Georgia: New Laws Devastate Independent Civic Groups

Click to expand Image

Protesters gather outside the Georgian parliament in Tbilisi, Georgia, on May 26, 2026. © 2026 Sebastien Canaud/NurPhoto via AP Photo

Georgian authorities are using repressive laws, funding restrictions, and politically motivated criminal investigations to dismantle independent civil society. New laws place virtually all foreign funding under strict government control, impose stigmatizing “foreign agent” labels, and threaten activists and independent groups with severe fines and prison sentences.The government should repeal these unjustifiable legal measures and allow independent groups to operate free from undue interference. Georgia’s international partners should step up their response by increasing the costs of repression, including through sanctions, and urgently expanding support for independent groups. (Berlin, July 9, 2026),  Georgian authorities’ use of increasingly repressive laws and politically motivated criminal investigations is decimating independent civil society and silencing critical voices, Human Rights Watch said today.

Since 2024, Georgia’s ruling party has adopted laws that impose stigmatizing registration requirements, invasive state oversight, funding restrictions, and criminal penalties on nongovernmental organizations, individuals, and media outlets receiving foreign funding. The authorities have also launched investigations into activists and rights defenders for providing information to international organizations and foreign media and frozen the bank accounts of prominent civic groups under a dubious criminal investigation following protests in 2024.

“The Georgian government’s goal has been to suppress critical voices and dismantle the country’s vibrant independent civil society, and it is making frightening progress,” said Hugh Williamson, Europe and Central Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “The authorities are creating a system in which independent groups cannot operate safely, sustain funding, or support the communities that need and have relied on them.”

Human Rights Watch interviewed 15 Georgian activists, lawyers, and leaders of nongovernmental groups, who described how the deeply hostile environment has created a severe chilling effect leading, among other things, to self-censorship, staff departures, financial collapse, and a growing reluctance among some communities to seek assistance from such groups. Human Rights Watch also analyzed new laws and related legal documents and wrote to officials requesting information about their implementation. We received partial information from the State Audit Office and several data points from the Government of Georgia.

The Transparency of Foreign Influence Law, adopted in 2024, requires nongovernmental groups and media receiving more than 20 percent of their funding from abroad to register as organizations “serving the interests of a foreign power.” It grants sweeping powers to the Justice Ministry to demand extensive information, including sensitive data about an organization’s employees, its beneficiaries, and others.

In April 2025, parliament adopted a separate Foreign Agents Registration Act, which could cover virtually any organization cooperating with international donors or sharing even the most routine information with foreign partners. Its vague and overly broad definitions give the authorities wide discretion to apply the law arbitrarily against independent groups and individuals. Those deemed foreign agents must register, submit detailed reports on their activities, finances, and beneficiaries, and mark all their materials with the “foreign agent” label. The law imposes criminal liability for even minor violations of its requirements, with penalties of up to five years in prison.

Amendments to the Law on Grants place foreign funding under direct government control, require foreign donors to obtain prior government approval before issuing grants, and make it a criminal offense to receive foreign funding without authorization. Penalties include up to six years in prison. A government decree requires foreign grants to align with government policies, effectively excluding projects that do not conform to government-defined priorities or challenge government plans in any way. These requirements apply retroactively and cover consultancy contracts with foreign entities involving activities that could influence Georgia’s domestic or foreign policy, as well as organizations registered abroad whose work substantially relates to Georgia.

Human Rights Watch is aware of several cases in which authorities rejected proposed foreign grants, including a UK Embassy-funded project to support four Georgian organizations monitoring the 2025 municipal elections and a donor request to fund an LGBT rights organization’s healthcare and harm reduction services for marginalized communities.

The authorities have also used criminal investigations to target independent groups. In March 2025, they opened a sweeping criminal investigation alleging that protests that began in late 2024 against the foreign influence law involved efforts to “sabotage” the state. The investigation also concerns alleged assistance to foreign actors engaged in “hostile activities,” including spreading “false information” about Georgia to trigger sanctions and “weaken the country’s international standing.”

As part of the investigation, in 2025 authorities froze the bank accounts of 12 independent groups, paralyzing their work. One prominent group said that, among the repressive measures adopted since 2024, “the asset freezing was the most severe for us.” The group had secured sufficient funding to operate until the end of 2026 but could not access those funds.

