Analysis of Georgia’s new laws
The Georgian non-governmental organisation Social Justice Center has carried out a detailed analysis of the proposed amendments to the Grants Law and other pieces of legislation. JAMnews presents a condensed version of the report. The full analysis in Georgian is available on the organisation’s website.
Georgia on the path to authoritarianism: how Georgian Dream is reshaping the rules of political freedom
On 28 January 2026, the ruling party Georgian Dream announced a package of legislative amendments that critics say mark a qualitative shift in Georgia’s political system. The government has justified the changes as necessary to protect sovereignty from foreign influence. In practice, however, they would significantly expand the state’s powers to control citizens’ political expression, the media, civil society and business.
The amendments target the Grants Law, Georgia’s Organic Law on Political Associations of Citizens, as well as the criminal and administrative codes.
The core idea behind the changes is straightforward: almost any activity involving foreign funding that the government deems political could become grounds not only for administrative penalties, but also for criminal liability.
Foreign funding as grounds for persecution
Under the new rules, the definition of a grant would be radically expanded. Money, technical assistance, expertise or services received from a foreign individual or legal entity could be classified as a grant if, in the government’s interpretation, they influence public opinion, state institutions or political processes. In such cases, donors would need prior government approval. Using such resources without consent would trigger criminal liability.
The penalties are severe. Violations could lead to fines, forced labour or prison sentences of up to six years. Charges such as “external lobbying” and “money laundering for political purposes” would carry sentences of between nine and 12 years. The law would also apply in part retroactively, meaning the use of grants received before it comes into force would also require government approval.
Lawyers say the proposals no longer seek to ensure transparency in foreign funding, but instead automatically treat it as suspicious and threatening. In doing so, they argue, the state would criminalise lawful political expression.
Who decides what counts as “politics”?
One of the most contentious aspects of the legislation is its extremely broad definition of “politics”. According to the prime minister, relevant state bodies — and, if necessary, the courts — will determine what falls under this category. In practice, this means that citizens’ statements, research, journalistic articles, training sessions or public campaigns could be retrospectively classified as “political influence”.
Experts warn that in such an environment, people can no longer know in advance what is permitted and what may lead to punishment. This creates what they describe as a “stigmatising effect”, where individuals resort to self-censorship not because they are breaking the law, but because they cannot predict how the authorities will interpret their actions.
Impact on political parties
The changes would also have a profound effect on party politics. Employees of organisations that receive foreign funding would be barred from joining political parties for eight years. The government presents this as a way to shield parties from “external interests”, but critics argue it would effectively block people professionally involved in human rights work, research, election monitoring or journalism from entering politics.
In addition, the law would treat civil society organisations as political actors. If an organisation is deemed to “participate in shaping the political will of citizens”, it could be designated as an entity “pursuing party-political objectives”. This status would ban it from providing assistance, impose limits on donations, and expose it to additional bureaucratic and criminal liability.
Lawyers say this mechanism would allow the state to bring the non-governmental sector under tight control and effectively neutralise it.
A blow to business
The changes would also affect the commercial sector. Any public political activity by a business entity that is not directly related to its core operations would carry a fine of 20,000 lari for a first offence and 40,000 lari for repeat violations. Under the law, “political activity” would include any action aimed at influencing the government or society.
In effect, this provision would deprive businesses of the ability to publicly express positions on social or political issues — whether judicial reform, human rights or the country’s foreign policy.
Following the Russian path
Civil society groups say the package closely mirrors the model developed in Russia and Belarus, where state control initially targeted organisations and later expanded to individuals — journalists, activists and researchers. In those systems, the state regulates not only actions, but also people’s connections, beliefs and professional choices.
As a result, political expression has ceased to function as a natural civic right and has become a risky activity that can at any moment lead to legal prosecution.
When the law becomes a tool of control
The overall logic of the changes gives rise to what critics describe as authoritarian legalism — a system in which the law no longer restrains power, but instead reinforces it through vague definitions and harsh penalties.
In such an environment, they argue, citizens may formally retain their legal status, but lose the freedom to think, associate and act without constantly weighing the risk of criminal prosecution. This, critics say, is no longer about individual laws, but about a transformation of the entire political system.
Analysis of Georgia’s new laws
Analysis of Georgia’s new laws
