Georgia’s Parliament Passes “Transparency of Foreign Influence” Law

Georgia’s Parliament Passes “Transparency of Foreign Influence” Law

INSIGHTi

Georgia’s Parliament Passes “Transparency of
Foreign Influence” Law
May 28, 2024
On May 28, 2024, the Georgian parliament overrode (via a simple majority) President Salome
Zourabichvili’s veto and passed a law titled “On Transparency of Foreign Influence” (Zourabichvili is a
political independent). The legislation, which the U.S. Department of State has called “Kremlin-inspired,”
was introduced in April 2024 after the parliament shelved an earlier version last year amid protests and
Western criticism. The legislation requires nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and media outlets that
receive more than 20% of their funding from foreign sources to register as organizations “pursuing the
interest of a foreign power.” The parliament initially passed the law on May 14, despite mass protests and
expressions of concern by U.S. and European officials.
On May 23, the State Department announced a “comprehensive review” of U.S.-Georgia bilateral
cooperation and a new visa restriction policy that “will apply to individuals who are responsible for or
complicit in undermining democracy in Georgia, as well as their family members.” Some Members of
Congress have introduced related legislation and may weigh the implications of the law’s passage for
Georgia’s ongoing democratization, European Union (EU) and NATO integration efforts, defense against
Russian aggression and malign influence, and U.S. assistance.
Law “On Transparency of Foreign Influence”
The law establishes the creation of a public registry of organizations “pursuing the interest of a foreign
power.” It also requires registering entities to submit annual declarations detailing the “source, amount,
and purpose” of income and expenditures; enables the Ministry of Justice to solicit a range of data for the
purposes of registration and compliance; and imposes fines for noncompliance.
On May 21, the European Commission for Democracy through Law (or Venice Commission), a Council
of Europe legal advisory body, assessed that the legislation’s “fundamental flaws will involve significant
negative consequences for the freedoms of association and expression.” According to the Venice
Commission, the legislation “presupposes that anyone receiving foreign support will act in pursuit of the
interests of the foreign funder” and, thus, could have a “stigmatizing effect” on registered organizations,
“undermin[ing] their public trust and access to financial resources.”
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
IN12368
CRS INSIGHT
Prepared for Members and
Committees of Congress

Congressional Research Service
2
Protests have been held against the legislation and what demonstrators have characterized as a shift in the
government’s foreign policy away from the West and toward Russia. The State Department has noted
“clear indications of a campaign of intimidation and the use of violence to suppress peaceful dissent” in
response to these protests.
Domestic Context
Georgia’s next parliamentary elections are scheduled to be held in October 2024. The legislation could
impact voter sentiment for and against the ruling Georgian Dream (GD) party and its political opposition.
Some observers suggest the government could use the legislation to limit NGOs’ ability to scrutinize
government actions during the campaign and to conduct independent election monitoring.
GD was founded in 2012 as a center-left party but increasingly has espoused nationalist-conservative
principles. GD justifies the legislation by maintaining that Georgian NGOs supported by foreign (i.e.,
U.S. and European) funding have sought to undermine Georgia’s democratically elected government. In a
statement accompanying the bill’s reintroduction, the parliamentary majority said the “lack of
transparency” of Georgia’s donor-supported civil sector was “one of the most important challenges for
state security,” and the law would “protect Georgia from artificial attempts to cause unrest.”
Georgian officials have implied that the United States and the EU also have acted more broadly against
Georgian interests, despite Western support for Georgia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity against
Russian encroachment, and for Georgia’s constitutionally stated goals of EU and NATO integration. After
a first procedural vote on the bill, GD founder (and honorary chair) Bidzina Ivanishvili, a wealthy
businessman, delivered a speech in which he called the Georgian opposition “pseudo-elites … appointed
from outside” and maintained that an unspecified “global war party” views “Georgia and Ukraine as
cannon fodder” against Russia.
The law’s passage comes five months after the EU, despite concerns about the government’s commitment
to European integration, granted Georgia candidate status. The EU said this decision was made “on the
understanding that the relevant steps set out” in a prior EU recommendation “are taken.” That
recommendation’s steps included the implementation of judicial and rule-of-law reforms, combatting
disinformation against the EU and its values, and addressing political polarization.
Ivanishvili announced his return to politics a few weeks after Georgia became an EU candidate. GD
created for Ivanishvili the position of honorary party chair and changed party rules to allow him to
nominate the prime minister. Ivanishvili then nominated GD chair Irakly Kobakhidze, a former
parliamentary speaker, as prime minister. Kobakhidze has criticized what he calls U.S. and European
“pseudo-liberalism” and accused Western governments of interfering in Georgian politics.
International Responses
On April 25, 2024, the European Parliament passed a resolution by a vote of 425-25 stating that “EU
accession negotiations should not be opened as long as this law is part of Georgia’s legal order.” After the
Georgian parliament initially passed the bill, EU officials said its adoption “negatively impacts Georgia’s
progress on the EU path.” On May 15, the White House said the legislation’s passage would “compel us
to fundamentally reassess our relationship with Georgia.” Some Members of Congress have introduced
related legislation and expressed support for Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic integration, concerns about the law,
and a sense that its passage could lead to a reassessment of U.S. policy toward Georgia. Russian officials
have spoken approvingly of the legislation.

Congressional Research Service
3
U.S. Foreign and Security Assistance to Georgia
The Department of State’s FY2025 budget justification states, “U.S. assistance to Georgia will help
strengthen democratic governance, bolster the country’s abilities to resist continued aggression by Russia,
and mitigate the spillover effects of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Assistance will also support
the Georgian people’s overwhelming desire to integrate with Euro-Atlantic institutions, including the
European Union.”
Georgia is the second highest recipient of U.S. assistance in the Europe and Eurasia region after Ukraine.
The State Department allocated an estimated $133.0 million for Georgia in FY2023 and included $116.5
million for Georgia in its FY2025 budget request. The United States provides democracy and governance
assistance to Georgia, as well as security assistance via Foreign Military Financing and Department of
Defense assistance programs. On May 14, 2024, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State James O’Brien said that
about $390 million in planned U.S. assistance to Georgia “has to be under review if we are now regarded
as an adversary and not a partner.”

Author Information

Cory Welt

Specialist in Russian and European Affairs

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff
to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of
Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of
information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role.
CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United
States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However,
as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the
permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

IN12368 · VERSION 1 · NEW