With Hungary’s parliamentary elections approaching, the political atmosphere is becoming increasingly intense. Campaign spirits are high, political rhetoric is sharpening, and accusations are flying in all directions. Among the most recurrent themes in the debate is the question of foreign interference. Government supporters warn that external actors—from Brussels to Kyiv—are attempting to influence Hungary’s political future, while critics of Viktor Orbán claim that international conservative networks are mobilizing to support the Hungarian government.
Such cross-accusations are hardly surprising in a political environment as polarized as today’s Europe. Yet they also raise a deeper question about the nature of politics in the 21st century: In a world defined by global communication and transnational ideological networks, can elections in any country truly be insulated from international political currents?
Recent developments illustrate the complexity of the issue. On the one hand, reports have emerged highlighting how figures within the European Union’s political establishment have commented openly on Hungary’s upcoming elections, with some expressing hopes for political change in Budapest. Statements of this kind—coming from actors embedded in EU institutions and the EU itself—inevitably raise questions about the extent to which European political structures may be attempting to shape Hungary’s domestic debate. Recent similar experiences come to mind, for instance, in the last Romanian elections.
On the other hand, just within the last few days, Hungary has hosted multiple events that reflect the growing international dimension of contemporary conservative politics. Just to mention a few of those, last weekend’s CPAC Hungary 2026 brought together conservative politicians, intellectuals, journalists and activists from across Europe, the United States and beyond—eg, Argentina’s President Javier Milei. I was one of many who attended and witnessed the ever-growing and increasingly stronger international conservative network. Only days later, the Patriots for Europe Summit convened in Budapest, gathering leaders of several sovereigntist parties across the EU seeking to strengthen their cooperation within the European political landscape and to show support for Orbán in the upcoming elections.
For critics of the Orbán government, gatherings of this kind are often portrayed as evidence of foreign influence on Hungary’s political life. The presence of international allies, the circulation of political ideas through global networks, or the support of foreign media platforms is interpreted as an attempt to sway Hungarian voters.
Yet this interpretation rests on a questionable assumption: That national politics can remain insulated from international ideological currents in an era defined by digital communication, global media, and transnational political networks. In reality, the cross-border circulation of ideas, people, and parties has become an unavoidable feature of contemporary political life.
For decades, the liberal and progressive camp operated through precisely such international structures. NGOs, philanthropic foundations, academic networks, advocacy organizations, and media platforms created a dense transnational ecosystem through which ideas, narratives, and policy strategies travelled across borders. From migration policy to climate governance and human rights activism, these networks shaped debates across Europe and the wider Western world. Rarely were these activities described as ‘foreign interference’. They were generally understood as legitimate expressions of international cooperation within a shared political and cultural space.
What we are witnessing today may simply be the conservative version of the same phenomenon. Over the past decade, conservative and sovereigntist movements have gradually built their own transnational ecosystem. Conferences such as CPAC, networks of think tanks, digital media platforms, and political alliances increasingly connect actors across Europe and the Atlantic. Shared concerns about migration, national sovereignty, democratic accountability, and cultural identity have fostered a growing exchange of ideas among conservative movements that previously operated largely within national frameworks.
‘If international conservatism is the earthquake of 21st-century politics, Budapest is certainly its epicentre’
Hungary has played a central role in this process. Under Viktor Orbán, the country has become one of the main intellectual and political hubs of the emerging sovereigntist world. If international conservatism is the earthquake of 21st-century politics, Budapest is certainly its epicentre.
Nearly a year ago, in a report published by the Danube Institute titled Towards a Brave New World: Are Conservatives the New Globalists?, I explored the paradox emerging from this development. Conservatives, while firmly rooted in patriotic traditions and the defence of national sovereignty, are increasingly connected through global networks of conferences, policy discussions, and intellectual exchange. Through shared political priorities, deference to national sovereignty, and the cohabitation of global forums and conferences, these actors have begun to construct what might be described as a sovereigntist alternative to the liberal international order.
Within this emerging ecosystem, figures such as Donald Trump and Viktor Orbán have become symbolic reference points for a wider political movement that extends beyond the borders of any single nation. Their prominence reflects not only their domestic political roles but also their influence within a broader network of conservative actors seeking to articulate an alternative vision for the West.
This development inevitably raises an uncomfortable but important question: are conservatives themselves becoming a new form of globalists? The answer is not straightforward. The emerging conservative international network differs fundamentally from the liberal internationalism that dominated Western politics after the Cold War. Its central principle is not the imposition of universal norms through supranational institutions, but the defence of national sovereignty and the right of individual nations to pursue their own political paths according to their histories, cultures, and democratic choices.
Nevertheless, the existence of a global network of sovereigntist actors inevitably produces new forms of international cooperation. Conferences like CPAC Hungary, alliances such as Patriots for Europe, and the growing collaboration between think tanks and media platforms demonstrate that conservative politics is no longer confined to purely national arenas. Instead, it increasingly operates within a shared civilizational conversation spanning the Atlantic world.
What is emerging, therefore, might best be described as a form of national internationalism—a paradoxical but increasingly visible phenomenon in which patriotic movements cooperate internationally while insisting that each nation retains the right to pursue its own political model.
This distinction matters. Hungary’s political trajectory under Viktor Orbán is rooted in the specific historical and cultural circumstances of the Hungarian nation. The same is true for conservative movements in Italy, Poland, the United States, and France. While these movements share certain concerns and policy priorities, they remain embedded in distinct national contexts shaped by different political traditions and social realities.
At the same time, the increasing international visibility of conservative actors inevitably generates criticism from those who view the emerging network as a challenge to the established liberal order. From this perspective, gatherings such as CPAC Hungary or the Patriots for Europe Summit are interpreted not as forums for intellectual exchange or political coordination, but as mechanisms of election manipulation.
Yet such concerns may overlook the broader structural transformation taking place in global politics. The same technological and informational dynamics that once facilitated the spread of liberal internationalism are now enabling the emergence of a sovereigntist counter-network.
The real question is therefore not whether international influence exists. It clearly does, and it has existed for decades across the entire political spectrum. The more meaningful question concerns the character of the international networks currently taking shape.
‘Nations—not global structures—should remain the primary actors of political life’
If the liberal era produced a globalism built around institutions, treaties, and supranational governance, the emerging conservative ecosystem may be constructing something different: a looser constellation of networks, conferences, and shared political instincts that operate without erasing national sovereignty.
Whether this experiment ultimately succeeds will depend on whether conservatives can maintain the delicate balance between international cooperation and patriotic loyalty. If that balance is preserved, the emerging network may represent not a new globalism but a new form of civilizational dialogue among sovereign nations. If it is not preserved, conservatives may eventually discover that they have built a mirror image of the global system they once criticized. The challenge for the new sovereigntist movement is therefore not to deny the existence of international cooperation, but to ensure that such cooperation remains firmly rooted in the principle that nations—not global structures—should remain the primary actors of political life.
Related articles: