Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s answers to journalists’ questions

State Secretary Zoltán Kovács: Thank you, Prime Minister. As usual, I’d like to start with MTVA.

László Mészáros (MTVA): Good morning. Excuse me, I’ll hand over to my colleague. There are several of us here.

Ildikó Csuhaj (MTVA): Thank you very much. I’m Ildikó Csuhaj and I work for the public service media. Prime Minister, according to the news, in the spring you said that the election will be held on 12 April. In Tusnádfürdő/Băile Tușnad in July you spoke of a landslide victory for Fidesz, with 80 constituency seats out of 106, based on your knowledge at the time or according to polls. What can you say now? I assume you still have access to internal polls. How many of the 106 seats will be won by constituency candidates? Can you say that you expect a landslide victory for Fidesz? And is it certain that there will be no debate between the prime ministerial candidates before the election – that you won’t debate Péter Magyar? Because, to quote you: “He’s Brussels’ man.” Thank you.

There will indeed be a parliamentary election in Hungary in 2026. The date of the election will be decided by the President of the Republic. Experience to date shows that elections are usually scheduled for the earliest date possible under constitutional rules. Until an official decision is made, we’ll continue to adapt to this. Unfortunately, those who decide on the expected outcome of the election aren’t us, but rather the esteemed Hungarian people. Therefore only the Hungarian people are entitled to decide exactly what they want and how many seats we’ll have. Our task is to set goals for ourselves. Our goal is to repeat the 2022 election result. As for the debate, the situation is that I can only debate with sovereign people – and this applies to you journalists, as well as politicians. I don’t consider those who are paid from abroad and whose masters are abroad to be sovereign, and I see no point in debating with them. Otherwise, I’m at the disposal of every Hungarian voter. 

State Secretary Zoltán Kovács: Thank you. Financial Times.

Márton Dunai (Financial Times): Hello. My name is Márton Dunai. This one question makes my job a little difficult, but I’ll try to ask it in a series of sentences. You spoke about a change of era, which is happening at the same time as the election. Political strategy will obviously also be an election issue, and the question is whether Hungary will remain in the community of Western European states, in its circle. You’ve written – and you’ve also said this morning – that one path leads to a dead end in Brussels. But what’s your plan, what’s the alternative to Brussels? And what’s the guarantee that the Hungarian path doesn’t lead to Moscow? In this era of global power politics, as we’re seeing at the moment in Venezuela, for example, can Hungary, as a nation, assert its interests outside the EU – remain sovereign, so to speak – among the “titans”? You were in Washington with President Trump, where they promised a financial protective shield, but even that isn’t certain to happen. Meanwhile, partly because of this, the credit rating agencies have put Hungary almost in the junk category. So how should we think about this? How much is this position worth to your government? Thank you very much. 

That really didn’t seem like a question. However, it gives me the opportunity to respond to what I think is important from among the many issues raised. But what I’ll do is try to combine several answers into one. With regard to Venezuela, I’d like to say that this is already one of the powerful manifestations of the new world. It’s a new language, and in the future the world will speak this language. What I feel is important for Hungary is that, together with Venezuela, the United States – and this is an estimate – is capable of controlling 40–50 per cent of the world’s oil reserves. This is a force that’s already capable of significantly influencing the price of energy on the world market, and we calculate that the Americans need cheaper energy. The economic policy programme announced by the President will require lower energy price levels than today, and this is good news for Hungary. I see a serious chance that, as a result of Venezuela being brought under control, a more favourable global energy situation will arise for Hungary. That’s good news. This leads to the question of sovereignty. Hungary is a country which stands on strong feet. Contrary to your question, which also contained a statement, Hungary is in the investment grade category. The last four years have seen the largest investments in Hungary’s modern history. If you look at the last four years, if you look at the facts and figures, you’ll see that this has been the most successful investment period for Hungary. There’s no question of a slump. More and more investments are being made in Hungary by the world’s largest companies, and this is also to be expected in the coming period. If I’ve counted correctly, since the US president took office there have been thirteen major US investments in Hungary. In an environment in which Americans would rather bring their companies home, this can be considered a serious achievement. And according to our plans and knowledge, further significant US investments will come to Hungary in the year ahead. This shows that there’s life outside Brussels. So Brussels isn’t the only market opportunity for the Hungarian economy. It’s an important opportunity. Hungary’s membership of the European Union is important for Hungary and provides Hungary with important economic opportunities, but if we were to become trapped in this single bloc, we’d end up paying a heavy price. This is why Hungary, in line with its philosophy of connectivity, should cultivate the best, closest and most trusting relations possible with all the world’s major economic blocs. This is true for the United States, it’s true for China, it’s true for Russia, it’s true for the Arab world, and it’s true for the Turkic world as well. We’ve followed this policy in recent years, and I’ll continue to do so in 2026. I’m therefore convinced that, as a member of the European Union, it’s only possible to pursue sensible policy with regard to Brussels if you are sovereign. Hungary doesn’t want to participate in any kind of federal system; and indeed, since the Treaty on European Union expressly gives Hungary the option of being a member of a non-federal European Union, we insist on these rights – including the right to sovereign foreign policy, to sovereign energy policy, and so on. So we envision our future within the Union, under the security of NATO’s defence shield, pursuing a sovereign foreign policy and a sovereign economic policy. This is possible. This differs from the strategy, language and mindset of the European elite, which is federalist – and I’d say today pro-war, pro-Ukrainian and war-mongering. But that’s not a problem, because states with different views can also be members of the European Union. That’s fine. Hungary is a Hungarian country – culturally, economically, and in terms of sovereignty. Our ancestors put a thousand years into this. I don’t think that any Hungarian generation has the right to give that up. 

State Secretary Zoltán Kovács: Thank you. ATV next, please.

Zsolt Hazafi (ATV): Hello, I’m Zsolt Hazafi from ATV. I also have a question about the protective shield. It’s one question, but it’s wrapped in several questions. When did you realise that the Hungarian economy was fragile and needed a protective shield? Why did you ask the President of the United States for help with this? There was a misunderstanding in which President Trump told Politico that they’d discussed this, but hadn’t reached an agreement. Where does this matter stand now, and will it be necessary to enforce the American protective shield in 2026? Will you draw down any funds? And finally, is this promise made to you, to your government, or to Hungary? If there’s a different party in government in April, will this promise from Mr. Trump no longer stand? Thank you very much.

