European Union foreign policy chief Josep Borrell expressed strong concern over Georgia’s decision to advance a domestically crafted law focused on foreign influence. He indicated that the Georgian version of this policy measure runs contrary to the country’s stated aspiration to strengthen ties with the European Union and to align with democratic norms that the bloc expects from candidate and partner states. While commenting on the development, Borrell emphasized that such a law could undermine the trust and openness that underpins Georgia’s European ambitions, potentially complicating the path toward closer EU integration and reform commitments that the Union has repeatedly linked to accession talks and broader regional cooperation.
“On Tuesday, the Georgian Parliament adopted a new law on transparency of foreign influence at the first reading. This is a very bad development for Georgia and its people,” he stated, underscoring the perception that the measure may constrain civil society, media, and other civic actors who monitor and report on external influences. The remark reflected a broader concern that the legislation could chill independent voices and create a climate of uncertainty for organizations that receive support from abroad, including academics, think tanks, and non-governmental groups involved in policy debates, oversight, and advocacy within the country.
In his analysis, the EU representative noted that the proposed framework appears misaligned with the shared values and standards that the bloc uses to gauge progress in governance, rule of law, and transparency. The commentary suggested that the law’s current form could undermine the type of open, pluralistic environment that the EU expects from partners and aspirants in the region. Borrell’s comments pointed to the importance of maintaining high benchmarks for civil liberties, media freedom, and accountability as essential elements of any long-term relationship with the European Union, including progress toward potential future membership or enhanced association arrangements.
Borrell urged the Georgian authorities to respect the rights of citizens to express their views and to engage in peaceful protest. He called on the government to foster space for dialogue and legal clarity while upholding peaceful assembly as a core democratic practice. The appeal reflected a consistent EU stance that legitimate public discourse should be safeguarded, with authorities acting to ensure that demonstrations remain safe, orderly, and lawful rather than confrontational or repressive. Citizens across Georgia and observers from neighboring states have been watching closely how the government handles protests and how the rule of law is applied in practice during moments of political tension.
Earlier reports from Tbilisi indicated pointed tensions between protesters and security forces, with authorities reportedly detaining a number of demonstrators in and around central thoroughfares. Detainees were reported to be held on major streets associated with ongoing demonstrations as crowds gathered in significant numbers to voice their concerns about the legislation. Journalists, rights groups, and ordinary citizens described a scene of crowded sidewalks and tense confrontations as efforts by some to secure the release of detainees continued. The unfolding events underscored fears that the law could become a flashpoint in a broader national debate over Georgia’s future direction and the balance between security measures and civil liberties in times of political strain.
On the evening of March 7, the participants in the Georgian Parliament’s session ratified the law titled “On the transparency of foreign influence,” a measure that quickly became a focal point for street protests. Thousands of Georgians joined demonstrations to express their opposition or concerns about the regulatory approach, the potential implications for civil society, and what the legislation might mean for international partnerships. The scale and intensity of the protests highlighted a polarization around the governing approach to governance, transparency, and external engagement, and they drew international attention to a critical juncture in Georgia’s domestic policy and its relationship with European institutions. The sequence of events prompted a broader discussion among policymakers, scholars, and observers about how Georgia could reconcile domestic political choices with its stated aims of aligning with European norms and standards while maintaining stability and social cohesion.