– What skeletons have tumbled out of USAID’s closet so far, particularly regarding its involvement in Hungary?
– Only the first skeletons have fallen out, as USAID's history spans decades. It all started with the world's wealthiest nation operating an aid system with a series of noble tasks. Then it turned out that aiding crisis zones and communities truly in need of help shrank to only 10-15 percent of the organization's operations. USAID began to serve as an ideological whip and a tool for globalist objectives such as woke, LGBTQ propaganda, discrediting the political right, achieving political instability, and toppling governments opposing these.
– Where did the funds funneled into USAID go?
– In the past decade, hundreds of billions have disappeared, of which, in the last one or two years alone, certain domestic civil organizations, the "independent press," and likely political actors received millions of dollars. USAID was just one of the network's financial sources, as it intertwined with funds distributed by George Soros's Open Society Foundation (OSF) and other foundations. When the elder Soros began withdrawing from decision-making, he transferred 18 billion dollars from his personal wealth to OSF's account. Much investigative work remains to be done, but it is already clear that this resource distribution merged with the European Commission (EC) and the European Parliament (EP) funding sources.
In the European Union's budget, support for NGOs has more than tripled during the current financial cycle. So there is no doubt that the use of European funds must also be examined.
– How accurate is the view that with USAID's exit, the external actors are relocating their headquarters to Brussels?
– Over the past 15 years, we've seen European institutions increasingly overextend beyond their original tasks. The intertwining of George Soros's empire with the EC and EP was striking. This didn't even involve European interests but globalist elements aiming to steer the EU's operations in a new direction financially, economically, culturally, and ideologically.
The EC and the EP are disregarding written European laws, as it's evident that the rule of law framework doesn't apply to them.
They seek partners capable and willing to influence public opinion, one clear example being the exposure of Timmermans's green transition. This is still just the tip of the iceberg, as uncovering the details and funding network will reveal more skeletons.
– Could it be that the EC and the EP - where the left is in majority - are already under the influence of the liberal network ousted from America?
– The EC's former vice-president exerted pressure through NGOs financed by the commission, aiming to transition Europe's economy. They manipulated by giving European money to NGOs, which then penned studies attempting to prove that European people want the green transition, which aligns with the interest of member states. In reality, this wasn't an organic, grassroots expectation from Europeans but an artificially generated initiative with little connection to reality.
They created an alternative form of political decision-making across Europe and the world, where democratically elected governments no longer govern.
They tried to achieve political and economic results through bypassing, circumventing, overriding, and contradicting the legislative frameworks approved by parliaments, .
– When is the next rapporteur from Brussels expected to investigate under the pretext of the rule of law? What does the government anticipate?
– Soon, the EP's next fact-finding committee will arrive, led by Dutch Green Party rapporteur Tineke Strik, concerned about the state of the rule of law in Hungary. This is another element of the influence mechanism where organizations and lobby groups calling themselves civil try to pressure the Hungarian government. These NGOs typically represent a few dozen people, were never elected by anyone, yet are driven by foreign money and intentions.
The investigative committees don't perform substantive activities, yet they've been used spectacularly as political tools over the past 10-15 years. They serve to try to discredit a member state's government or put it in a position where it has to defend itself.
Overstepping their authority, they use their reports as a reference to withhold funds due to Hungary.
– The pro-war leaders of the Baltic states continuously attack the Hungarian government; most recently, former Lithuanian Foreign Minister Gabrielius Landsbergis expressed his thoughts in an opinion piece. He suggests curbing "Hungarian blackmail," excluding us from EU decision-making, and also called our country a "rogue state." What is the Hungarian government's opinion on this?
– The author previously, as foreign minister, constantly criticized the Orban government. His article appeared on one of those Soros-affiliated opinion platforms operating as part of the pressure network, showing how they envision Europe's future. However, Hungary doesn't agree with this vision, meaning European unity no longer exists. The narratives of the Baltic states serve as mutually reinforcing references, aiming for the press to cite them after an opinion piece appears, and then for the press to be cited in turn. By layering these, they start to argue that the former minister's statement isn't just an opinion but a fact, even though this argument is antirely unfonded.