There are so many questions that I have to write them down – I apologise. So, going backwards, the United States of America has a presidential system. Every agreement is personal. As long as the President wants it to be that way, it is that way; and when he doesn’t want it, then it isn’t that way. This is unusual for us, because we live in a prime ministerial system, a parliamentary system; but that’s how it is in America, and we adapt to it. What’s certain is what the incumbent prime minister concludes with the American president. If any changes occur in the circumstances of any of these individuals, we’ll determine the future of these agreements on a case-by-case basis, should such a situation arise. I don’t expect this to happen, however, as I’m confident that we’ll be able to maintain the agreements concluded with the knowledge and in the presence of the President of the United States and the Republican leaders behind him – even after this four-year US presidential term. Not to mention our own position, which we’re hopeful about, of course. How long have we needed a protective shield? Since the end of World War I! So Hungary has always needed some kind of financial protective shield ever since losing World War I. Having chosen a strategic direction that differs from that of Brussels, Hungary cannot count on the protective shield of Brussels. Instead it must expect hostile moves from Brussels; and the Hungarian government must ensure that, in case of trouble, there’s some kind of protective shield available to Hungary – as has always been the case since World War I. These troubles don’t usually come from within, but from outside. The internal structure of the Hungarian economy is stable and balanced, and gives us every reason to be hopeful. But there is always speculation. Hungary is the size it is, its currency is as strong as it is, and we live in a world where even the pound sterling has been successfully attacked. So a responsible government always ensures that it has a financial protective shield. Today we can find it in the United States. This is why I agreed with the US president that there would be such a protective shield. I requested such a protective shield, one that would be acceptable to both Hungary and the US, but such wasn’t available at that time. The President and I agreed that our colleagues would work out the specific protective shield that Hungary needs and that the Americans are able and willing to provide. This work is currently underway. It’s being led by the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Have I answered all your questions?

State Secretary Zoltán Kovács: Telegraph, please. Francis.

Francis Dearnley (The Telegraph): Francis Dearnley, The Telegraph. Thank you for your time. How are the US actions in Venezuela different from Putin’s actions in Russia? And how would you respond if Trump carried out his threat of annexing Greenland, given that it is a part of a NATO member state?

Each comparison is more than dangerous. So if you allow me, I would not like to make any comparison between the Russian‒Ukrainian war and Venezuela, United States, whatever. Each cases are different ‒ by legal character and by political context as well. So comparison is not helpful here. We have to take each of them as they are, or as it is. Greenland: it’s an easy issue, because it’s an “in-house” issue, may I say, it’s a NATO issue. Denmark is part of NATO, United States is part of NATO. If anybody would like to have any change, we can discuss it inside NATO. Hungary is not a decisive force inside NATO, but if that discussion will appear, Hungary will have an opinion on that, definitely.

State Secretary Zoltán Kovács: Thank you very much. Index, please.

Gyula Szabó (Index): I’m Gyula Szabó from Index, and our question is about the fact that you’ve mentioned several times that political communication has changed in recent times. In your opinion, what will decide this year’s election? If you could elaborate on this, that would be my only question. So, in your opinion, in terms of the changed nature of political communication, what will decide this year’s election? 

If we knew the answer to that question, we could confidently announce that we’d won the election. But no one knows the answer. I always caution political analysts – although everyone has to make a living somehow, of course – that elections always have an element of mystery. After all, it’s special that eight million people – in our case – are eligible to vote, and even if not all of them go to the polls, more than six million will express their opinion on something at the same time, on the same day, and something will emerge from it. I think it’s an exciting science to study how to predict the factors that determine the dynamics at work here, to uncover the factors. It’s exciting, but if any politician thinks they can ever answer this question, they’re mistaken. There’s only one thing: we must respect the fact that we don’t know. We must respect the fact that only one thing will decide this: the Hungarian voters. No matter what the predictions are, what the analyses are, what the logical arguments are, in the end the people will decide. I’ve lost an election which everyone said we’d win. I’ve won an election when no one would have bet a penny on us winning. So, with this experience behind me, I’m cautious about all kinds of predictions and forecasts. I know one thing: you have to speak clearly. If you’re in government, you have to say what you’ve undertaken to do, what you asked for a mandate for, and what you’ve achieved in the past four years. And when you think about the next four years, you have to say what you’re asking a mandate for, you have to clearly state your goals, and make commitments. And if you’ve gained the trust of the people, then you have to deliver on what you promised. That’s it – it’s no more complicated than that. Of course, there are many economic journalists here, and obviously there are market laws in politics too, but you can only choose from what’s available. So in this case supply determines demand: it’s more of a supply market, and we can’t vote for anyone who isn’t running in the election – no matter how excellent they may be. We can only choose from among those who are running. I believe that no more wisdom than this is needed to lead, manage or run an election campaign. So it’s a much simpler, more ancient genre than many technology and communications experts and others describe it to us as being. It’s a simple thing. You have to stand up, you have to account for what you’ve done, and make it clear what you’re undertaking. We’re starting from a good position, so we can perhaps talk about our chances, because someone who has stood before the electorate several times and said that we’ve undertaken this, we’ve undertaken that, we’ve done this, obviously has a head start. So, successful governance. I’ve just listed the measures that we’ve introduced over the past six months and on 1 January. I repeat, no Western European economic programme comes close to the opportunities we’ve created for Hungarian voters. This obviously builds trust. We’d like to use this trust in the election campaign. We’d like to present the work we’ve done as an argument in our favour. And since we believe that we’ve entered a special and new era, we maintain that in order to hold our own in this new era, to carry through the measures I’ve just mentioned, and to be able to make new decisions – I’ve also spoken here about development and energy policy – we’ll need certain capabilities. In my opinion these include calmness, composure, foresight, decisiveness, experience and routine. I believe that the key word for the next period – not just the next four years but the next ten years – will be security. And we feel that we’ve been able to provide security for this country so far, and we’ll be able to continue to do so in the future. In terms of specific political issues, the key element of this security is the war. I’ve told you this many times before: I participate in European Council meetings, where European leaders sit. A huge change has taken place there. These Council meetings have been transformed. Now they’re councils of war. Councils of war! They decide on matters related to war. To quote them: “How to win, how to win the war”. And I could go on. So everything’s changed. We need to reckon with the fact that we’re no longer alone, but there are still only a few countries that are proposing to the European Union and to ourselves a completely different strategy, instead of the logic of a war economy, war loans and warfare. This is the proposal of peace, stability, peace-making, and a peace economy. Most recently there were three of us, and I think there will be more. My analysis of the situation is that social movements against the pro-war elite are growing rapidly throughout Europe. This isn’t the case in Hungary. There’s an anti-war movement here too – but not against the Government, because here we don’t have a war-mongering elite, but a pro-peace government. But across Europe this will be an important element in 2026, with social movements against the pro-war elite erupting with surprising force in Western Europe. You’ve seen the figures yourselves: yesterday, or the day before yesterday, the Ukrainians announced that they’re requesting 800 billion euros for the next ten years, excluding military and security spending – at a time when the European economy is in decline. Whoever pays for this will ruin their own people. People don’t usually allow themselves to be ruined. So sooner or later this will have to manifest itself in some kind of social movement in Western Europe, and I can see the signs of that. So I believe that when it comes to matters of security and war, we need to look for the issues that will determine the most important election topics. 

