The Russian Ministry of Justice has expanded the registry of individuals designated as foreign agents by adding five new names and removing one organization from the list. The updates were published on the official registry page, reflecting ongoing changes in how Moscow classifies and monitors entities considered to be acting in alignment with foreign interests. The broadening of the list underscores the government’s continued emphasis on transparency and accountability within the framework of its foreign influence laws, even as the interpretation and application of these rules remain a point of public debate and international scrutiny.
According to the Ministry, journalists Dmitry Gubin, Dmitry Elovsky, and Andrey Soldatov have been newly included in the foreign agents register, each described as having been recognized as foreign agents within the Russian Federation. In addition, lawyer Kirill Kachur and political scientist Maria Snegova were added to the roster, both noted as currently residing outside Russia. The inclusion of these individuals signals the authorities’ assessment that their professional activities, communications, and affiliations meet the criteria established for foreign agents, a designation that carries specific legal burdens and public disclosure obligations under Russian law. The official explanation emphasizes that these figures were involved in disseminating content linked to foreign authorities or platforms, which the register characterizes as aimed at influencing public decision-making processes or disseminating information aligned with foreign interests.
Following the Ministry’s explanation, it is stated that the regional national-cultural public organization known as “Tuba Kalyk” (also referred to as Tubalary) has been removed from the registry. The note implies a formal deregistration or deactivation of this organization within the framework of the foreign agents system, though it does not elaborate on the precise legal mechanism or the grounds for its exclusion. The registry’s updates illustrate how civil society groups and professional figures are alternately added or removed as the state reassesses the affiliations and messaging activities it deems to be connected with foreign influence campaigns.
Additionally, the Ministry announced that the Altay organization was removed from the list in connection with its liquidation, marking another instance where organizational status directly impacts its status in the foreign agents registry. This development highlights how organizational continuity, dissolution, or restructuring can affect whether a group remains subject to foreign agent designation, independent of any ongoing activity by individual members who might still be engaged in related spheres. The decision illustrates the dynamic nature of the registry, which responds to changes in organizational form, legal status, or available documentation that could influence the assessment of foreign influence activities.
Earlier, the Moscow Ostankino Court issued a fine of 50 thousand rubles to writer Dmitry Glukhovsky, who is identified in the Russian Federation as an agent of foreign media. The court’s decision centered on a failure to mark his public communications on social networks with the foreign agent designation, a recurring compliance issue in the broader enforcement landscape. The ruling underscores how the labeling regime affects not only formal publications and appearances but also everyday online activity, placing social-media conduct under the same regulatory lens as traditional media and formal statements. The penalty reflects the state’s insistence on clear labeling and transparency for individuals categorized under this designation and illustrates the practical consequences of non-compliance for figures in the public eye.
Chuychenko, who previously served as head of the Ministry of Justice, has commented on the law’s operation, asserting that the foreign agents framework should be understood in a way that does not automatically be perceived as oppressive. This stance suggests a nuanced position within the government about the balance between regulation and individual rights, acknowledging concerns while defending the overall intent of ensuring accountability and preventing foreign influence in domestic affairs. The remarks contribute to the ongoing public conversation about the scope, purpose, and potential unintended effects of the legislation, inviting ongoing scrutiny from legal experts, civil society organizations, and international observers who monitor how such laws are implemented across cases and contexts.