On April 14, 2025, the government of Hungary, under the leadership of Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and his right-wing Fidesz party, enacted a sweeping constitutional amendment that codifies a series of authoritarian policies targeting LGBTQ+ individuals, dual nationals, and civil society more broadly. Officially recognized as the fifteenth constitutional amendment since 2011, the measure was passed by a parliamentary vote of 140 in favor and 21 against, despite weeks of public protest, organized dissent outside the parliament building, and a disruption within the chamber itself. Championed by the ruling Fidesz-KDNP coalition, which holds a two-thirds parliamentary majority, the amendment represents not an isolated policy shift but a calculated and systemic intensification of illiberal governance in an EU member state. It has elicited sharp condemnation from human rights organizations, legal watchdogs, and opposition politicians, who characterize the development as a fundamental erosion of individual rights and the entrenchment of repressive state power.
One of the amendment’s most controversial clauses asserts that children’s rights to “proper physical, mental and moral development” supersede all other fundamental rights, with the sole exception of the right to life. Although framed as a protective measure, this provision is widely interpreted as the legal linchpin for an outright ban on LGBTQ+ public expression, especially the annual Budapest Pride march. On March 18, 2025, Hungary’s parliament had already passed ordinary legislation banning Pride events and authorizing the use of facial recognition technology to identify and potentially fine participants. Organizers of Pride and other LGBTQ+ gatherings can face up to one year in prison, while individual attendees may be fined between 6,500 and 200,000 forints (€16 to €500). The recent constitutional amendment effectively provides a higher legal shield for these measures by elevating them beyond the reach of ordinary judicial review. Critics argue that this creates a path for broad criminalization of any public event or activity deemed contrary to the state’s interpretation of childhood morality.
The new constitutional text also defines legal gender strictly in binary biological terms, proclaiming that individuals may only be male or female. In doing so, it excludes legal recognition of non-binary and transgender identities and further entrenches existing laws passed in 2020 that prohibit legal gender change. These provisions deny transgender persons the ability to update official documents to match their lived identity, a policy that observers contend violates the European Convention on Human Rights and rulings of the European Court of Human Rights, to which Hungary is still formally bound.
Another provision allows the state to temporarily suspend Hungarian citizenship for dual or multiple nationals deemed to pose a threat to national security or sovereignty, particularly if they are from outside the European Economic Area. While presented as a tool for counter-espionage or counter-terrorism, opponents fear that its vague wording invites arbitrary application, potentially against political dissidents or perceived enemies of the Orbán regime. Many view this measure as potentially aimed at Hungarian-American philanthropist George Soros, a frequent target of conspiratorial rhetoric in Fidesz-sponsored campaigns. The government’s portrayal of Soros has been marked by anti-Semitic undertones, nationalist paranoia, and broad accusations of foreign interference.
Across Hungary, the constitutional vote sparked widespread protests and acts of civil disobedience. Thousands of demonstrators convened in Budapest, temporarily blocking bridges and ignoring police orders to disperse. Opposition lawmakers mounted their own protest within the National Assembly, at times using smoke bombs to express dissent. Outside the parliament building, hundreds of activists, including members of LGBTQ+ advocacy groups and civil society organizations, attempted to block entrances before being confronted by riot police, who detained several protestors. Organizers of the now-prohibited Budapest Pride warned that these developments push Hungary closer to authoritarianism, likening the government’s position to regimes that conflate queerness with criminality. They denounced the amendment’s implication that LGBTQ+ identity is inherently harmful to children, describing this narrative as a grotesque and dehumanizing smear.
Domestic and international observers quickly raised alarms about the scope and impact of the constitutional changes. The Hungarian Helsinki Committee characterized the amendment as part of an expanding arsenal of “legislated fear,” aimed at dismantling dissent while consolidating Fidesz’s dominance. This sentiment was echoed by other human rights groups, including Amnesty International, which criticized the move as a significant escalation in the government’s broader campaign to undermine civil liberties. Critics note that the Hungarian authorities have systematically eroded democratic checks and balances for years, restricting judicial independence, silencing media outlets, and harassing non-governmental organizations and universities. By facilitating the use of facial recognition surveillance against participants in banned assemblies, the constitutional text, in the view of rights advocates, contradicts norms on privacy and freedom of expression.
Opposition forces within Hungary have repeatedly drawn parallels between Orbán’s approach and the policies of Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has made moral conservatism, strict anti-LGBTQ+ measures, and the repression of political opposition key pillars of his rule. Both leaders present themselves as guardians of so-called traditional values, maintaining that they are resisting what they term the decadence of Western liberalism. Hungary’s apparent alignment with Russian geopolitical interests, including its refusal to back EU sanctions on Russian energy and its reluctance to support NATO training programs on Ukrainian territory, further strengthens this comparison.
As these legislative developments unfold, EU foreign ministers meeting in Luxembourg expressed concern, yet no immediate action was announced. Kaja Kallas, the EU’s foreign policy chief, acknowledged the growing authoritarian trends in certain member states but was also preoccupied with responding to an escalating crisis in Ukraine, where Russia’s missile strike on Sumy claimed the lives of at least 34 civilians. She interpreted that event as evidence that Russia has no genuine interest in peace or ceasefire agreements. While the Commission has criticized Hungary’s new measures as potential infringements on European law, meaningful enforcement has proven difficult, and Hungary continues to receive EU funds and retains voting rights within the bloc. Previous infringement proceedings have run into obstacles, and penalties have been both limited and slow-moving.
Protests in Budapest extended well into the evening as broader opposition groups cautioned that Orbán’s power consolidation transcends Hungary’s borders and directly challenges the legal foundations of the European Union. The Hungarian government insists that its policies, aimed at preserving traditional family values and ensuring national security, are essential, while opponents underscore how these measures corrode democratic norms and the rule of law. Observers note that Hungary’s actions underscore ongoing tensions within the EU regarding the balance between national sovereignty and shared principles of liberal democracy.
By recasting the Hungarian constitution to outlaw LGBTQ+ visibility, muzzle dissent, and subject dual nationals to vague threats of citizenship revocation, Orbán’s government has openly challenged the EU’s fundamental values of tolerance, equality, and democratic governance. This is not merely a symbolic maneuver but rather a decisive shift in Hungary’s political identity, lending significant weight to concerns about constitutional democracy’s vulnerability to gradual erosion. The international community, including the European Union, will be watching these developments closely as Hungary navigates its obligations as an EU member. The amendment passed on April 14, reported in detail by Jakub Krupa, marks a defining moment in the country’s transformation into a regime that legislates identity, normalizes surveillance, and codifies majoritarian moralism in its highest legal text.
Gros News 
Leave a comment