State Secretary Zoltán Kovács: Weltwoche, the next question please. Herr Köppel.

Roger Köppel (Weltwoche): Mr. Prime Minister, thanks for your time. There is one case in this topic you have mentioned which touches also Switzerland. And there is a Swiss colonel of our general staff, a former member of our foreign policy department and of UN. He was a UN collaborator also of NATO: Jacques Baud. He has been sanctioned by the European Union. He’s living in Brussels. He has been sanctioned personally by the European Union – not because he’s a spy of Russia, because of his analysis of the Ukraine war. In other words, he has been sanctioned personally because he spoke freely his mind, his opinion. And now he’s totally isolated in Brussels. His bank accounts are frozen. And the question is first, Switzerland is not a EU Member State. What can Hungary do? What do you know about this case? And what does it say about the state of the European Union that people are sanctioned personally, just because they’re using their human right of free speech?

If you are so kind to allow me, I would like to answer in Hungarian. I’m not familiar with this specific case, but I’m not surprised. Stranger things are happening. European democracy as a whole is in decline, just like the economy. This may be a little random, but if I put together a collection of such cases, then perhaps, taken together, they look significant. There was an election in a European country that had to be repeated because the envelopes didn’t stick properly. I don’t know if you remember that. There was another European country where the election results weren’t satisfactory, so new elections had to be held. There’s a European country where the most popular opposition party is under national security surveillance. There’s a country in Europe where representatives of a certain party aren’t allowed to run in mayoral elections. There’s a country where the most popular leader is prevented by a court ruling from running in the elections. There’s a country where the Interior Minister had to go all the way to the highest court to avoid being imprisoned for defending his country’s borders. There’s a country where the presidential candidate was shot. When I look at all these things together, Hungary seems like a model democracy. So this Swiss case isn’t out of the ordinary. It only surprises the Swiss because, as you’re not members of the EU, you haven’t seen anything like it. But I ask all of you what you think about the fact that the United States is imposing sanctions on several senior officials of the European Union, on the grounds that they’ve been involved in developing rules that restrict freedom of speech in Europe. These are all new developments. What I’m talking about is that the old world order has collapsed and a new one is taking shape, accompanied by these kinds of phenomena. I know the Hungarian position, and apart from the fact that I’ve just mentioned and noted these facts, the Hungarian government can do only one thing: the Hungarian government doesn’t support sanctions, the Hungarian government believes that if anyone has an opinion and is able to express it within the framework of the law, then go ahead and do so! Debates are good, differences of opinion are good. Undoubtedly they can at times be nerve-wracking and require energy, but that’s just how democracy works. Democracy consists of differences of opinion, debates, discussions and agreements; there’s no way around that. If anyone thinks that this can be eliminated through administrative rules or sanctions, they’ll be eliminating democracy itself. I don’t recommend that. I recommend what I’m doing now.

State Secretary Zoltán Kovács: Thank you. Blikk, please. In the middle.

Róbert Csontos (Blikk): Hello, my name is Róbert Csontos from Blikk. I’d like to bring up a lighter topic with you, Prime Minister. Football. I’d like to ask you, as someone who loves and understands football, what you think about the fact that for almost six months now, there’s been a feud or a kind of war of words between the head of Hungarian football, Sándor Csányi, and Gábor Kubatov, the President of Ferencváros, Hungary’s most successful club. Do you have an opinion on who’s right in this dispute, or have you considered acting as a mediator between the two parties? And I wouldn’t put a question mark there, just a comma, and quickly squeeze in another question: As this is the New Year press conference, Prime Minister, did you make any New Year’s resolutions – as Prime Minister of Hungary, or as Viktor Orbán? Can these two be separated? Thank you very much. 

I don’t have any New Year’s resolutions; my experience has been bad – I haven’t been able to keep a single one so far, so it’s better to not even try. I enjoy watching the debate. There are some aspects of it that are perhaps unnecessary, but if we view it not as a personal debate but as an intellectual one, and modern sport is increasingly intellectual, then we can see a very serious debate unfolding. Sixteen years have passed, and now, in 2026, we’ve reached the end of a long period that’s seen the rebuilding of several sports, including football. The question is whether or not we should continue on this path. And if we need to make changes, where should we make them? I think these are good debates, meaningful debates. And here the role of the clubs and the relationship between the clubs and the football association are key issues. So, without turning this into a sports press conference, allow me to pause here and just say that these are all important issues, and it’s quite right that powerful people should discuss them. I’d say that apart from a few side issues, which are more a matter of style or publicly presentable quality, overall this is a debate that’s moving in the right direction. It’s a pity that I can’t participate in it, given that there will be an election here and we have to govern. But after the election, if these debates haven’t concluded by then, the Hungarian government, the future Hungarian government, will be happy to participate if invited to participate in a debate on how we can contribute to the creation of a new order for sports that need change – and there are several such sports. Now isn’t the time, but it will be later.

State Secretary Zoltán Kovács: Next, please, Anita from Reuters. Where are you? There at the back.

Anita Kőműves (Reuters): Hello, I’m Anita Kőműves, from Reuters. We know that ahead of the elections US president Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin have already expressed their support for the Prime Minister. Are you expecting any more support before the election, and in what form? Is there any chance that Donald Trump or his vice president, JD Vance, will come here? And the head of Rosatom has told RIA Novosti that Vladimir Putin might come for the first concrete pouring ceremony at the Paks II nuclear power plant. Is there any chance of them coming?

