This interview was conducted by Alexander Junger and originally published by Eagle Eye Explore on May 23, 2025. It has been edited for clarity and readability, and is republished here at with the kind permission of Eagle Eye Explore.
András László, a prominent figure within Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s ruling Fidesz party, emerged as a Member of the European Parliament (MEP) in 2024, aligning himself with the right-wing, sovereigntist Patriots for Europe Group.
As Hungary gears up for another election cycle, András sheds light on the murky financing of NGOs, ongoing inquiries into U.S. and EU influence operations, Hungary’s significant position on the global stage, and prospective collaborations with notable figures like Elon Musk and members of the Trump administration.
Congratulations on your recent role as Government Commissioner investigating USAID’s political influence in Hungary. How is the investigation into USAID funds progressing? Can you elaborate on your potential collaboration with figures like Elon Musk and the Trump administration?
Following Donald Trump’s inauguration, the U.S. halted all USAID disbursements. USAID, which has traditionally partnered with the State Department, CIA, and Department of Defense, was often seen as a convenient outsourcing option for various projects—an impression that proved misleading.
When people think of development aid, they envision humanitarian efforts, such as responding to natural disasters, preventing disease outbreaks, or reconstructing war-torn areas. However, the Trump administration unearthed a different reality—many of these so-called development initiatives were merely conduits for advancing leftist political agendas abroad, a view echoed by observers in Hungary.
In Hungary, we’ve been actively combating foreign political meddling for years. We even enacted a law mandating that organizations receiving over 20% of their funding from abroad disclose this information on their websites. Yet, the EU compelled us to repeal it. Despite our efforts, foreign interference was evident in our 2022 general elections, with over $10 million funneled in. Had the results swung in favor of the opposition, the current government might not exist.
As we approach another election next year, we are resolute in preventing similar intrusions. We are committed to safeguarding our sovereignty, freedom, and democratic institutions from external interference.
Interestingly, the U.S. is also signaling a shift from the interference tactics employed under the Biden administration. There are emerging calls to pivot development policy back to genuine development goals rather than partisan political objectives or ideologically driven projects. This shift is indeed welcome.
In light of this, the Hungarian government has appointed a Government Commissioner to scrutinize these matters, and I have been entrusted with this task. I will collaborate with U.S. counterparts to gather critical information about these projects and ensure Hungary can implement the necessary measures to protect its democratic integrity.
Can you disclose any findings regarding your research or collaboration with Elon Musk concerning Hungarian NGOs and their funding?
What we’ve uncovered thus far indicates a deliberate attempt to obscure the true funding sources of these projects. Frequently, USAID did not directly sign contracts with grant recipients or project implementers in Hungary. Instead, funding was channeled through multiple intermediary layers—often two, three, or even four levels of coordinating agencies, secondary programs, and sub-awards—creating a system designed for opacity.
Typically, a vague foreign organization would enter into a contract with a Hungarian coordinating body, which in turn disbursed the funds. While we can identify the Hungarian organizations involved—both those distributing and receiving funds—the intermediary layers remain shrouded in mystery. Such convoluted mechanisms render the entire funding system highly opaque.
We lack clarity on who made pivotal decisions, why certain grants were allocated, how funding amounts were determined, and the criteria for recipient selection. Moreover, the concrete outcomes of projects, including how recipient organizations accounted for the funds, remain unclear. Notably, these so-called development grants were never discussed with the Hungarian government beforehand.
It’s as if the entire system was meticulously crafted to hide the origins of the funds.
Many organizations operating within Hungary are the same ones receiving support from various EU and private entities, such as the Soros Foundation. These groups, often categorized as left-wing, media outlets, and NGOs, heavily rely on governmental funding—both from the U.S. and the EU. For years, they have enjoyed substantial financial backing to execute projects, yet their actions frequently reflect a political bias. Observing Hungarian media or their opposition to conservative policies reveals a pattern of political interference that undermines Hungary’s democracy.
