Foreign Agents Laws have been used to put pressure on civil society organizations that are especially fighting for democracy, human rights, and liberties. We talked to Samuel Doveri Vesterbye and Asuman Kübra Baş from the European Neighborhood Council on foreign agents laws and their impacts in Europe.
How can the European Union’s recent position on Foreign Agent Laws (FALs) within EU member states, candidate countries, and neighboring states be characterized in terms of policy coherence and consistency?
A Foreign Agent Law cannot be in contradiction with signed legal commitments between the EU and a country, hence the EU has been consistent about criticizing this type of legislation. For example, Georgia (a candidate country with a special economic relationship to the EU, just like Türkiye) decided to implement the Foreign Agent Law, and since then, the economic and political relationship between Tbilisi and Brussels has been close to collapse. The protests have been going on while thousands have already left the country, and foreign direct investment is at an all-time low, and it has even put at risk media and geo-economic transport investments, and so on.
Georgia used to benefit greatly from accession funds and EU investments, as well as visa liberalization, which are now being stopped because in part of the Foreign Agent Law. The foreign agent laws not only shrink civic space but also signal instability to the foreign investors. EU accession and integration are deeply tied to predictable legal environments. These laws also drive youth flight and brain drain, a challenge that many regions around the world are already struggling with. What happened in Georgia was not just about passing a law; it was a decision that put the country’s path toward the EU at risk. It is important to remember that Türkiye has not always been treated fairly by the EU, but it is safe to say that any implementation of a Foreign Agent Law would pose a serious problem for accession, investment, and funding (through the EU).
Does the European intelligentsia (academic institutions, NGOs, and think tanks) have the necessary awareness of the threat that NGOs are facing?
Yes. They are fully aware and, in many ways, a serious transformation is taking place on this front despite the fact that there is less consensus on how to respond due to many reasons. The US has cut USAID and support to civil society and media, while the EU is increasing its support to civil society, media, and academia across the European Continent and the Mediterranean area. However, it is important to be realistic: we live in a time in which security and great power play matter more than at any time since the Cold War. This means that states often favor security over democracy, which poses a risk to civil society and independent media around the world. It is likely that prioritization of security and defense issues will continue, and the fear of new conflicts and wars will be present. This is exactly the reason why the actors like the EU should increase their efforts for aforementioned groups since turning into blind eye to those groups and values over security concerns will bring more problems in the long term. Hence, the EU is doing more than ever before to support such groups, but the fight for independence lies not only with external actors, but also with people, media, business, and other actors on the ground and at the grassroots level.
How do growing concerns over European defense and security affect NGOs and civil society, particularly in relation to the tangible tension between the adoption of Foreign Agent Laws (FALs) and prevailing narratives that “foreign powers use disinformation and cyberattacks to shape EU public opinion in their own interest”?
EU foreign and security policies have shifted significantly since the war in Ukraine. While foreign information manipulation and interference (FIMI) has taken many forms over the years, the war made these incidents far more visible, which is why FIMI now features prominently on the EU agenda, including in the Strategic Compass. At the same time, instruments like the Digital Services Act and the new elections guidance are being deployed to counter disinformation online, showing how the EU is combining its security and digital policies in this space.
Today, there is funding and narratives flowing across borders in different ways, sometimes with countering objectives. Türkiye is part of the European family, and it’s linked culturally, economically, and increasingly militarily with the rest of the continent. It is therefore important to speak with one voice and be on the same page with regard to foreign narratives. No Foreign Agents Law should punish EU or European funding going into Türkiye, and both Türkiye and EU members should watch out for destabilizing foreign narratives on social media and elsewhere, which aim to weaken Türkiye’s relationship with the rest of Europe. Many malign countries in the world don’t want to see Türkiye and the EU get closer, because they fear the power of Ankara and Brussels can hold together in technology, supply chains, connectivity, renewable energy, and so on.
About defense and security affecting NGOs and civil society: When thinking about defense and security concerns in relation to NGOs and civil society, it is important to recognize that governments often take very different approaches to countering external interference, such as disinformation or foreign influence. One path is the authoritarian route: censorship of the internet, repression of dissent, and the imprisonment of critics. This does not build resilience but instead damages economic vitality, deters investment, and creates long-term governance problems, including succession crises and mismanagement across public life (e.g, the China case in past years).
The other path is the democratic one, where societies respond not by silencing voices but by empowering them. A vibrant civil society, independent media, and strong academic institutions are the best safeguards, because they create open debate and counter unfounded narratives in ways that strengthen legitimacy. In pluralistic societies, history shows that it is usually the best arguments and the most rigorous thinking that win out, and this is where resilience truly lies. What matters today is making sure these organizations, and the democratic values they represent, are upheld, while sometimes also addressing real security concerns.