A late-2025 unpublished study by the Social Justice Center, based on interviews with 100 civil society representatives, found that 96 percent of surveyed organizations reported acute financial difficulties, and 94 percent had reduced their activities, with many scaling back to core functions or ceasing operations altogether.

The new restrictions forced the Georgian Young Lawyers’ Association (GYLA), one of the country’s leading legal defense organizations, to suspend free legal aid. Regional organizations have been especially hard hit. Of 114 community organizations active in 2024, only 37 remained operational in 2025, with many nearing closure.

The new laws have also raised serious privacy concerns. A disability rights activist said his group considered registering under the foreign influence law but stopped after seeing that the Justice Ministry required personal and medical data concerning beneficiaries. “We had no legal right to disclose such information,” the representative said.

Organizations also reported growing self-censorship, especially among groups working on the rights of LGBT people. The director of the queer feminist media platform Grlz Wave said the organization had “shift[ed] to a regime of self-censorship,” particularly on queer issues.

The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) and the Council of Europe have concluded that the laws impose unjustified restrictions on fundamental freedoms, are incompatible with human rights standards, and risk stigmatizing and harassing civil society organizations.

Georgia’s international partners should further increase the costs to the Georgian authorities of continuing these repressive measures. Any diplomatic engagement with the government should make the full repeal of repressive laws a central criterion for progress. The EU and its member states should also advance accountability for serious human rights violations by reaching the unanimity required to impose EU-level targeted sanctions, including against officials responsible for proposing and implementing repressive laws. Georgia’s international partners should also urgently expand flexible, emergency, and long-term support to independent civil society and human rights groups, including those operating under restrictive conditions or from exile, Human Rights Watch said.

“The Georgian authorities should stop treating independent civic work as a threat,” Williamson said. “They should repeal these repressive laws, end politically motivated investigations against independent groups, unfreeze organizations’ assets, and restore conditions necessary for civil society to operate freely and safely.”

For additional details, please see below.

Restrictive Legislation 

Transparency of Foreign Influence Law

The ruling party first introduced the draft Law on Transparency of Foreign Influence in parliament in March 2023 but withdrew it following widespread protests and international criticism. The government reintroduced and adopted the law in spring 2024.

The law defines a “foreign power” to include foreign governments, foreign citizens, and any organization not established under Georgian law. It requires nongovernmental organizations and media outlets receiving more than 20 percent of their annual income from a “foreign power” to register as “serving the interests of a foreign power” and to submit detailed annual reports about their income, expenditures, and funding sources. The law designates independent groups as acting in foreign interests solely due to foreign funding.

Organizations that fail to register or file the annual financial declaration face annual fines of GEL 25,000 (approximately US$9,330), with additional fines for failing to provide requested information in full. The Justice Ministry may demand access to an organization’s records, including sensitive personal data. It may also unilaterally register organizations as serving the interests of a foreign power.

According to Georgia’s National Statistics Office, as of January 1, 2026, 3,987 noncommercial organizations were active in Georgia, of which 385 had registered as “serving the interests of a foreign power.” According to a report by an expert appointed by the OSCE, as of February 20, 2026, the authorities had not fined any organizations refusing to register.

Representatives of independent civil society organizations who spoke with Human Rights Watch said they refused to register because they considered the label unfair, degrading, and stigmatizing. One representative of an organization that ultimately registered described the decision as “emotionally devastating.”

The Venice Commission, the Council of Europe’s advisory body on constitutional and legal matters, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, and the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights concluded that the law imposes unjustified restrictions on fundamental freedoms, is incompatible with human rights standards, and risks stigmatizing and harassing civil society organizations. The Venice Commission also found that the restrictions on the rights to freedom of expression, association, and privacy fail to satisfy “the requirements of legality, legitimacy, necessity in a democratic society and proportionality....”

