Századvég: 70 percent of Hungarians condemn journalists cooperating with foreign intelligence services

According to the analysis published on March 31, Századvég argues that the issue of alleged foreign election interference has become a recurring political theme since the 2016 U.S. presidential election. In its reading, globalist networks, NGOs, media actors, and activists have repeatedly raised the issue in major campaigns, while often downplaying other forms of foreign influence. The article stresses that in a democratic country, decisions about the composition of parliament and government must belong exclusively to that country’s citizens, free from outside manipulation.

Századvég places the current controversy in the context of earlier debates around foreign political financing and influence. The analysis points back to the aftermath of Hungary’s 2022 parliamentary election, when funding linked to Action for Democracy and a Swiss foundation became a major political issue. It also refers to a 2025 report by the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, which examined how the EU Digital Services Act’s hate speech provisions were used to censor conservative views during some European campaigns. In this interpretation, concerns about “Russian interference” have often been used selectively, while other channels of influence were minimized or denied.

Against that backdrop, the article turns to the espionage case involving Szabolcs Panyi. Századvég points out that the issue became widely known in a short time, with its survey finding that 84 percent of Hungarians had heard about the case. Specifically, respondents were asked about reports that the Direkt36 and VSquare journalist had spoken on an audio recording about being in contact with at least one foreign intelligence service and giving them Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó’s phone number so his calls could be monitored.

The public reaction measured by the survey is decisive. Századvég found that 70 percent of respondents consider it unacceptable for a Hungarian journalist to cooperate with foreign intelligence services in a way that enables interference in Hungarian domestic politics. Only 19 percent said such conduct was acceptable, while 11 percent either did not know or did not wish to answer. The broader attitude was similarly clear: 65 percent expressed an unfavorable opinion of journalists or activists who serve foreign interests or collaborate with foreign intelligence services, compared with just 11 percent who viewed such conduct favorably.

Taken together, the figures point to a strong public consensus on sovereignty. Whatever the political framing around the issue, Hungarians appear to draw a firm line when it comes to foreign involvement in their country’s internal affairs. The message from the electorate is straightforward: Hungary’s future must be decided in Hungary, by Hungarians alone.