'Trump before Trump': Orban's illiberal model on show in Hungary
"No more public scoldings. No more moralising from podiums," the new charge d'affaires Robert Palladino told guests, including several Hungarian ministers, at this month's US Independence Day celebration.
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban wants the European nation to serve as a laboratory of far-right ideas and an inspiration for Trump, whom the nationalist describes as "a great friend", and is hoping for a US presidential visit.
Self-touted as a "Trump before Trump", Orban has transformed the national life of Hungary, an EU member and home to 9.5 million people, during his 15-year rule.
In his drive to build what he has called an "illiberal state", he has been accused of silencing critical voices from the judiciary, academia, media and civil society, and of restricting minority rights. Trump's predecessor Joe Biden once accused him of "looking for dictatorship."
'Open-air museum'
"Hungary is like an open-air museum, whose leader appears to have proved it is possible to bring back the so-called good old days," Zsolt Enyedi, a senior democracy researcher at Vienna-based Central European University, told AFP.
"Illiberal ideas have been institutionalised," he added.
Both Trump and Orban target minorities, including the LGBTQ community.
"Orban realised there was not a strong public resistance to incitation against vulnerable groups... so he leveraged these to campaign," the researcher said.
"Similarly, Trump deports people without going through due process as American conventions would dictate," Enyedi added.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
13 minutes ago
- First Post
Can Trump really prosecute Obama over the 2016 Russia probe?
US President Trump has endorsed calls by intel chief Tulsi Gabbard to prosecute Barack Obama and top officials over allegations they orchestrated a 'treasonous conspiracy' during the 2016 election. With newly declassified documents and escalating rhetoric, Gabbard claims a 'years-long coup' was orchestrated from the top read more Former US President Barack Obama and US President-elect Donald Trump speak ahead of the state funeral services for former President Jimmy Carter at the National Cathedral on January 9, 2025 in Washington, DC, US. File Image/Pool via Reuters Is there a possibility of legal action against former United States President Barack Obama and senior officials from his administration by President Donald Trump? At the centre of this growing controversy is Tulsi Gabbard, a former Democratic representative who now leads the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI). Gabbard has made extraordinary allegations involving the 2016 US election, characterising the actions of Obama-era intelligence officials as part of a coordinated attempt to undermine the legitimacy of Trump's first election win. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Gabbard's statements have gained traction within pro-Trump circles and prompted direct endorsement from the president himself. Gabbard accuses Obama of orchestrating a 'years-long coup' Gabbard has publicly accused Barack Obama and several of his top national security advisers of participating in what she described as a deliberate and illegal effort to discredit Trump after his electoral win in November 2016. According to her, the effort relied on 'manufactured intelligence' and misrepresented analysis, and was aimed at supporting the idea that Russian interference had handed Trump the presidency. Donald Trump, left, looks on as Tulsi Gabbard speaks at the National Guard Association of the United States' 146th General Conference, August 26, 2024, in Detroit, US. File Image/AP In Gabbard's words: 'The information we are releasing today clearly shows there was a treasonous conspiracy in 2016 committed by officials at the highest level of our government. Their goal was to subvert the will of the American people and enact what was essentially a years-long coup with the objective of trying to usurp the President from fulfilling the mandate bestowed upon him by the American people.' 'No matter how powerful, every person involved in this conspiracy must be investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, to ensure nothing like this ever happens again. The American people's faith and trust in our democratic republic and therefore the future of our nation depends on it.' She claimed that the Obama administration's post-election assessment of Russian interference contradicted the intelligence community's consensus in the months before the election, which had allegedly concluded that Russia was unlikely to interfere or influence the outcome. Her office has made available a cache of documents including a partially redacted Obama-era intelligence assessment on cyber threats, and internal memos from senior officials such as then-DNI James Clapper. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Among those named by Gabbard were Clapper, former CIA Director John Brennan, former US Secretary of State John Kerry, former National Security Adviser Susan Rice, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, and Obama himself. Gabbard's team also published commentary alongside these documents, alleging that leaks following a December 9, 2016, meeting of Obama's senior national security team were part of a broader disinformation campaign. The material refers to a memo titled The Russia Hoax, which claimed: 'Deep State officials in the IC [intelligence community] begin leaking blatantly false intelligence to the Washington Post … claiming that Russia used 'cyber means' to influence 'the outcome of the election.'' 'Later that evening, another leak to the Washington Post falsely alleges that the CIA 'concluded in a secret assessment that Russia intervened' in the election to help President Trump.' The same document states that on January 6, 2017, the Obama administration publicly released a declassified intelligence assessment that referenced 'further information' suggesting Russian President Vladimir Putin directed efforts to aid Trump's campaign. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD According to Gabbard, the additional information cited in the assessment turned out to include the Steele dossier, a compilation of unverified claims, some of which were later discredited. How Trump responded Trump has not only endorsed Gabbard's accusations but has taken visible steps to promote the message. Writing on his Truth Social platform, Trump praised a Fox News appearance by Harrison Fields, a Special Assistant in his administration, stating: 'Great job by young and talented Harrison Fields on Fox News. The Panel was fantastic on prosecuting Obama and the 'thugs' who have just been unequivocally exposed on highest level Election Fraud.' 'Congratulations to Tulsi Gabbard. Keep it coming!!!' In a separate post on X, Gabbard wrote: 'For months preceding the 2016 election, the Intelligence Community shared a consensus view: Russia lacked the intent and capability to hack US elections. But weeks after President Trump's historic 2016 victory defeating Hillary Clinton, everything changed.' 🧵 Americans will finally learn the truth about how in 2016, intelligence was politicized and weaponized by the most powerful people in the Obama Administration to lay the groundwork for what was essentially a years-long coup against President @realDonaldTrump, subverting the… — DNI Tulsi Gabbard (@DNIGabbard) July 18, 2025 STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Trump also posted a 45-second AI-generated video depicting Obama being arrested in the Oval Office. The video, which originally circulated on TikTok, was uploaded without commentary to Trump's Truth Social account. It began with real footage of Obama stating, 'especially the President is above the law,' followed by various prominent Democrats, including Joe Biden, repeating the phrase 'no one is above the law.' Donald J. Trump Truth Social 07.20.25 06:47 PM EST — Fan Donald J. Trump Posts From Truth Social (@TrumpDailyPosts) July 20, 2025 STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The scene then shifts to a fabricated depiction of Trump and Obama in the White House, where FBI agents enter and arrest Obama, who later appears in a jail cell wearing an orange jumpsuit. The soundtrack: 'YMCA' by the Village People, a staple at Trump rallies. Where the facts stand Despite the volume of material released by Gabbard and the forcefulness of her claims, multiple previous investigations — both bipartisan and nonpartisan — have offered a more nuanced interpretation of Russia's actions in 2016 and the Obama administration's response. Democratic lawmakers have called Gabbard's report inaccurate and misleading. Representative Jim Himes of Connecticut, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, labelled the allegations 'baseless.' Several reviews, including those by the US intelligence community and the Senate Intelligence Committee, have concluded that while Russian actors attempted to access voter registration data in states like Illinois and Arizona, there was no evidence that vote tallies were altered. Intelligence reports also consistently stated that Russia's primary effort was focused on influence operations — shaping American public opinion through disinformation, fake social media accounts, and leaked Democratic emails, rather than changing the actual results. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD A Republican-led Senate report also endorsed the assessment that Moscow's efforts were aimed at damaging Hillary Clinton and benefiting Donald Trump. Among the Republicans on that committee was Florida Senator Marco Rubio, who now serves as US Secretary of State in the Trump administration. A recent CIA review acknowledged concerns about how quickly the Obama-era assessment had been compiled, reported The New York Times. In its wake, the agency referred John Brennan to the FBI for investigation regarding how he managed the preparation of the intelligence conclusions. However, no charges have been brought. One email cited in Gabbard's documentation indicated that Obama requested a comprehensive assessment of Russian interference methods before leaving office, fearing that an incoming Trump administration might suppress or ignore the intelligence findings. US Senator Mark Warner of Virginia responded to the Gabbard report by stating: 'This is one more example of the director of national intelligence trying to cook the books. We're talking about apples and oranges. The Russians were not successful at manipulating our election infrastructure, nor did we say they were.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Warner also pointed out that recent intelligence assessments under Gabbard's leadership still acknowledge that Russia continues to engage in influence operations targeting the United States. A March intelligence report concluded that: 'Moscow probably believes information operations efforts to influence U.S. elections are advantageous,' and that these activities are part of a long-term strategy to undermine confidence in American democracy. The big question: Can Trump legally prosecute Obama? The question of whether Trump can direct federal prosecutors to pursue criminal cases against Obama or his former officials rests not on legal prohibition, but on political precedent. Since US President Richard Nixon resigned amid the Watergate scandal in 1974, successive administrations have generally refrained from overtly influencing prosecutorial decisions at the Department of Justice (DOJ). However, these boundaries are guided more by custom than law. Within the US system, both the Attorney General and FBI Director are appointed by the President and serve within the executive branch. Trump, in his first term, dismissed FBI Director James Comey in 2017 and again replaced Christopher Wray in his second term, putting Kash Patel at the head of the FBI. Legal experts note that if Trump installs loyalists in key roles — including US attorneys and assistant attorneys general — he could wield substantial influence over federal investigations and prosecutions. Critics warn that this may enable Trump to direct legal action against political rivals, including by reopening unsubstantiated allegations or launching new inquiries into figures like Obama, Biden, or former officials involved in the Russia investigation. While the law does not explicitly bar a sitting president from seeking investigations into a predecessor, doing so would test long-standing institutional norms designed to keep politics separate from law enforcement. Also Watch: With inputs from agencies