I hope that the peace efforts to end the Russo–Ukrainian war will be successful and that the Americans will have something to talk about with the Russians. And if they do have something to discuss at the highest level, then that will take place in Budapest. This remains on the agenda. It’s not worth making predictions; the Hungarian government must make it clear that it’s ready to host and organise such a meeting. I’ve clarified this personally with both presidents. A visit to Hungary by President Putin isn’t timely – I see no need for it. We know that Hungary is one of the very few countries in the Western world where there would be no legal or political obstacles to such a visit. So if there were a reason for it, a need for it, such as peace negotiations, which would be sufficient reason, then there would be no obstacle to it. I was in Moscow recently, and we discussed all the issues – so bilateral relations don’t currently require another personal meeting. We dealt with everything that could be dealt with, and we agreed on everything. It’s likely that the US president or some other high-ranking US leader will visit Hungary, because in the spring there will be political events in Hungary that are always attended by high-ranking US leaders. Perhaps, if you’ll allow me, here it’s worth asking whether this is good for Hungary. I think it is good! It’s good for the Hungarian people if the Hungarian government is supported by as many major powers as possible. The goal of our foreign policy is to make friends, gather partners, and open up opportunities for ourselves. The way to do this is through good relations. Therefore I believe it’s in the interest of the Hungarian people for the Hungarian government to be supported by as many major powers as possible – from the Turkic world, through the United States and Russia, all the way to China. The more, the better. How to coordinate these will require serious intellectual work on the part of the Hungarian government – and so far we haven’t failed in this. The question is whether this can be considered interference, and perhaps this question can be asked. In my opinion, interference occurs when a political actor running in an election accepts money or financial support from another country. In my opinion, that’s unacceptable, both legally and morally. In Hungary it’s customary for those who cry election fraud and foreign interference to then finance their campaigns with “rolling dollars” – as was the case in 2022. Now, in 2026, we need to pay attention to the “rolling euros”, as it’s not the United States but Brussels that has the greatest interest in a change of government in Hungary. This is because in this election what’s at stake is whether there will be pro-war Brusselite policy, pro-Ukrainian, Brussels-friendly government, or a peace-loving government that protects Hungarian sovereignty. This is the big dilemma. This election has great importance for Brussels, as Hungary is a living example that the strategy of the Brussels war elite isn’t the only possible and possible strategy. Hungary is a living example that the pro-migrant policy of the Brussels elite isn’t the only possible strategy. Hungarian energy policy is clear proof that the crazy, poorly managed green transition being pursued in Brussels isn’t the only conceivable option. So I believe that Hungary has proven on numerous occasions – in very serious strategic matters, based on our own Hungarian national interests – that solutions are possible other than those chosen by the Brussels elite. This is why the Hungarian election has grown in importance in an international context, and Brussels is making no secret of this. They told me this point-blank, as you saw in the European Parliament: “Now I should step aside, because now we need new people here who will pursue pro-Brussels policies instead of sovereigntist policies.” This is no secret, there’s no need to expose it, no one in Brussels is hiding it – this is what they want. It’s exactly as they wanted in Poland, and as they supported and financed in Poland. In this sense I expect very strong intervention from Brussels, and I’m not ruling out rolling euros – but we can clarify that during the election and at the end of it. But this is a reality that’s better to face up to. So I say this in a calm, dispassionate way: this is the world we live in, and there are great power interests; Brussels also has its own great power interests, and it wants to assert them in Hungary. That would be bad for Hungarians, it must be defended against and prevented. This is something we’re capable of, and this is why we’re here.

State Secretary Zoltán Kovács: Thank you. TV2 please.

Félix Scharner (tv2): Thank you very much, I’m Félix Scharner from the tv2 programme “Tények”. I’d like to ask the Prime Minister about the very frightening reports that several Western European and Western politicians are talking about the need to prepare for war, and are already preparing their populations for war. They’re also saying that young people can expect to be drafted, and that they’ll have to go to war and fight for Ukraine. And conscription has already begun in several European countries. Can the Prime Minister reassure Hungarian parents and young people that this won’t happen here? Thank you very much. 

There’s no reason for anxiety. What’s needed is calmness, and then well-considered decisions in the election. Hungarians have no reason to fear, because there’s a pro-peace alternative. If the only choice were between pro-war forces – as is the case in many countries – then parents would have reason to worry. But that’s not the situation. There is a pro-war party in Hungary – which is, incidentally, an offshoot of the main pro-war party in Brussels. Today the number one pro-war party in Europe is called the European People’s Party. Here there’s a base for that: a pro-Ukrainian, pro-Brussels, pro-war political force. There isn’t just one such party, but several. But there are also patriots in Hungary, Christian Democrats, Fidesz, and they have an international network of contacts. Today, the strongest pro-peace political group in Brussels is called the Patriots, and we’re there, we’re using this international network of contacts to keep Hungary out of the war. So parents don’t need to worry – but they’ll have to make a smart, good decision in April. That will be their task. But there’s no reason for despair. Despair is for when you can’t see a solution, when there are no good alternatives, when you feel trapped, and so on. But none of that is the case here. In Hungary there’s open political competition, and you have a choice. Conscription is a wartime measure, so it’s not appropriate in Hungary today. Conscription is part of Europe’s preparations for war. Let there be no misunderstanding: Europe has decided on war. Sometimes this isn’t conveyed with sufficient drama in your reports. In case anyone is unaware of it, I’ll tell you that Brussels has decided to go to war. We’re holding councils of war, and they’ve decided in favour of war; they’re going to war. They say so themselves. They don’t want to lose the war. They want their money back. There’s only one way to do that: by defeating Russia in Ukraine – and so they’re participating in this war. They’ve been participating to some extent so far, and the extent of their participation is constantly growing. Even the most absurd statements can be quoted, as you’ve done in your reports – from the NATO Secretary General, from the French Chief of Staff. But also from the figures, there’s the switch to a war economy. These are all war efforts. It’s a foregone conclusion: there will be war. Or rather, there is war! The question is how quickly Europe will become 100 per cent involved in this war – because the intention is there. Seen here from Hungary, the strongest warmonger is a man called Mr. Weber, who’s the leader of the European People’s Party. He’s the number one warmonger. He’s dragging the People’s Party – and all the parties belonging to the People’s Party – into this war. The European Parliament and the European Commission have been colluding against the European Council, although there too we are few in number, to establish in Brussels a centre of power that’s pushing, dragging countries into a European war – at least those countries that are allowing themselves to be dragged in. So it’s no exaggeration to say that the 2026 Hungarian election will be the last Hungarian election before the war. The government we elect in 2026 will decide on matters of war and peace, and these issues are becoming increasingly pointed and unmistakably direct. The next administration will have an even harder job than I’ve had so far. I expect that. The pressure, the pressure of war, will increase – unless, and we’re working on this, the United States is able to reach an agreement with Russia. Because today the only way to avoid war is not a Russian–Ukrainian agreement, but a Russian–American agreement. If that happens, I believe the threat of war, the risk of war, can be radically reduced. If it doesn’t come about, then the threat of war will remain. It doesn’t matter what anyone’s opinion is on the substance of the Russo–Ukrainian war. As I’ve said, this isn’t a matter of values: it’s a description, a statement of fact – this is what’s happening, this is what will happen. Hungarians must be prepared for this.

State Secretary Zoltán Kovács: Thank you. The Spectator, the British one, please.

William Atkinson (The Spectator): William Atkinson, The Spectator. Prime Minister Orbán, you present Brussels primarily as a sort of malevolent force. And obviously as somebody who has come from a country that has left the European Union, it strikes me that Hungary is approaching a similar position to that which Britain was in ten to fifteen years ago – e.g. an increasingly “semi-detached” member of the European Union. Do you think that in the foreseeable future Hungary would have to consider following in Britain’s footsteps and leaving the European Union? Or are you confident that with the way that politics is progressing across the continent, there is a chance actually that the Europe of nation states, of which you’ve spoken for so long, is actually emerging around us?