Since the suspension of USAID funding globally, have you observed any operational changes among these NGOs and media outlets? Have any been compelled to shut down, or do they continue their activities despite the loss of U.S. support?
Most of these organizations remain active. The U.S. government and USAID have vowed to discontinue projects centered on rule of law, democracy promotion, anti-corruption, and political activism, limiting development funding to genuine developmental policies. While this is a step in the right direction, the extent of funds already funneled into the system before the freeze remains ambiguous.
In the U.S., the left is vigorously opposing this funding cut, resorting to legal avenues to urge the government to release the frozen funds. They are also disseminating narratives about the purported global repercussions of the freeze, especially concerning children’s welfare, to exert psychological and legal pressure on the administration.
As a member of the European Parliament, I observe that EU institutions, particularly the European Commission and the majority of Parliament, are eager to fill the gap left by the USAID funding freeze. There exists a distinct political will among globalist, left-wing networks in Europe to sustain these organizations, possibly with diminished resources, yet operational.
As a Hungarian patriot, I prioritize sovereignty and staunchly oppose any foreign interference in my country’s elections, whether through illegal campaign financing or otherwise. While I advocate for cooperation and the sharing of best practices among conservative parties, particularly in understanding the left’s covert collaborations, I do not believe the right should emulate such networks. Instead, we must expose and combat illegal and immoral foreign interference in our elections.
You recently urged the European Commission to disclose all contracts it has with NGOs. What do you envision these contracts might entail?
My colleagues in the European Parliament and I have demanded transparency regarding the expenditure of EU taxpayer money. Several scandals have emerged, including one earlier this year where the European Commission compensated green NGOs to lobby the European Parliament for more extreme environmental policies. This has severely harmed European agriculture, energy sectors, industries, and households. It is both illegal and unethical for the executive branch to utilize taxpayer funds to lobby the legislative branch.
Even the newly appointed European Commissioner has acknowledged that using EU funds for such purposes is highly inappropriate. Furthermore, thousands of contracts remain hidden from public view, including the comprehensive COVID vaccine procurement contract. Despite calls from the EU ombudsman for the release of text messages from Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, the Commission continues to operate with minimal transparency regarding the allocation of billions of euros in taxpayer money.
National transparency laws mandate that this information be publicly accessible or available upon request, yet regrettably, the European Commission consistently obstructs our attempts to hold them accountable. Without insight into how EU funds are utilized, we cannot effectively supervise EU policies or ensure accountability.
Moreover, with the EU now stepping in to finance projects jeopardized by the frozen USAID funding, it is crucial to ascertain who will be funded, through what mechanisms, and how taxpayer money will be allocated.
Do you believe the levels of fraud, waste, and abuse in the EU are comparable to those seen in the United States?
Access to power should correlate with a heightened sense of responsibility for prudent expenditure. This principle should be applicable at the EU level. Although regulations often advocate for transparency and accountability, the reality frequently falls short. We need the European Commission to release documents detailing its financial activities and policy formulations. Absent this transparency, significant concerns about fund misappropriation arise.
Your party colleague, Balázs Orbán, the political director for Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, recently labeled the USAID scheme as the largest corruption scandal globally. What’s your perspective on this assertion?
When an agency with billions in funding declares it will terminate 83% of its projects, it signals a substantial issue. If 83% of its initiatives aren’t genuinely related to development work, it strongly suggests political corruption and misuse of taxpayer money. Every American citizen has the right to know how their funds were utilized. Numerous contracts have been made public, and citizens in other countries, such as Hungary, have a vested interest in understanding who benefited from this political meddling in our democracy.
The European Union has exhibited troubling trends toward anti-democratic authoritarianism. As you may know, last fall, following Călin Georgescu’s unexpected lead in Romania’s presidential election, the Constitutional Court annulled the results, and the election committee subsequently barred Georgescu from participating in the rerun. Furthermore, Marine Le Pen was disqualified from running in France’s 2027 presidential election after being convicted of misusing EU funds. What are your thoughts on these developments?