Foreign Agents Registration Act

In April 2025, Georgia’s parliament adopted the Foreign Agents Registration Act. The bill’s explanatory note stated that the earlier foreign influence law had failed because most groups with foreign funding refused to register, implying that stronger sanctions were therefore needed. Both laws remain in force. The foreign agents law imposes broader restrictions and significantly harsher sanctions. An individual or legal entity can be designated as a “foreign principal’s agent” if they act under the direction, request, control, or financing of a foreign principal, and engage in activities deemed to advance that principal’s interests in Georgia.

The law defines such activities broadly enough to include efforts to influence government institutions or public opinion on domestic or foreign policy, as well as sharing information with international partners about developments in Georgia related to democracy, human rights, or the rule of law.

Individuals or organizations meeting these criteria must register as foreign agents and submit detailed reports about their activities, finances, and beneficiaries, with updates every six months or more frequently if requested. They are also required to label all informational materials as produced by a foreign agent.

The law granted sweeping powers to the Anti-Corruption Bureau to investigate organizations and individuals and demand extensive information concerning compliance with the law, regardless of whether they have been designated as “foreign agents.” Noncompliance can result in court orders to cease activities and criminal penalties, including imprisonment for up to five years. It authorized the bureau to unilaterally register individuals and organizations as foreign agents.

The Anti-Corruption Bureau was also tasked with implementing the Law on Grants. On March 2, 2026, the authorities transferred both mandates to the State Audit Office.

Georgia’s civil society groups and international partners widely condemned the law. The Venice Commission and the OSCE expert report noted that the legislation relies on vague and overly broad definitions, stigmatizes civil society, and poses serious risks to democratic freedoms, civic space, and the rule of law, and called for its repeal.

Amendments to the Law on Grants

Amendments adopted in April 2025 required foreign donors to obtain government approval before awarding grants, and penalized organizations that accept a foreign grant without authorization with fines equivalent to double the amount received. A subsequent government decree made approval conditional on foreign grants aligning with “the government’s program, key strategic documents, and the state’s interests.”

Further amendments adopted in June 2025 expanded the definition of a “grant” to include various forms of technical and expert assistance.

The law authorized the Anti-Corruption Bureau to demand financial, project-related, and personal information from civil society organizations, third parties, and public institutions, and to compel individuals to appear for questioning before a magistrate judge. Organizations receiving foreign grants without government approval could face fines and asset freezes.

Further amendments adopted in March 2026 sharply tightened these restrictions and introduced criminal penalties, including imprisonment for up to six years. They also expanded the definition of foreign donors to include foreign individuals and barred employees of organizations deemed to “pursue the interests of foreign powers” from membership in political parties for eight years. Notably, the amendments apply retroactively.

Human Rights Watch is aware of several instances in which the authorities did not approve foreign grants. One involved a project funded by the Embassy of the United Kingdom in Georgia to support four Georgian groups to monitor the 2025 municipal elections. In June 2025, the parliamentary chair, Shalva Papuashvili, publicly criticized the project, claiming the embassy was “funding extremism, hatred, and propaganda in Georgia.”

The government also denied approval for a grant supporting an LGBT rights organization’s healthcare and harm reduction project for marginalized communities. The group’s director told Human Rights Watch that the authorities provided no explanation for the rejection.

Current regulations do not require the authorities to provide detailed reasons for refusing to approve grants, increasing the risk that they will use the approval mechanism selectively against organizations and projects they consider undesirable.

Georgia’s prime minister informed the OSCE expert that the government approves grants that have no “political content.” In a June 22, 2026 letter to Human Rights Watch, the Georgian government reported that, between April 2025 and June 2026, it had received 222 grant applications with a combined value of approximately GEL 109 million. Of these, 177 applications, worth more than GEL 60 million, had been approved; 10 had been rejected; and 35, worth more than GEL 44.2 million, remained under review.

The government did not respond to Human Rights Watch’s questions about the types of projects approved or rejected, or the grounds for individual rejections. It said applications were assessed individually for their alignment with national interests, the government’s main strategic documents, the proposed use of funds, and expected results. However, it did not explain in greater detail how these broad criteria are applied in practice.

Enforcement of the Anti-NGO Laws

In June 2025, eight prominent civil society organizations received almost identical court orders granting the Anti-Corruption Bureau’s motions and requiring the organizations to submit to the Bureau extensive legal, financial, technical, and personal information. The bureau’s head stated that these inspections sought to assess the “purpose” of these groups’ activities, alleging that “wealthy NGOs, hiding behind good deeds, avoid transparency and engage in undeclared political activity.”