May I just answer in Hungarian, if you don’t mind, sir? The United Kingdom’s departure from the European Union was an unprecedentedly courageous decision and an unprecedentedly strong manifestation of national consciousness. I can’t remember ever seeing anything like it in settled times: a country deciding to overturn its previous decision on integration and restore its full sovereignty. In Hungary courage is considered a virtue. At the same time, we’ve been the first to suffer from that decision. So today everything that’s wrong in Brussels wouldn’t have happened if the United Kingdom had remained. There would be no nonsense about the rule of law, no nonsense about conditionality, no possibility of turning legal instruments into political bludgeons, and no justice system leading the entire EU system towards federalism. “Ever closer union” is an opinion, but not a mainstream prevailing trend, and the balance between sovereigntists and federalists, which has been disrupted, certainly wouldn’t have been disrupted. Because while you were there, the United Kingdom and Central Europe were united in their sovereigntist stance and were able to counterbalance the French and German enthusiasm for federalism, which varied in intensity. There would have been no questions relating to the rule of law or conditionality, or anything else that can now be used as a tool against countries seeking to defend their sovereignty. We don’t even need to talk about Hungary here – we can talk about the previous Polish government. None of that would exist. So it’s not that we’d have a better chance of winning these battles: these battles wouldn’t exist. Brussels wouldn’t have embarked on the path that the joint Franco–German federalist agenda is taking us down today. And with the United Kingdom leaving and Central Europe left on its own, the latter has lost the mathematical power that could be called a blocking minority, and we cannot resist. So this is why the whole Brussels circus is now moving in a federalist – and, consequently, pro-war – direction. But what has happened has happened. The question now is whether it would be reasonable for Hungary to follow your path. I don’t think it would be reasonable. If we were a country as big as the United Kingdom is, and we also had nuclear weapons, and our GDP was as big as yours, and we also had a population of sixty-odd million, and our existence was as deeply interwoven with the Anglo-Saxon world as yours is with the Five Eyes intelligence cooperation and Anglo-Saxon networks around the world, then we could try that too. But we have none of those things. Therefore your decision – which, I repeat, was an exceptionally courageous and heroic decision, and one that earned the admiration of many in Hungary – is unfortunately not a viable option for us. Moreover, compared to your knowledge, tradition and capabilities in global trade, our commercial radius for action is too one-sided – in the direction of the European Union. It will take us several years to change this. So I wouldn’t advise Hungarians to follow the same path. But perhaps history will spare us this question, because we won’t have to leave: it will fall apart on its own. At this moment, the European Union is in a state of disintegration: a process of disintegration is underway, regardless of whether or not anyone likes it. And disintegration occurs when we make decisions and then fail to implement them, or when we make decisions and then backtrack on them. So the European Union today is in a state of complete leadership chaos. The green transition is the best example. Everyone knew that it would cause problems. They forced it on the Member States, set unrealistic deadlines, yet they stuck to it – and now they have to backtrack. Then there are the Schengen regulations. Hungary is being punished for not allowing migrants into Hungary. Other countries that do the same thing receive recognition and money. Hungary is paying one million euros every day, while Poland – which applies the same regulations – is receiving recognition and financial support. It’s quite obvious that the Germans are circumventing the Schengen rules. Border controls could be introduced temporarily; instead they’ve been renewed several times, and are essentially maintained on a permanent basis. So this is what’s happening. And there will be ever more stories like this. So in my opinion the end of the European Union won’t be a dramatic collapse, but instead there will be ever more cases like this. And if the European Union isn’t reorganised into an effective, well-led structure, which would be possible and desirable, then if this doesn’t happen the number of such stories will increase, and the whole thing will gradually fall apart. This is what we’re living through today. This is where we are. If there were significant European governments in Europe that enjoyed strong domestic support and weren’t constrained by coalition pressures, then this process could be stopped and Europe could be reorganised. At the moment the countries that have the power to reorganise have bigger problems than creating a new structure for Europe: their own domestic problems are taking up all their energy. This is unfortunate. 

State Secretary Zoltán Kovács: RTL, please. At the back.

Balázs Litauszky (RTL): I’m Balázs Litauszky from RTL News. I’d like to ask about the unfortunate incidents that took place on Szőlő Street and in child protection institutions. At the EU summit in Brussels in December, I asked the Prime Minister to tell us who’s politically responsible for the fact that these well-known incidents in child protection institutions could have taken place for years; but you didn’t give me a specific answer to my question. I’d now like to ask once again who specifically is politically responsible – or if you believe that no one’s politically responsible, I’ll accept that answer as well. Prime Minister, how could it happen that over a number of years serious abuse took place in a state-run institution, on Szőlő Street, without the system intervening in time – despite repeated reports? In Parliament on 24 November you said that you’d investigate why the police were unable to take timely and effective action against the head of the Szőlő Street reformatory, and why he wasn’t arrested after the first complaint was filed. Has it since become clear where this investigation stands, and if there are no results yet, why not? Also, if one of the abused children were standing here in front of you now, what would you say to them if they asked you how what happened to them could have happened, and who was responsible for it? What would you say to them? Would they deserve an apology? Thank you.

It is indeed true, as you say, that the first complaint or report giving rise to police action in the Szőlő Street case was made several years ago, and on that first occasion the police were unable to prove any of the charges brought against the people working there. Therefore the police investigation was unsuccessful. The second time the police investigation was successful, because they were able to establish reasonable suspicion, they were able to initiate proceedings, and thus involve the Prosecutor’s Office in the proceedings. This is correct. The question to be examined, as you said, is why it was unsuccessful the first time. This investigation hasn’t been concluded, but when it is, we’ll inform you of the details. As far as the overall situation of child protection is concerned, we need to consider the following picture. There are approximately twenty-five to twenty-six thousand children in Hungary whose parents are unable to care for them. So when we talk about the state’s responsibility, we have to consider that there are now twenty-five to twenty-six thousand children whom the state is obliged to supervise, raise and care for because their parents are unable to do so. And the state provides for about two-thirds of these twenty-five to twenty-six thousand children, and takes responsibility for them by involving adoptive parents. I see that the adoptive parent network is expanding, and there have been some significant successes. We’ve managed to make some decisions that have made adopting better recognised and – I don’t know if this is the right word here – more attractive. So I think that even more people will take on this extremely difficult and fine task. Two thirds of these children are with adoptive parents. The state has a duty to check on the children who are with adoptive parents, to make sure that everything is in order. The remaining one third are placed in institutions, as there are no adoptive parents who would take these children. If there were adoptive parents, they would all be placed with adoptive parents. Instead, they’re in institutions. Szőlő Street doesn’t belong to this one third, to the institutional system responsible for the general care of one third of such children. This is because it’s a special institution: essentially a juvenile prison, a correctional centre. We have five institutions in which the Hungarian state needs to take care of young people who are criminals, usually serious criminals: convicted of homicide, robbery, or sexual assault. We have five such institutions. And problems have arisen in their operation that have justified police intervention – including the first time round, as I mentioned. After several cases came to light, we had to examine whether the entire system – the way we operate these five institutions where juvenile offenders are held – is well organised and based on sound foundations. We came to the conclusion that it isn’t. It’s true that this has been the case for more than thirty years, but it shouldn’t continue like this, because these problems can arise again and again. We therefore decided to remove them from the responsibility of the social care system and transfer them to the responsibility of the penal system. So from now on these correctional institutions will no longer be operated, supervised, and managed by people working in the social care sector, but will be supervised, managed and controlled by people working in the penal system. So we’ve transferred them completely. I believe that this gives us a better chance of providing fairer and more law-abiding care for young offenders who end up there – because they too have rights and are entitled to certain things, regardless of what they’ve done. In any case, it’s good for the state to feel some kind of responsibility for every life that’s gone off the rails, especially for children, or to try to offer help. Every juvenile or child whose life has gone off the rails is a cause for loss and pain. We’re parents ourselves, so we can imagine what that’s like. Therefore the state must act with empathy, but with much greater strictness than earlier. From now on, juvenile offenders will no longer be dealt with by the social care system, but by the penal system. These decisions have been made and may already have come into effect – the minister may know this more precisely than I do. But the decisions have been made. We shall pursue these proceedings relentlessly, every detail must be uncovered, and all responsibility must be assessed and apportioned. Once we see why the first police operation was unsuccessful, we can talk about political responsibility. But we need to wait in order to understand why it was unsuccessful. The second one was successful, and those who deserved recognition have received it.