Lawfare is increasingly wielded against politicians with a sovereignist, patriotic agenda, a pattern we’ve observed in various instances. For example, during the presidential race against François Fillon in France, and now against Marine Le Pen, who is a leading candidate for France’s 2027 presidential election. This trend is profoundly concerning. We also witnessed legal actions against Matteo Salvini in Italy for his attempts to thwart NGO vessels—whom I prefer to label “fake NGOs” or migrant taxis—from transporting illegal migrants into the country. Presently, there’s a court case against Andrej Babiš in the Czech Republic. Across Europe, lawfare is being utilized to target conservative, patriotic politicians, which poses a grave threat to democracy and freedom.
Even in cases of fund misuse or political interference, if data is public and evidence is evident, voters should retain the freedom to decide who best serves their interests. Ultimately, elections should reflect the people’s choice regarding who is most capable of addressing national issues. Unfortunately, in Hungary, a socialist politician was convicted of election corruption but was still re-nominated by his party in a left-leaning district, and voters chose to elect him again. Such is the nature of politics at times.
Across Europe, lawfare predominantly targets conservative, patriotic politicians, often in scenarios where the left anticipates a defeat, aiming instead to tarnish the opposition’s reputation. Similar tactics have emerged in the U.S., where legal and financial pressures are directed at undermining Donald Trump. Fortunately, American citizens saw through these maneuvers and re-elected him as president.
What’s particularly alarming is the response from EU institutions and senior EU politicians, especially in light of the Georgescu case. Thierry Breton, a former Commissioner, allegedly stated, “We made it happen,” or something to that effect. Meanwhile, Europe’s leading human rights court seemed to take the case lightly. I suspect that if Viktor Orbán were to charge Péter Magyar, the leading opposition figure in Hungary, with something and bar him from running, the European Union’s reaction would be significantly different.
Indeed, it’s a classic case of “rules for thee, but not for me,” particularly evident in lawfare. Yet, I maintain a belief that ultimately, people will make the right choice.
The European Parliament is currently defending Péter Magyar, despite charges involving phone theft at a nightclub and other issues, with the majority of the Parliament supporting him. This indicates that the EU is eager to defend candidates who align with its objectives. Similarly, just prior to the Italian elections, when it became evident that conservatives were likely to emerge victorious, Ursula von der Leyen ominously warned that the EU had measures ready to deploy should undesirable policies be pursued. In Poland, following the liberal coalition’s electoral victory, Ursula von der Leyen swiftly unfroze funds previously withheld due to “rule of law” concerns, despite the new government not yet having taken office or capable of amending any laws. This underscores the double standards at play and how lawfare is frequently leveraged against conservative, patriotic parties.
It’s fair to assert that Hungary has overachieved in the past decade, particularly concerning its political and cultural influence within the European Union and beyond. As a nation with a population of fewer than 10 million, where do you believe Hungary draws the will, strength, and confidence to assert itself on the European and global stage?
Hungary benefits from substantial domestic electoral support and a stable parliamentary majority, enabling us to implement policies that prioritize our citizens’ interests without needing to appease international liberal critics. Despite media hostility and pressure from the EU and the U.S., Hungarian voters have recognized our efforts to prioritize their needs.
In contrast, many European governments must justify their inability to tackle pressing issues, often rationalizing policies that contradict voter preferences with feeble moral or legal arguments. In Hungary, we can deliver results due to our strong majority and cohesive coalition, and our voters appreciate this.
Hungary stands out in international politics because our government is popular, conservative, and unafraid to uphold core values. This presents a challenge to the globalist, liberal, and socialist left in Europe and the United States. While Hungary may be small, we demonstrate that it is feasible to thrive economically, socially, and politically by adhering to conservative principles—a rarity in the contemporary West.
Fortunately, we have triumphed in all national and European elections since 2010, and we aim to sustain this momentum in the 2026 national elections.