Later that summer, at least seven organizations received letters from the Anti-Corruption Bureau demanding an explanation for not registering as foreign agents and warning them they risked incurring criminal liability. Representatives of five of these organizations said they responded with detailed legal arguments explaining why the law did not apply to their activities. They received no response.

From September 2025 onward, the Anti-Corruption Bureau initiated monitoring and issued information requests to approximately 100 organizations under the grants law. The bureau demanded extensive information covering an 18-month period in 2024 and 2025, including personal data about beneficiaries and third parties. Dozens of organizations unsuccessfully challenged the requests in court.

As of December 2025, the “foreign agents” registry listed 12 “foreign principals,” and 12 “foreign agents.” Civil society representatives interviewed by Human Rights Watch said they had refused to register because they considered the label degrading and rejected the premise that they operated under the control of foreign donors. They emphasized that their organizations acted independently and set their own priorities, strategies, and principles.

After responsibility for enforcing the grants law was transferred from the Anti-Corruption Bureau to the State Audit Office, the latter opened monitoring proceedings against one organization. The State Audit Office informed Human Rights Watch that the proceedings remained pending as of June 1.

Instrumentalization of Criminal Justice against Civil Society

Investigation into Alleged Sabotage

Georgian authorities have also used a wide-ranging criminal investigation alleging that protests involved sabotage against the state, as a pretext to target prominent civil society organizations, freeze their bank accounts, and paralyze their operations.

The investigation, opened in February 2025, concerns the ongoing demonstrations that began in 2024 against the foreign influence law. The authorities alleged that protesters damaged police infrastructure, injured law enforcement officers, and disrupted parliament, and characterized these acts as sabotage.

The investigation also concerns alleged assistance to foreign actors engaged in supposedly “hostile activities,” including deliberately spreading false information about Georgia to trigger foreign sanctions and damage the country’s international standing. No civil society organization or its representative has been charged in connection with the investigation.

In March 2025, as part of this investigation, the authorities froze the bank accounts of five independent groups: Human Rights House Tbilisi, Shame Movement, Nanuka’s Fund, Prosperity Georgia, and Fund for Each. The authorities alleged that legal and financial assistance these groups provided to protesters, including, in some cases, paying protest-related fines, constituted unlawful activity.

The groups began providing this assistance after the authorities sharply increased penalties for assembly-related offenses and began arbitrarily imposing harsher sanctions on demonstrators. The then-leader of the parliamentary majority publicly claimed that paying protesters’ fines amounted to “encouraging and facilitating violence” and undermining the state.

In August 2025, authorities froze the accounts of seven more organizations: International Society of Fair Elections and Democracy, Institute for Development of Freedom of Information, Georgian Democracy Initiative, Union Sapari, Social Justice Center, Civil Society Foundation, and Democracy Defenders. Officials claimed the groups had used project funds to support demonstrators who committed “violent acts” against police.

A representative of one of the affected organizations said that a judge justified freezing funds on the grounds that the group had purchased “30 gas masks and protective goggles, as well as several flags.” The representative said the items were intended to protect staff members who were monitoring or peacefully attending protests.

The authorities also initiated legal action against individuals for sharing information concerning alleged human rights violations with foreign media outlets and international organizations.

Additional Investigation into ‘Hostile Activities’

In December 2025, the State Security Service started an investigation related to BBC reporting that the police used toxic agents during demonstrations. On suspicion of facilitating the hostile activities of a foreign power, the authorities summoned for questioning human rights defenders and others featured in the report who had described the alleged incidents.

In April 2026, the State Security Service questioned Ucha Nanuashvili, Georgia’s former public defender and current head of Democracy Research Center, a civil society organization, solely for providing information about Georgia’s human rights situation to the OSCE expert. Nanuashvili said that the questioning primarily focused on his human rights work. Law enforcement authorities also required him to sign a non-disclosure agreement preventing him from publicly discussing details of the interrogation.