State Secretary Zoltán Kovács: Bloomberg please.

Zoltán Simon (Bloomberg): Hello, I’m Zoltán Simon, Bloomberg. First of all, I’d like to ask whether you’ll be Fidesz’s prime ministerial candidate in the spring election. I’m asking this because in November you gave an interview in which you said that a transition to a presidential system is always on the table, so to speak. So I’d like to ask if you’re planning any changes that would strengthen or expand the powers of the President. And if Fidesz wins the election this spring, do you plan to remain Prime Minister until 2030, or do you envision some kind of transition in the next four years? Thank you very much. 

Today the consensus among Fidesz members is that there’s no one better than me. They’re looking, but they haven’t found anyone yet. So until they find someone, I’ll remain the prime ministerial candidate. As for the question of the presidential system, Hungary currently has a prime ministerial system rather than a presidential one. I’m not prepared to hand over power to President Tamás Sulyok, so the current system will remain in place.

State Secretary Zoltán Kovács: Thank you. Telex, please.

Dániel Simor (Telex): Hello, I’m Dániel Simor from Telex. Prime Minister, according to some estimates, your son-in-law is already the third richest person in the country – all the while doing business with the state and receiving a great deal of support from the Hungarian state in recent years. Meanwhile your eldest daughter bought land in Somogy County this year for 100 million forints. Do you think it’s normal in a constitutional state and democracy for the Prime Minister’s family members to become so wealthy while continuously doing business with the state? In contrast, at the other end of society, the median old-age pension is 250,000 forints…

State Secretary Zoltán Kovács: Dániel, let’s leave out the moralising part. You’ve asked your question, and we’ll answer it.

Dániel Simor (Telex): Yes, but the median old-age pension is 250,000 forints, and I’m already including the thirteenth and fourteenth months’ pensions in this figure. So, of the two million people who receive old-age pensions, half – or one million people – live on less than that. Do you think it’s possible to live in Hungary today on 250,000 forints or less? And I’d also like to ask you about your salary.

State Secretary Zoltán Kovács: Excuse me, you misunderstood. One question. You asked your question, and the Prime Minister will answer it. I didn’t give the others that chance, and neither will I give it to you. Please return the microphone. Please return the microphone to the staff members. Please return the microphone. 

Dániel Simor (Telex): Do you think it’s normal that it now appears that 270 billion forints have disappeared from the MNB’s asset management foundation, asset management company, and the foundation’s asset management company, we’ve known this for a year, and no charges have been brought?

Zoltán Kovács: Dániel, Dániel, Dániel, please.

Dániel Simor (Telex): For ten years, you stood idly by and watched as these murky affairs were going on around the foundations linked to the Central Bank. There was a lot of information in the press about how [former Central Bank governor] György Matolcsy and his circle were using the Central Bank’s foundations as a cash distribution hub, and now we see that 270 billion forints – which could have been paid into the budget – has disappeared without trace. So how can this happen in the country you lead? And how can it be that after a year, no charges have been brought, no one’s been held accountable, and the public knows nothing about the status of the investigation? Thank you.

As regards pensioners, we’re currently introducing the fourteenth month’s pension, in order to increase pensions in Hungary. Prior to this, we also restored the thirteenth month’s pension that had been taken away by the Left, and since 2010 the real value of pensions has increased. We have an agreement with pensioners that pensions will retain their value. Not only have we kept this agreement, but we’ve exceeded it by restoring the thirteenth month’s pension – which, I repeat, was taken away by the Left. And now we’re introducing the fourteenth month’s pension. So the Hungarian government has done everything humanly possible for pensioners, and will continue to do so in the future. And many more pension increases are needed in order to enable pensions to provide a more secure livelihood than they do at present. I’d be in an easier position with regard to the National Bank if it were subordinate to the Government, but unfortunately that isn’t the case. The National Bank is completely independent of the Government – in accordance with international norms. If the Central Bank were controlled by the Government, such a thing couldn’t happen, but unfortunately I’m unable to exercise oversight over it. Therefore, all we can do is ensure that when problems arise, the authorities take action to enforce the law. This is what’s happening now. It seems that your question contained a statement that, in my opinion, doesn’t correspond to reality. Proceedings are underway. So I think journalists have the opportunity to continuously question those involved in this case. I saw an interview like that just the other day, perhaps in HVG. Only the Central Bank can give an accurate account of the extent of the loss of assets that’s occurred. I can’t confirm or dispute the figures you’ve quoted. Let’s wait for the investigations to be completed, at the end of which we’ll have a figure. We’ll see whether this has happened – and, if so, the extent of the loss of assets. What I can say is that although the Central Bank isn’t subordinate to the Government – it’s independent – we’ll punish any violation of the law without delay or restriction. So if even a single forint disappears from anywhere, there will be legal consequences. This will also be the case with the Central Bank, once the necessary investigations have been completed. Unfortunately, the Government can’t provide details on specific issues, but the Central Bank can. As far as Hungarian businesses are concerned, you know my position: we expect three things from Hungarians with higher wealth, regardless who their sons and daughters are: the first is that they comply with the law, the second is that they pay their taxes, and the third is that they provide jobs for other Hungarians. These are the three things we expect. I hope that, regardless of whether someone in the world of wealthy entrepreneurs backs the Left or the Right, they’ll comply with these government requests.

