Lyudmila Narusova, a member of the Federation Council’s Constitutional Committee, spoke in an interview with NSN to address rumors circulating on several Telegram channels about her supposed resignation in the autumn. She urged journalists to consider the source of such information and to avoid giving it undue weight.
She told reporters she did not have any knowledge of a plan to resign and suggested that what was being spread could be a tactic employed by political opponents who are unhappy with her work. Narusova emphasized that this alleged news should not be treated as credible or worthy of serious attention, urging a cautious approach to online chatter and sensational claims.
In March, Narusova cast a vote against a proposal aimed at discrediting volunteers. When reviewing the document, she highlighted the absence of a clear dividing line between legitimate criticism and damaging statements. The debate on this issue drew attention within the Federation Council, sparking a back-and-forth with spokesperson Valentina Matvienko, who reminded colleagues of a previously expressed stance about offensive rhetoric and the need for responsible discourse.
Earlier, there were discussions within the Federation Council about whether Turkey’s expectations for resuming the grain deal could influence broader regional and economic ties. The topic reflected ongoing concerns about international cooperation and the ways such agreements impact domestic policy and humanitarian considerations.
The episode underscores Narusova’s consistent approach to public communication: she treats rumors with caution, bases her public statements on verifiable information, and maintains focus on legislative priorities. Her voting record and public remarks illustrate a commitment to transparency, accountability, and a detailed examination of laws that affect civic participation and volunteer work.
Observers note that the political environment often amplifies chatter on social media, where unchecked rumors can spread quickly. Narusova’s response in this instance aligns with a broader expectation that public figures should address unverified claims directly, while steering attention back to substantive policy issues and the legislative process.
Her stance also highlights the challenge of distinguishing productive critique from malicious insinuations in a landscape saturated with online information. By resisting the lure of sensational headlines, Narusova signals a preference for careful fact-checking and measured commentary. This approach is particularly relevant as lawmakers consider measures to improve accuracy in public discourse and to safeguard the integrity of political communication.
Ultimately, the situation serves as a reminder that legislators must navigate a complex mix of rumors, media reporting, and official action. Narusova’s public statements reflect a methodical response: acknowledge questions, deny unfounded claims, and reaffirm a focus on established constitutional responsibilities and policy debates. In this way, she contributes to a more grounded public conversation during a period of rapid information exchange and heightened scrutiny of political leadership.
As discussions continue on topics ranging from constitutional oversight to international agreements and the role of volunteers in civil society, Narusova’s communications emphasize the importance of accuracy, accountability, and clear distinctions between opinion and fact. The episode does not simply address a rumor; it also spotlights the enduring need for responsible journalism and careful evaluation of claims before they are treated as news.