Mint
13 minutes ago
- Mint
Trump's Controversial Pick for Malaysia Envoy to Get Anwar's ‘Due Consideration'
Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim said his government will give 'due consideration' to President Donald Trump's pick as ambassador, seeking to balance relations with Washington and domestic ire over some of the potential envoy's political commentary. Anwar has faced pressure to reject the nominee, Nick Adams, an Australian-American commentator and a self-described 'alpha male' Trump supporter. Critics within the Muslim-majority country have labeled him Islamophobic, citing his social media posts supporting Israel, and pointed to his enthusiasm for racy restaurant chain Hooters as out of sync with its cultural norms. 'The government will give it due consideration while maintaining good relations between Malaysia and the United States,' Anwar told reporters Friday, state-run Bernama reported. He added it was too early to comment further. Rejecting Adams risks complicating Malaysia's efforts to negotiate with the Trump administration to lower its threatened 25% levy, scheduled to start Aug. 1. The Southeast Asian nation is also seeking to ease Washington's concerns over suspicions it's been used to divert sensitive technology to China, circumventing US regulations. Adams has sought to assuage concerns, addressing Malaysians in an X post last week, saying 'I can't wait to experience your noble culture and learn much from you.' His appointment still needs to be confirmed by the US Senate, where Trump's Republican party holds a slim majority. He could face a rocky hearing there, where the president's pick to serve as ambassador to neighboring Singapore struggled to answer questions about the city-state and its ties to Washington. Malaysian government spokesperson Fahmi Fadzil has said that the country has the right to reject the ambassador, but that it hasn't received an official notice regarding the nomination, according to Bernama. 'Malaysia deserves better,' Kasthuri Patto, a Malaysian lawmaker in the ruling Democratic Action Party, allied with Anwar, said in a statement Wednesday, accusing Adams of 'sexism, misogyny and religious bigotry.' This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
13 minutes ago
- First Post
As China exit ban shakes Western firms, an opportunity for India
Recent events have deepened the concerns of multinational firms operating in China. The practice of issuing exit bans, particularly for those with family ties in China or involved in commercial disputes, has been used as a tool by Chinese authorities for years. However, the latest incidents have elevated the risks to a new level particularly for foreign nationals travelling on business. Reports said two US citizens including a federal employee and a senior executive at Wells Fargo have been barred from leaving China. These cases are not isolated. Dozens of American citizens, many of them ethnic Chinese, are under similar exit bans in China, often with little transparency or legal recourse. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD John Kamm of the Dui Hua Foundation told The Washington Post that the number of such bans may be as high as 50, with new cases emerging monthly, typically tied to commercial or civil disputes. The Wells Fargo Incident: A turning point The case of Chenyue Mao, a managing director at Wells Fargo specialising in international factoring, has become emblematic of the growing tension. Mao, a US citizen born in Shanghai, entered China recently on a business trip and discovered upon attempting to leave that she was subject to an exit ban. Wells Fargo promptly suspended all employee travel to China and confirmed it was actively working through appropriate channels to secure Mao's return to the US, reports said. Mao's extensive professional history in global trade finance, including leadership roles in international financial organisations, highlights the potential diplomatic fallout. Her travel restriction, imposed without clear explanation, raises serious concerns about the predictability and safety of conducting business in China. Corporate fallout and diplomatic repercussions Multinational corporations, especially those with staff deployed in mainland China, are now reevaluating risk exposure. Some companies have already issued internal directives discouraging solo travel or advising employees to avoid China altogether, Reuters reported. The broader implication, however, is that firms are beginning to question whether operating in China is worth the geopolitical and personal risk. US government agencies have responded cautiously but firmly. The State Department reiterated its advisory urging Americans to reconsider travel to China due to arbitrary enforcement of local laws, including exit bans. Furthermore, senior diplomats have raised these cases directly with Chinese officials, with pressure mounting at high levels to ensure the affected individuals are allowed to return home. Mixed signals from Beijing China has long courted foreign investment, emphasising its openness to global business. Spokespersons from the Chinese Embassy in Washington have reiterated that China 'guarantees the safety and legitimate rights' of foreign citizens within its