Russian authorities expand crackdown on non-profit groups with Transparency International incident
The Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation moved to add organizations deemed undesirable in Russia to a draft list. One of the entities named is Transparency International Germany, which is part of the international watchdog network focused on anti-corruption work.
On March 16, Transparency International announced it would liquidate its Russian affiliate, ANO Center TI-R, the legal arm of its local movement. In a statement published on Transparency International’s site, the decision to be listed as an undesirable organization was described as sudden, illogical, unmotivated, and offensive. This reaction underscores the tension between Russian authorities and international civil society groups operating within the country’s borders.
Earlier in March, the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Russian Federation acknowledged concerns about the organization’s activities within the country. The office stated that the group operates beyond its stated aims and objectives, claiming that Transparency International, which publicly positions itself as a watchdog against corruption, interferes in Russia’s internal affairs. Such interference, according to the office, threatens the foundations of the constitutional order and national security.
Transparency International Russia, known as TI-R Center, was previously added to a list identifying non-profit organizations that are foreign agents in 2015. The designation has been used in Russia to scrutinize and regulate certain non-profit activity and international partnerships, often in ways that heighten government control over civil society groups and their funding streams.
Transparency International has maintained that its mission is to investigate corruption around the world and to promote transparency in government and public institutions. The Moscow measures and the liquidation of the Russian affiliate are seen by observers in Canada and the United States as part of a broader pattern of restrictions on civil society, independent journalism, and international non-governmental organizations operating in Russia. Critics argue that such actions limit independent reporting and restraint on corruption, while supporters say they help protect national sovereignty and public order. The situation continues to unfold, with ongoing debates about the balance between national security and the freedom of civil society to monitor corruption and advocate for reforms. TI’s representatives emphasize their commitment to continuing anti-corruption work through other channels and international partners, even as the Russian government tightens oversight of foreign and domestic non-profits. For readers following the global anti-corruption landscape, these developments illustrate how international watchdogs navigate legal and political environments that restrict civil society actors. A range of observers note that similar dynamics appear in other jurisdictions where governments seek to curb external influence while maintaining essential public accountability. In this context, the TI incident is cited as a case study in how foreign NGOs operate under varying legal regimes and how such regimes shape the global conversation on transparency and governance.