The draft law on the registration of foreign agents is being discussed again in Bulgaria, which provides for a special regime for citizens and organizations receiving funding from abroad. The proponents present the idea as a tool for transparency and protection from foreign influence, but according to its critics, the texts create a risk of restrictions on freedom of speech, association and participation in public life. What would such a law actually change, are there already enough transparency mechanisms and where does the line between the protection of the national interest and the repressive restriction of civil rights cross? Zahari Yankov from the Bulgarian Center for Non-Profit Law spoke to FACTI.
- Mr. Yankov, the Foreign Agents Registration Law has already been introduced in five parliaments since 2022. Why do you think this idea keeps coming back, even though it has been rejected or left without consideration several times?
- First of all, this legislative idea serves the political narrative of the introducing party. And this narrative of theirs wants to convince Bulgarians that it is best to have an authoritarian regime without, of course, using these frightening words. In an authoritarian state, people should not self-organize in initiatives, because every form of organization must be under the control of the state; the government should not be criticized or protested against, because it is always right; independent organizations and media should not expose corruption, because in an authoritarian state, corruption of power is official policy, and finally – in an authoritarian state, everyone supports the government, and those who insist on civil rights are simply bought traitors or “foreign agents“. The Foreign Agents Bill is part of this veiled narrative.
Unfortunately, we must say that the persistence of the proponents seems to be yielding results. Since 2022, we have seen a period in which the bill was completely ignored, then in 2024 it was considered in the plenary hall, but without a quorum, because everyone except “Vazrazhdane“ and the ITN demonstratively left, at the beginning of 2025 it was again considered in the hall, but already with a quorum and a debate. In other words - there is a threat of the law being passed and it should not be underestimated. It is enough to look at Georgia, where such a law was surprisingly adopted in view of the long-standing public consensus for the country's European development, and now there is still resistance there against this political turn, but unfortunately it is being crushed by increasingly widespread police violence and new repressive measures. Georgia is also a good example of how when civil rights are encroached upon through laws such as the one on “foreign agents“, this immediately has a negative impact not only on the media and non-governmental organizations, but also on individual citizens and businesses.
- You define the bill as repressive, while the sponsors present it as a tool for transparency. What specifically in the texts makes you think that its purpose is to limit, rather than clarify, financing?
- Every repressive law is presented to the public as a legitimate reaction to a threat, be it against an indisputable value such as family or children, or as a threat to the existence of the state.
The Foreign Agents Registration Law is categorically not a transparency law. Simply put, a transparency law introduces obligations for public disclosure of information about the activity, through which information everyone can conduct an independent check both for irregularities and for whether they would like to invest in a business initiative, or to support or trust a media or civil organization. Typical transparency laws are the Accounting Law or the recently adopted Transparency in Representation of Interests Law. The Accounting Law, for example, introduces rules regarding the content and obligation to publicly announce financial statements as well as activity reports, and if these obligations are not met, there are corresponding sanctions.
The Foreign Agents Registration Act, in turn, introduces an obligation for those designated as "agents" - those who have received funding, whether through the provision of funds or coverage of stories totaling a ridiculous amount of 1,000 euros per year, in addition to entering themselves into a register and adding to everything - from business cards, letters and websites to lithographs, the label "foreign agent." It is striking that the label does not imply clarifying whose agent you are, because it aims at denigration, not transparency. Here, the word "influence" is also given a negative connotation. Think about it - we live in a global world, we are looking for international investments, opportunities for exchanges. And through this law, this is precisely what is branded as "malicious influence". Next, the bill introduces prohibitions for those designated as "agents" regardless of whether they are exerting someone else's influence and whether this influence is malicious, to the detriment of society or threatening national security. These prohibitions cover both activities in institutions such as ministries, schools and universities, and in practice a ban on participation in public life altogether through the ban on “activities that may influence the country's domestic or foreign policy.“ In addition, measures are proposed by which those designated as agents can be pressured and harassed - from annual financial audits and public disclosure of personal data, to excessive administrative burdens and fines.
- Don't you think that the very concept of “foreign agent“ has a negative connotation and can turn people, media and organizations into a kind of “internal enemies” just because of the way they are defined by law?
