Controversial bill targeting NGOs advances in Romania, raising authoritarianism concerns

A legislative proposal initiated by MPs from the far-right Alliance for the Union of Romanians (AUR) and supported by the Social Democratic Party (PSD) is raising serious alarms about the future of civil society in Romania.

The bill, which seeks to amend the legislation on associations and foundations, passed the Senate on 18 May with votes from AUR, PSD, and other senators. Critics argue it represents a thinly veiled attempt to control and intimidate non-governmental organizations, drawing inspiration from restrictive measures in Viktor Orbán’s Hungary and foreign agent laws seen in Russia and Georgia.

The proposal has moved to the Chamber of Deputies for final debate, where further modifications remain possible. Its advancement comes despite strong opposition from over 430 civil society organisations, multiple negative opinions from key advisory bodies, and warnings that it could undermine fundamental rights.

Critics warn of intimidation disguised as transparency

At the heart of the controversy is a requirement for non-governmental organizations to publicly disclose the identities of individual donors contributing more than 5,000 lei (953 euro). Failure to comply would result in immediate suspension of activities, followed by potential dissolution. This measure does not apply to corporate donors, and notably, no equivalent punitive mechanism exists for political parties.

Simona Constantinescu, Director of Development and Advocacy at the Foundation for the Development of Civil Society (FDSC) and a member of the Expert Council on NGO Law, describes the initiative as “rather like an instrument of intimidation.” She points out that Romania already maintains robust mechanisms for state oversight of NGO funding. Authorities have full access to donor information through existing reporting obligations, allowing them to investigate any suspected misuse of funds according to contracts or statutes.

“Why delegate the state’s control function to the general public?” Constantinescu asks. “If there is something wrong, the state already has the information to act.”

The expert emphasizes that true transparency should not come at the expense of privacy and safety. Many donors prefer anonymity to avoid social backlash, professional repercussions, or harassment, especially on sensitive topics such as migration, minority rights, or environmental protection. Constantinescu offers a practical example: a person who supports organizations helping migrants might reasonably fear their neighbor’s disapproval or hostility if their donation becomes public knowledge.

This concern is not theoretical. The bill’s supporters, including Senator Ninel Peia, have been remarkably candid about their intentions. In an interview with PressOne, Peia stated that he wants to know who finances NGOs that criticize him or government policies “so that we know.” When pressed on whether this meant targeting donors, he clarified his goal as using public exposure as a defensive tool, comparing it to media practices. Constantinescu views such statements as revealing the proposal’s true nature: “Without mentioning it, it is the seed of the foreign agent law. That’s how it starts.”

European standards violated

The explanatory memorandum accompanying the AUR proposal claims the law enhances transparency and aligns with European expectations. This assertion has faced particularly sharp criticism. Constantinescu and the collective letter from 439 organizations firmly reject it: “Europe does not require us to do this. Europe has sanctioned the countries that have done this and has sanctioned them strongly.”

The annex to the civil society letter highlights two cautionary examples. In Hungary, a so-called transparency law debated since 2025 imposes draconian fines – up to 25 times the amount of unauthorized foreign funding, with potential bans on operations for non-compliance. Slovakia has faced similar criticism for proposed legislation that threatens freedom of association. The Court of Justice of the European Union has consistently ruled that excessive public disclosure requirements create stigmatizing effects, erode public trust in organisations, discourage donors, and infringe upon freedom of association and the free movement of capital.

Romanian advisory institutions echoed these concerns. The Economic and Social Council, the Legislative Council, and the Committee for Human Rights all issued negative opinions, citing issues of constitutionality, compatibility with European standards on free association, privacy rights, and poor legislative quality. Nevertheless, the bill passed the Senate with 75 votes in favor.

The timing adds another layer of irony. While NGOs face potential dissolution for failing to publish donor lists, politicians and public officials have seen reduced transparency requirements. A 2025 Constitutional Court decision eliminated the obligation for many to publish asset and interest declarations.

Supporters, including PSD President Sorin Grindeanu, have framed opposition as suspicious, asking why “honest people” would hide their donations. Critics counter that Grindeanu’s own party previously broke promises to declassify media contracts, highlighting selective concern for transparency.

The proposed law’s vague and imprecise language further worries experts. It confuses legal concepts and fails to detail how suspension of activities would work in practice. Constantinescu paints a troubling scenario: a social services provider operating a residential center for elderly people or individuals with disabilities suddenly forced to halt operations. “What do you do with them? Do you close the gate and leave?”

As the bill proceeds to the Chamber of Deputies, civil society continues to urge lawmakers to reject measures that transform legitimate transparency into a tool of control. The collective letter issued on the day of the Senate vote captured the core principle: “The right to association cannot be restricted under the pretext of transparency. Transparency must not be transformed into a mechanism for controlling civil society.”

This debate extends far beyond technical legislative details. It touches on the health of Romanian democracy, the balance between accountability and freedom, and whether the country will follow a path of increasing state oversight of independent voices or preserve the vibrant civil society that has developed since 1989. With European institutions already scrutinising similar laws elsewhere, Romania’s next steps will be watched closely both at home and abroad.

The analysis in Romanian by EUalive’s partner PressOne.ro can be found here.

Romanian parties deadlocked after first round of consultations hosted by the president

Caption: Romanian parliament members cast their votes using black and white plastic balls during a plenary session of the Parliament in Bucharest, Romania, 05 May 2026. The motion against the Bolojan Cabinet passed with 281 votes in favor, 4 against and 3 annulled, resulting in the government being dismissed by a motion of censure. Following the vote, the government will remain interim until a new cabinet is formed. EPA/Robert Ghement