The Biden administration points against a law promoted by the government of Georgia: it could "derail" the country from its "European path"

The State Department described the legislation as "a threat to society's organizations."

The Biden Administration is concerned about new legislation promoted by the government of Georgia, a small European country that borders Russia. According to the United States, the legislation directly attacks civil society and freedom of expression, which is why it was described as “Russian inspired.”

On April 3, the ruling party in Georgia’s parliament, Georgian Dream-Democratic Georgia, announced the reintroduction of the ‘Law On Transparency of Foreign Influence.’ Although they had already promoted it in 2023, they had to withdraw it due to national and international protests.

According to the Georgian ruling party, the law aims to force NGOs to make their funding sources transparent, specifically those accused of supporting “revolutionary processes” and “artificial attempts to cause unrest in the country.” The difference with the previous version is that it seeks to define foreign agents as part of an “organization that pursues the interests of a foreign power.”

Since 2008, Georgia has had two territories occupied by Russia, and the entire country is seen as a possible future victim of the expansionist airs of the country governed by Vladimir Putin.

“It risks turning Georgia off its European path”

Matthew Miller, spokesperson for the State Department, conveyed the United States’ concern with the legislation.

“The draft legislation poses a threat to civil society organizations whose work benefits the lives of everyday citizens of Georgia in areas such as health, education, and social support,” the official said in a statement.

“It undermines Georgia’s commitment to Euro-Atlantic integration and risks pulling Georgia off its European path. We have made these concerns clear to the Georgian government,” he added.

The European Union (UN) also spoke out about the law’s reintroduction, claiming that it “raises serious concerns” and that “transparency should not be used as an instrument to limit the ability of civil society to operate freely.”