- Of course, this term was not chosen by chance and along with the obligation to label everything – from websites and letters to photos and engravings, with “foreign agent“ its sole purpose is to denigrate. And while in English, for example, “agent“ is often understood as “proxy“, in Slavic languages including Bulgarian and Russian, “foreign agent“ is understood as “spy“ or “traitor“.
- The bill provides for the designation of a person or organization as a “foreign agent“ when receiving funds from abroad above a certain threshold. What is the risk that organizations and citizens who have no connection with a foreign state or foreign political will will fall under the scope of the law in this way?
- The bill makes no difference whether the money was received under a pecuniary transaction - i.e. one party pays and the other performs a specific task imposed by the guarantor, or as a donation. Moreover - the bill makes no difference whether it comes from one source or many. Whether it comes to cash or covering training costs, for example. The threshold in terms of size is completely ridiculous - 1000 euros in total from all sources from abroad within one year. Thus, the bill sets thresholds through which it can easily target any citizen or organization that is considered inconvenient, too critical or for “sticking its nose where it does not belong“ by the executive branch.
- In Bulgaria, there are already requirements for accountability of non-governmental organizations and commercial companies, as well as public information about beneficial owners. What do you think this law would add that does not already exist as a transparency mechanism?
- This law does not add anything. The word “transparency“ is simply used as a fig leaf for a repressive mechanism. The existing rules are completely sufficient and proportionate as measures, and we should add to them the newly adopted in March this year Law on Transparency in Representation of Interests. If we strive for more transparency, then the path is completely different, namely, practical improvement of the operation of already existing laws. A simple example – to ensure the capacity of the Registry Agency so that it does not delay the publication of financial statements and activity reports, which companies and non-governmental organizations have otherwise submitted on time.
- Which specific provisions of the bill do you consider to be the most problematic - restrictions on work in educational institutions, participation in public life or the possibility of restricting activities that may influence domestic or foreign policy?
- The bill is conceptually flawed and, generally speaking, is written in a legally illiterate manner with incorrectly used terms. With its confused definitions and repressive measures - labeling, bans on activities, bans on participation in political life, restrictions on freedom of speech, disproportionate administrative obligations, it can crush anyone "inconvenient" and discourage anyone else from raising their heads at all. The bill is problematic as a whole and irreparable.
- Consequences are envisaged not only for the "foreign agents" themselves, but also for certain related individuals. Doesn't this create a risk that a person will be affected solely because of a formal or even past connection with a given organization?
- The concept of "persons associated with foreign agents", for whom prohibitions are also envisaged, intensifies the intimidating effect of the law. To illustrate the absurdity - related persons are also considered founders of designated “agents“ regardless of whether they currently have anything to do with the organization. This not only creates a risk, but also crosses out our constitutional right to association.
- Where do you think the line should be drawn between legal control over foreign influence and the protection of freedom of speech, association and participation in public life?
- First of all, we need to determine which foreign influence is malicious in order to be controlled. If we invite an expert from Iceland, for example, to tell us how they dealt with drug addiction and alcoholism among children there, would this be an influence that would deserve some special measures? That is, first we need to determine the legitimate scope of the control measures, and next we need to make sure that they do not have the intended – as the Foreign Agents Registration Act, and unwanted negative consequences for our civil rights. This is an extremely difficult question, to which, as we have read, no good answer has been found, including by the USA, which provided the prototype of the Foreign Agents Act in 1938. And here I want to note - the American law, although very different from its namesakes in Russia or Georgia, is also very problematic, almost not implemented, and the majority of Americans have not even heard of it. That is, it is far from the cornerstone of American democracy, as everyone who wants to push its repressive namesake is trying to make it out to be.
- And is it possible that the law, presented as a measure of transparency, in practice restricts precisely these freedoms?
- This bill is nothing more than a platform for political propaganda and, if adopted, will turn into a bludgeon. It would limit not only the rights of those designated as agents, but also of society as a whole. It will crush organizations and media outlets that expose corruption, crush critics of the government, negatively impact free business, and open the door wide for an authoritarian regime.