Risk of False Money Laundering Charges

Another criminal investigation, opened in 2024, illustrates how authorities could use financial crime allegations to target independent groups and researchers critical of the government. In October 2024, police raided the homes of Sopo Gelava and Eto Buziashvili, researchers with the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab.

The researchers’ work included analysis of Russia’s online influence operations targeting Georgia and other countries. The searches were part of an investigation into alleged fraud, money laundering, and tax evasion. During the raids, officers seized computers and other electronic devices, and a court froze the researchers’ bank accounts. Both women subsequently relocated abroad.

In January 2026, Georgia’s parliament amended the criminal code’s money laundering provision to introduce an aggravating circumstance for laundering funds connected to political activity, punishable by 9 to 12 years in prison. Since the authorities can treat foreign funding received without government approval as illicit income, organizations attempting to circumvent restrictions imposed by the grants law risk prosecution for money laundering.

Excluding and Discrediting Civic Groups

Legislative amendments adopted in April 2025 excluded civil society organizations from policy-making and other public processes in which they had long participated. The amendments abolished certain governmental mechanisms requiring consultation with nongovernmental organizations. The bill’s explanatory note claimed civic groups’ involvement “in public decision-making hinders the effective functioning of the state.”

Some organizations reported that efforts to discredit and marginalize independent groups intensified in 2023, after they publicly opposed the government’s initial attempts to introduce the foreign influence law. Government agencies reduced or abandoned cooperation with nongovernmental organizations on activities previously carried out jointly. Regional organizations said that local authorities discouraged community members from attending trainings and meetings organized by independent groups, and that defamatory narratives about their staff increasingly circulated locally.

Organizations working nationwide, particularly on elections, judicial reform, corruption, and other politically sensitive issues, said hostile rhetoric against civil society has gradually become normalized. Government officials and pro-government media frequently portray nongovernmental organizations as politically biased and controlled by foreign interests.

Although such rhetoric had existed for years, it intensified significantly in spring 2024, with coordinated smear campaigns on social media and public spaces, including posters labeling civil society leaders “foreign agents” and “enemies of the church.” Several organizations also reported vandalism targeting their offices, and attacks on the homes and vehicles of civil society leaders. Law enforcement responses were largely ineffective.

Pro-government media portrayed these incidents as spontaneous expressions of public anger toward civic groups. A ruling party member publicly described the vandalism as a “response” to the organizations’ activities and published footage showing the vandalism of several offices.

The authorities have also used homophobic rhetoric to delegitimize independent organizations by portraying them as promoters of “LGBT propaganda” and opponents of traditional values. The September 2024 law banning so-called LGBT propaganda further marginalized LGBT rights issues from public discourse and restricted access to essential healthcare services for transgender people.

Impact on Civil Society Organizations

The new laws and other measures have made it practically impossible for independent groups to operate sustainably, secure funding, and assist beneficiaries with the assurance that their personal data will not be disclosed.

Funding Restrictions

According to the GYLA, of the 136 organizations that jointly lodged an application with the European Court of Human Rights concerning the foreign influence law, only 3 registered under the law. Most either suspended their activities altogether or significantly scaled them down. Of these, 109 reported difficulty securing funding or an inability to do so; 97 said they had reduced staff or that all staff had left; and 62 said they had been targeted by propaganda and disinformation campaigns. An unpublished study by the Social Justice Center documented similarly severe effects.

The restrictions also affected donor decisions. According to the OSCE expert’s report, after the adoption of the grants law, numerous donors halted direct financial support for Georgian groups, reducing both the scope and capacity of their work.

Organizations interviewed by Human Rights Watch described the concrete impact of these restrictions. To avoid drawing unwanted government attention, Knowledge Café, which runs a multifunctional community space and promotes civic awareness, said they felt compelled to refuse donor funding for cultural diversity activities, and also rejected equipment from a foreign donor for workshops on computer programming and robotics.

After the 2026 amendments to the grants law, GYLA had to suspend free legal aid, as it was forced to significantly reduce staff and redirect its remaining resources to strategic litigation.

The reduction of certain work by larger organizations significantly affects smaller community-based groups. Aslan Chanidze, head of the House of Free Journalists in Adjara, said that closing GYLA’s Batumi office left smaller groups more exposed, especially without the organization’s consistent legal support. Disability rights organizations expressed similar concerns. A disability rights activist, Koba Nadiradze, said that, even if community groups manage to survive, their effectiveness will be severely limited without strong legal and human rights expertise.

Financial pressures have been especially acute for regional organizations, which often have a narrower focus and depend heavily on specific donors or cooperation with local authorities. The Centre for Strategic Research and Development of Georgia, a nongovernmental organization, found that of 114 community organizations active in 2024, only 37 remained operational in 2025, with many nearing closure.

Organizations have also had to spend dwindling resources for legal and other services to cope with the new laws. The director of an organization that made what they described as “probably [our] … most difficult and nightmarish decision” to register under the foreign influence law, said they paid a law firm US$400 per month for compliance assistance.

The Grlz Wave director said the organization paid a lawyer $2,000 to respond to the Anti-Corruption Bureau’s demand for information, even as it declined new funding and returned money to several donors to avoid falling within the scope of the foreign agents law.

Privacy Concerns

The new laws’ disclosure obligations have raised serious privacy concerns among organizations, staff, and beneficiaries. The OSCE expert’s report said that “a significant number” of employees and collaborators resigned from organizations that could fall under the new laws because of the risk that their private information might be disclosed.

Several people described their concerns about government access to sensitive personal data. One disability rights activist said his organization decided not to register under the foreign influence law because the Justice Ministry required personal and medical data concerning beneficiaries. “We had no legal right to disclose such information,” the activist said.

Another disability rights activist said that organizations can no longer “guarantee potential beneficiaries that their medical or other personal data will not become a matter of governmental interest,” causing some people to avoid seeking support.

Self-Censorship and Silencing

Organizations reported increasing self-censorship and fear of criminal prosecution against their leaders and staff. Groups working on LGBT rights described the pressure as especially acute.

The Grlz Wave director said, “We had to shift to a regime of self-censorship,” particularly on queer issues. “It is now extremely difficult to find respondents willing to appear in videos on LGBT topics. Even openly out individuals refuse visibility.”

Organizations have also curtailed broader programmatic work. The director of a group providing social and healthcare services to vulnerable communities said that “self-censorship was one of the most severe effects.” The organization suspended all cooperation with the government and halted its advocacy work, including a planned 2025 public awareness campaign on sex education, because of the risk that authorities could invoke the “LGBT propaganda” law or the foreign agents law.

Chilling Effect and Exclusion

Several group leaders noted that the government’s hostile rhetoric and restrictive laws have chilled public engagement with civil society organizations and reduced access to services.

Iza Bekauri, executive director of the Kakheti Regional Development Foundation, said that after the organization publicly criticized the “foreign agents” law, the municipality refused to renew its lease for state-owned premises housing the group’s educational centers. In February 2026, the organization was forced to vacate the premises, effectively halting programs that had served about 1,000 people annually, including vocational education for women and refugees, support for writing grant applications, and providing social and economic support to women.

Bekauri also said beneficiaries had become increasingly reluctant to engage with the organization, and that teachers feared their participation in training programs would become publicly known.

The director of Knowledge Café said teachers who had previously participated actively in the organization’s programs now avoided them, while fake social media accounts urged parents not to send their children to its programs, describing the space as “demonic.”

Other organizations described the collapse or hollowing out of long-standing cooperation with state agencies. “In previous years we were actively involved in expert revision of school textbooks and cooperated with the Health Ministry in combating various diseases,” one respondent said. “Today these forms of cooperation are practically abolished.”

Pressure on/from Family Members

The repressive legislation affected not only civil society activists personally, but also their families. A majority of those interviewed said that during the 2024 smear campaigns, their relatives, including parents and young children, received threatening calls from unknown people. The callers urged family members to ensure that their politically active relatives stopped participating in protests or criticizing the government, ostensibly for their own safety.

A representative of Grlz Wave said that even in the absence of direct threats from third parties, pressure from concerned family members had become a significant source of stress. “Parents constantly fear that we will encounter problems and urge us to stop and to protect ourselves,” she said. “Often, more than the risks directed at me personally, I fear how my loved ones will experience these events.”