– What individuals or groups do organizations such as Transparency International, which attempt to present themselves as independent civil entities, actually represent? What interests are driving them?
– The most insidious aspect of these types of NGOs expressing their opinions is not their actual opinions but rather their methodology, which has nothing to do with the tasks they originally set out to perform. Both domestic and international research institutes have demonstrated that they present the subjective opinions of a handful of individuals or sources as established facts. Drawing conclusions from such data is not just a mistake—it qualifies as a deliberate act of political provocation. There are institutions—such as the World Bank, the OECD, or the European Union’s statistical office—that at least attempt to gauge public sentiment or investor opinions on corruption using consistent methodologies.
However, Transparency International is a political activist organization, a member of the Soros network, financed by rolling dollars. It spreads outright falsehoods about Hungary upon request. Our country is not trailing behind Burkina Faso, Ghana, and the Solomon Islands in corruption —it is, in fact, among the least corrupt European nations.
– How do the false reports and fabricated narratives spread about Hungary in the international press affect the country’s reputation?
– We have been fighting this battle for fifteen years. The essence of this network-based influence system is that it distorts factual descriptions, narratives, and rhetoric to serve its own political interests, then delivers them to the European Parliament and the European Commission in the form of country reports. When Hungary’s media law was passed in the early 2010s, we had official documentation proving that our media system complies with European standards. Yet, we are constantly accused of trampling on press freedom. I still have copies of Nepszabadsag and Nepszava front pages that, multiple times over, have declared the death of press freedom. These subjective political attacks morph into "facts" in the narratives that describe Hungary.
– What is the goal of this smear campaign?
– It is becoming increasingly clear, by the day, that these narratives serve as a foundation for lies.
The Tisza Party has visibly built its creed and political campaign on presenting falsehoods—or distorted versions of reality—as facts, thereby forcing the government into a position where it must constantly defend itself.
This is a well-established method that has been tested in several European countries over the past decades. Most recently, such a smear campaign was carried out in Poland against the previous leadership, with the explicit aim of toppling the Polish conservative government.
– How are NGOs influencing the Hungarian media and the opposition?
– Media outlets that claim to be independent but are, in reality, politically biased withhold or interpret information in ways that serve parties such as the Tisza Party. The role of NGOs is no different—they provide a framework for criticizing anything that does not align with LGBTQ ideology. These NGOs were created precisely to act as legitimizing entities in smear campaigns so that their claims would immediately appear credible to the public.
– And what can be done to counter them?
– The only solution is to tell people the truth every single day. Just as the fact-finding efforts of Trump and Musk have exposed these organizations, we must do the same. The Sovereignty Protection Office demands transparency regarding the original sources and objectives of their funding.
When we read an article in a so-called independent press outlet, we must recognize who is truly speaking and what interests are at play.
Since this network has been woven over decades, dismantling and exposing it will take time.
– How spontaneous was the emergence of Peter Magyar and the Tisza Party as the current leading force of the opposition? Do you think it is possible that he was prepared in advance and that the clemency case was merely seen as the right moment to bring him into the spotlight?
– I have been in politics long enough not to believe in coincidences. The Peter Magyar phenomenon is nothing more than the latest iteration of various attempts to change the government over the past fifteen years. At the recent congress of the Tisza Party, the logo of its financier, the European People’s Party, seemed to appear more frequently than that of the Tisza itself, making it clear where the wind is blowing from.
The admission that someone else will be writing their program evidently shows that they will not be representing Hungarian interests but foreign ones, whether in matters of agricultural policy, migration, war, or the expansion of the EU.
We have seen this before, in different forms, either fragmented or unified, multiple times since 2010. I do not consider Peter Magyar’s emergence — or the way it all unfolded —to be a coincidence.
