Documenting Hungary’s repression of independent media: A Q&A with Amrit Singh
Examining the state of press freedom in Hungary, a new report from NYU Law’s Rule of Law Lab and Hungarian watchdog Mérték Media Monitor argues that the Hungarian government has curbed independent media through a sophisticated campaign of legal, economic, and regulatory measures rather than overt censorship. “The Repression of Independent Media in Hungary, 2010–2025,” documents ways it says that media capture and targeted pressure have worked together to narrow the space for independent journalism in Hungary. It also proposes recommendations for successive governments and the European Union to counter such developments.
The February report is one of the first major research publications issued by the Rule of Law Lab since it moved to NYU Law from Stanford Law School in 2025. The lab’s faculty director, Professor of Practice Amrit Singh, recently discussed the motivation behind the report and explained how censorship activity in Viktor Orbán’s Hungary could serve as a “toolkit” for other authoritarian-minded governments.
Tell us what motivated the Rule of Law Lab to tackle this project? Why Hungary, and why now?
This April, Hungarians head to the polls for one of Europe’s most consequential parliamentary elections in recent years. The vote will decide the fate of Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, who has spent the last sixteen years consolidating authoritarian power, including through the repression of independent media. Today, Orbán’s Fidesz party is estimated to control, directly or indirectly, roughly 80 percent of Hungary’s media.
At this critical juncture, we wanted to document how Orbán’s authoritarian “toolkit” undermined independent media and transformed a once-pluralistic media sector largely into an instrument of the ruling party. Our goal was to inform efforts to restore media freedom in Hungary. At the same time, as autocrats in other countries emulate Orbán’s tactics, we hoped that this documentation would serve as a vital resource for preventing these repressive strategies from taking root elsewhere.
Can you walk us through how the Hungarian government leveraged the law to restrict independent media?
Orbán’s method of entrenching power is widely recognized as a textbook case of “autocratic legalism”—the strategic use of the law, or its outward appearance, to dismantle democratic checks and balances. He did not need to resort to imprisoning journalists or subjecting them to outright censorship to deprive Hungarian citizens of the truth about his authoritarian tactics. Instead, after winning the 2010 elections, his coalition leveraged its two-thirds supermajority to enact legislation that fundamentally reshaped the nation’s media landscape.
Central to this transformation was legislation that established the Media Council. While nominally independent, this regulatory body is composed entirely of the ruling party’s appointees and wields broad authority over print, online, and broadcast platforms. The Council’s licensing and merger decisions have consistently favored pro-government entities at the expense of independent voices.
At the same time, successive amendments have systematically weakened Hungary’s freedom of information act by narrowing the scope of accessible public data and allowing authorities to withhold disclosure in politically sensitive cases. Amendments to the criminal code have further restricted media freedom by introducing offenses related to “false” recordings and pandemic-era “disinformation.” Orbán and his allies have also subjected independent journalists to abusive litigation— known as “strategic lawsuits against public participation,” or “SLAPPs”—to drain them of their resources.
In recent years, the government has intensified its weaponization of laws to stifle independent reporting. In December 2023, Hungary’s parliament enacted the vaguely worded Sovereignty Protection Act, which established a government office with broad powers to investigate anyone the authorities deem to serve foreign interests or present threats to national sovereignty. The act has been used to target independent media outlets.
More recently, in May of last year, Parliament introduced another vaguely worded draft bill titled Transparency in Public Life, which would enable the government to blacklist, defund, and subject to enhanced financial scrutiny any organization it designates as “a threat to Hungarian sovereignty.” Although the draft was not adopted, Orbán has pledged to enact it into law.
You mention in the report some of the innovative survival strategies that Hungarian independent media developed. What were they, and what can other journalists learn from them?
Despite Viktor Orbán’s campaign of media repression, several independent outlets have survived to serve a vital watchdog function, keeping the public informed on issues of national interest. Sustained by civic trust and innovative funding, these organizations have pivoted toward direct, membership-based relationships as international grants narrow and commercial revenues remain scarce.
A cornerstone of this ecosystem is Hungary’s tax-designation mechanism. Introduced in the mid-1990s, it allows citizens to direct one percent of their income tax to nonprofits, including newsrooms. In 2024, independent media outlet Partizán received more tax donations than any other Hungarian civil organization, a feat mirrored by Telex in 2025. These milestones demonstrate the power of public solidarity in sustaining independent journalism, even within an illiberal regime.
In addition to funds derived from the tax designation scheme, most independent media rely on reader subscriptions, donor campaigns, and international grants.
How does the “sophisticated” media capture described in the report differ from traditional censorship, and why does this distinction matter legally?
We are witnessing a new era of autocracy, where leaders use democratic structures to dismantle democracy from within, rather than relying on violence or overt censorship. While traditional censorship is easily detected and litigated, “sophisticated” media capture is far more elusive, often operating under a veneer of legality. Rather than resorting to outright bans, the state weaponizes regulatory bias and state advertising to stifle independent voices while bolstering government-aligned outlets. We must learn to recognize these warning signs early, before these tactics metastasize and become irreversible.
With the Hungarian election coming up in April, what role would you recommend that international legal bodies and the EU play in addressing Hungary's violations?
If the incoming Hungarian government remains unwilling to engage in reform, the EU’s efforts to ensure media freedom will assume crucial significance. The Union must transcend the inertia of the last 16 years.
Since 2010, when repressive media laws were enacted, the EU has been put on notice regarding the assault on press freedom. Yet it has stood by while the Hungarian press was hollowed out and effectively re-engineered to serve as the government’s mouthpiece. While the European Commission’s annual Rule of Law Reports have monitored these developments since 2020, they failed as a deterrent due to a lack of an effective enforcement mechanism. The Commission’s December 2025 decision to open an infringement procedure regarding media freedom violations is a necessary, if overdue, first step.
Moving forward, the EU should aggressively pursue these legal procedures, establish an inter-directorate mechanism to holistically monitor media capture, and significantly increase direct funding for independent media and investigative journalism.