borders, provided they respect local laws. But China's growing use of exit bans, lack of judicial transparency and disregard for dual nationality protections run contrary to these assurances. A wake-up call for Western corporations The events surrounding Mao's detainment have triggered a reckoning among global business leaders. Veteran bankers and corporate executives who previously experienced China's regulatory environment with relative confidence now face a stark reality that no foreign passport offers guaranteed protection. For ethnic Chinese professionals, the risk is compounded by Beijing's refusal to acknowledge dual citizenship. In the words of a former US official, naturalised citizens are particularly vulnerable. The Chinese government views them as Chinese nationals first, giving the state leverage through family connections still in the country. Cases like that of a US government employee reportedly held in China for visa-related issues reinforce these concerns, especially as the person involved was travelling for personal reasons and not on official business. Eroding business confidence The chilling effect on global business sentiment is growing. The use of exit bans, especially against senior executives, threatens not only individual liberties but also the operational flexibility of multinational firms. As reported by The Economic Times, Mao's case has generated considerable alarm, especially in sectors reliant on frequent cross-border engagement such as finance, tech and manufacturing. China's ambition to remain a global business hub now faces a self-imposed challenge. Detaining business travellers, whether as part of internal investigations or diplomatic leverage, sends a contradictory message. While the country's leadership continues to court global investors, its practices increasingly alienate the very professionals it seeks to attract. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD India: A stable and strategic alternative Amid this growing disquiet, attention is turning toward India as a more secure and strategically viable destination for Western companies. The appeal is rooted not just in India's demographic advantages or its burgeoning middle class, but in its political and legal transparency, favourable investment climate and robust institutional framework. Over the past few years, India has actively positioned itself as an alternative manufacturing and technology hub through initiatives such as Make in India and production-linked incentive (PLI) schemes. Western multinationals have already begun shifting parts of their supply chains to India, often citing regulatory stability and democratic governance as key factors. The timing could not be more opportune. While China's opaque legal environment deters inbound travel and long-term planning, India offers relative predictability. The recent instability in US-China relations only sharpens this contrast. Business leaders are increasingly factoring in not just cost efficiency but also geopolitical resilience when selecting regional bases. Building trust through rule of law Unlike China, India maintains an independent judiciary and relatively open media ecosystem, both of which contribute to a safer environment for foreign investors and professionals. Arbitrary detentions, opaque travel restrictions and politically motivated legal actions, which are key concerns in China, are far less common in India. This legal clarity provides assurance to international firms that their rights and those of their employees will be upheld. Furthermore, India's diplomatic relations with Western nations have been steadily improving. Strategic partnerships with the US, EU, Japan and Australia bolster its credibility as a long-term business ally. These alliances also create a security buffer that helps insulate foreign investors from the volatility seen in other emerging markets. In practical terms, firms looking to de-risk their Asia strategies are already exploring options to relocate regional offices or data centres from China to India. The software and electronics industries are leading the charge, but the trend is expanding into pharmaceuticals, textiles and financial services. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Companies previously hesitant to exit China entirely are now taking a 'China-plus-one' approach retaining minimal presence in China while building up operations elsewhere. India, with its skilled workforce, improving infrastructure and investor-friendly reforms is increasingly emerging as that 'plus-one.' Several multinationals are quietly moving critical roles out of China. Apple, for instance, has increased its iPhone production capacity in India. Likewise, Google and Microsoft have expanded their development centres across Bengaluru and Hyderabad. These aren't merely tactical decisions. They reflect a growing strategic consensus that long-term exposure to China carries reputational and operational risks that are no longer acceptable. The Wells Fargo episode, for all its uniqueness, has only intensified these conversations. Corporations now see India not just as a promising growth market, but as a secure geopolitical partner. A shift in the balance of power The detainment of American nationals in China, particularly high-ranking business professionals, has introduced a new layer of risk into an already complex geopolitical arena. While Beijing attempts to walk a fine line between regulatory control and economic openness, it risks alienating the very investors and professionals critical to its growth ambitions. In contrast, India offers a path forward for Western firms looking for stability, transparency and a reliable rule of law. As corporate leaders reexamine where and how they operate in Asia, the choice between risk and resilience is becoming clearer. And for many, India is emerging not just as an alternative, but as the new centre of gravity in the region's economic future. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