State Secretary Zoltán Kovács: BBC, please.

Nick Thorpe (BBC): I’m Nick Thorpe, from the BBC. Happy New Year! I’ll ask in English, with your permission. Prime Minister, in the spirit of this season of goodwill, please could you tell us the three things that you admire or respect most about Péter Magyar. Thank you.

He left the Fidesz. That’s all what I can say. But it’s the good news – by goodwill.

State Secretary Zoltán Kovács: Népszava please. Népszava? Not here. Then HVG.

Tibor Lengyel (HVG): Hello, I’m Tibor Lengyel from HVG. Prime Minister, the last time there was an international press conference like this was at the end of 2024, in December. When asked why 2024 didn’t turn out to be a year of economic growth, you said that we should never make the mistake of thinking that 2024 would be a year of significant economic growth, but instead 2025 would be. But that didn’t happen either. Who’s responsible for this? And now, at the beginning of this year, you promised that you had a big surprise in store. Can you perhaps now reveal what it is?

Could you repeat that, please?

Tibor Lengyel (HVG): You promised that 2025 would be a year of big surprises. Can you now reveal what that big surprise was? Was it perhaps that by the end of the year another 400 billion forints in EU funds had been lost?

No, I was thinking more about the fact that we’ve introduced at least a dozen measures that are unprecedented in modern European economic policy. I’m glad if this doesn’t come as a surprise, but instead is what’s expected of us. But nevertheless, we’re talking about the fourteenth month’s pension, we’re talking about Europe’s most accessible financial scheme for first-time home buyers, and we’re talking about an 11 per cent increase in the minimum wage. I hope I’m not mistaken, or if I am, then not by much, but if you look at 2024 and 2025, I don’t think any other European country has had real wage growth like Hungary in 2024 and 2025. And I don’t think any other will in 2026 either. I think it’s a tremendous feat that the Hungarian economy is capable of this despite low economic growth – because economic growth is below 1 per cent. I think this is a fantastic achievement. So I’d like to express my appreciation most of all to those who run the economy, to workers and employers – but also to those who manage economic policy. I’d like to thank them for the fact that, despite such low growth, we’re able to provide women who make the commitment to have children with income tax exemptions that are unprecedented in Europe – or even the world. I am glad if this isn’t a surprise but the norm. The rate of growth is at the mercy of the war. We have to recognise that the war is blocking growth. The question is whether the Government sees the war or the fact that the war is blocking growth as an excuse for not taking measures to help people. Alternatively, whether it interprets it – and this is what I’m more inclined to believe – as meaning that while it’s true that war blocks economic growth, even in these circumstances we’re capable of devising financial benefits, methods and tools that make life easier for Hungarians. And we’re clearly capable of doing so. I must give special thanks to the Chamber of Commerce and Industry, which regularly bombards us with proposals, from which we can select those that we consider to be feasible. But I must also express my appreciation to the trade unions – because ultimately it was they who negotiated this 11 per cent minimum wage increase with employees. Now at this moment I’m taking credit for other people’s work. It’s true that the decree on the minimum wage needed to be signed by me, but the amount was actually agreed upon by the trade unions and employers, so it wasn’t difficult for me. So, speaking about the Hungarian economy in general, I see that, despite such low growth, we’re capable of taking these measures. This shows strength. And I’ll say it again: it’s not so much the strength of the Government, although I’d like to believe that this is also a factor, but rather the strength of those who run the Hungarian economy – the internal, non-political strength of the Hungarian economy itself. There aren’t many countries that could enact such measures while maintaining a 5 per cent budget deficit, and – we hope – curbing the growth of public debt at the same time. Of course, it would be easy to do all this if you let the budget deficit skyrocket and let public debt run wild, but we’re not doing that. I hope that the national debt won’t increase, or only very slightly – and we’re well below the European average. And although we’re not happy with a 5 per cent budget deficit, because of course it’s best to have a surplus rather than a deficit, with a 5 per cent deficit we’re not deviating from any European standards. Quite the contrary. So I believe that maintaining these financial conditions and at the same time initiating these measures is definitely a show of strength from the Hungarian economy. 

State Secretary Zoltán Kovács: GB News. Miss Cates.

Miriam Cates (GB News): Thank you, Miriam Cates, GB News. Prime Minister, you’ve said that we are living through the end of the liberal world order, and certainly current events in Venezuela and Greenland and Ukraine would confirm that. But in those events, we’re also increasingly seeing Europe completely sidelined. We’re now just observers, not actors anymore. Now you’ve also said that there is a route back to a strong Europe through a patriotic takeover of power in Brussels and a return to national sovereignty. But for Western European countries like the UK and France and Germany, where mass migration has so changed our populations, do you really believe that there is a democratic route back to patriotism, or are our nations doomed to decline? 

If you allow me to answer in Hungarian. First of all, let’s thank God that we managed to stay out of that. So on this issue I agree with every word of the new US National Security Strategy: that Europe has brought a disaster upon itself that threatens to erase the roots of its civilisation. This is called migration. And the fact that Hungary has been able to stay out of it – since then I’ve been thinking a lot about how this could have happened – is a miracle of miracles. I’m not just indulging in self-praise here. I know how we stayed out of it in 2015, when mass migration began: we had to say “yes” or “no”, and everyone said “yes” – except us, who said “no”. I know how that happened. But the fact is that by 2015 migration was already a common phenomenon in many European countries; there had been no dramatic influx like in 2015, but population replacement had already begun there in earlier years, and even decades. The number of children being born had been declining, the number of Christian children had been declining, and the number of non-Christian children arriving from abroad had been increasing. So that had been increasing, and the number of children had been declining. And that had been going on for decades. But that hadn’t been happening in Hungary. We arrived in 2015, and in this respect the courage of our own decisions and our merits meant that we still had something to preserve. So I understand that in 2015 many Western European countries thought that this is the world we live in, and it was just that now suddenly a lot of people arrived at once. But they’d been arriving there for decades! So culturally, Western Europe probably didn’t experience the same shock that we did when the migrants appeared at Keleti railway station, and when we went down to the border to see the situation. For us, it was a real shock. And somehow God shaped Hungarian history well, because obviously due to this shock effect, we immediately said no to this, while other Europeans tended to think that they were just swimming in the tide of a historical process: “This isn’t the time to turn against this process, because that’s just the way it is.” They’d already accepted that they had become immigrant countries – and in some Western European countries, being an immigrant country was even seen as being positive, being something to be proud of. So I’m very happy and grateful to God that Hungary was kept out of that immigration policy and immigration philosophy even before our government came to power. And I’m glad that we had enough strength to say no. I’d like to point out that it wasn’t difficult to say no: I think every sane Hungarian thought that we needed to. The difficult part was sticking to our decision in the face of enormous pressure from Brussels – and especially from Germany. So it was a serious political achievement. And it came at a price, because Hungary was punished for it and Hungary was subjected to accusations – unjustly, in my opinion. But Hungary endured it, and today it’s completely obvious that we played the winning card. So what we did was right. It’s not my job to speak on behalf of other countries, but most Western European countries would give their right arm to be immigrant-free. Ask a French or German person what the world would be like if, like us, they had no immigrants, no migrants. Would they like that? I think a referendum on whether they’d like a France or Germany like that would probably get a majority vote in favour. That’s how it is. It’s an unfortunate story, because it divides the countries of the European Union and steers them onto different paths. Those who participated in decisions that resulted in support for migration are understandably protecting their own careers, honour and loyalties, and they’re unable to change. They let it happen. It’s difficult to turn back from that. But in addition, most Western European countries are now thinking about how to live with this situation, since it’s already a fait accompli. Our question is how to avoid getting into such a situation – and that’s why we think about migration on a completely different basis from the way they do. They want to deal with something, they want to manage something, while we want to prevent it from happening. And this divides thinking on migration and causes clashes in political debates. But here Hungary still has to make a courageous decision. In the history of the European Union it’s unprecedented for a country to be forced to pay one million euros a day for any offence – whether real or imagined. So the whole thing is absurd! What’s more, we’re being forced to pay this because we’re not allowing migrants into Hungary and are protecting our borders. There’s a legal framework that doesn’t allow them to enter, and for this we’re being forced to pay. This is a lot of pressure. Do the arithmetic: it’s 365 million euros a year! That’s a lot of money! I did some calculations and came to the conclusion that this is still cheaper than letting them in. So, based purely on financial considerations, I believe that Hungary is better off not letting them in and not taking on all the financial, social and societal burdens that come with migrants. So even though we have to pay a large amount by Hungarian standards, sticking to our previous decision is still the right position. I’ve spoken about this, and I’m not revealing any secrets when I say that on 12 June the Migration Pact will come into force, and this is something which is completely contrary to Hungary’s interests. They want to send about 400 migrants here immediately, and we’re supposed to take them in. Someone else let them in, and now we’re supposed to take them over; and they want to oblige us to assess 27,000 – at least 27,000 – migration applications every year. This means that we’d have to keep around 10,000 people in migrant camps. But we don’t want to assess 27,000 people! There’s a Hungarian system that doesn’t allow migration applications to be submitted directly at the border: you have to wait outside Hungary’s borders until Hungary decides on a migration application – which cannot be submitted at the border, only at embassies. Anyone who wants to enter Hungary has to wait outside, and if the decision is positive, then they can come in. This is the key to everything, and we mustn’t relinquish it. Anyone who has relinquished this has lost. And anyone who wants to fix the situation without changing this will lose, because they’ll just be dealing with details. The key question is whether someone can enter the European Union before their application has been approved. Once you let them in, you won’t be able to get rid of them: legal mechanisms will be set in motion, business mechanisms, and lawyers, attorneys and civil society organisations will step in to defend those who have already entered, dragging out the proceedings. This is what’s happening in Western Europe. That’s how it is. I understand that from an American perspective this is quite worrying; but believe me, from our perspective it’s even more worrying. How can the two halves of Europe live together when one half – and we’re not just talking about Hungary, but also Slovakia and the Czech Republic – has anti-migration policies? So Central Europe will be migrant-free, it will be a no immigration zone; meanwhile Western Europe will be migrant-friendly and a migrant zone. And we’ll have to live together. Solving this will be one of the big questions for the future. It’s becoming increasingly difficult for us to cope with this task. Look at the current decision, when they sent these 400 people here – or wanted to send these 400 people here. They said that Hungary isn’t under any migration pressure, there’s no migration emergency, Hungary is a country that, since it’s not exposed to such a threat, should therefore accept migrants from Western Europe. Go down to the border and you’ll see that there are hundreds – even thousands – of people on duty, and there’s a fence. So you’re successfully defending your country; and then they say that since you don’t have any migrants, you’re not exposed to migration pressure. So the whole thing as it stands is absurd – and it’s becoming increasingly difficult to live with these two different logics within one system. I expect that in the next ten to fifteen years there will be a significant demand among native Europeans from Western Europe – not migrants – to take advantage of the freedom of movement to work and live in Hungary. And they’re welcome here. I believe this number is growing now, and it will further increase significantly. I believe this will also contribute to solving Hungary’s demographic problems. We won’t have migrants, but Germans, French and Italians. We’ve had this before – so come without weapons, that’s our only request! 

State Secretary Zoltán Kovács: Mandiner, please.

András Kovács (Mandiner): Hello. András Kovács, Mandiner. In recent months, several details have come to light about Tisza’s various plans. There’s been talk of tax increases, pension cuts, a wealth tax, a property tax, and the abolition of reductions in household energy bills. Many left-wing voters doubt that Tisza would take such drastic measures, and believe that this is just something that Fidesz has invented. Prime Minister, what message would you send to these voters? Thank you.

Listen to the voice of your common sense: if something looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and has webbed feet like a duck, then it might be a duck. I suggest you get used to this idea. I know the leading economic policy maker in the Tisza Party: a former state secretary after 2010, who was with us for perhaps a year and a half. I know his way of thinking. In Hungarian economics and economic policy there’s a tradition that when something goes wrong in the economy and resources need to be mobilised, the first target is usually the voters themselves, from whom money is taken. To give one example, taking away the thirteenth month’s pension. Taking away the thirteenth month’s salary, and raising taxes. And there’s another line of economic policy logic that says “No, in such cases those who can bear these burdens more easily than the general population should be involved in bearing their share of the public burden.” And then you have to involve the banks, international companies, energy companies – yes. We represent this school of thought. All the economists adjacent to the Tisza Party represent the first school of thought. So, knowing the people who are bustling and buzzing around there, there’s no doubt in my mind that the opposition – let’s call it Tisza – is still pursuing the same economic policy as it did in 2022. So there is nothing new there: it’s nothing but a collection of Brusselite expectations. Everything I hear and read about the Tisza Party tells me that it wants to implement in Hungary the measures demanded by Brussels: “Let’s reform the pension system, we’re too generous, we spend too much on supporting small and medium-sized enterprises, let’s replace the flat tax with a progressive tax system – our tax system is too generous.” I can give you countless examples like that. They talk about abolishing taxes on large retailers and profit margin regulations, which have successfully curbed inflation. So these are all demands from Brussels. They call for complete reform of the system of reductions in household energy bills. I’m familiar with all of this, I’ve heard them spoken aloud, and they’re included in every Brussels document. On the question of whether this is the real intention of today’s opposition, I can say that there’s a key phrase. I start from the premise that they’ve said the following: “If we admit what we’re preparing to do, we’ll lose the election. Therefore we mustn’t say what we’re preparing to do.” They said this – we didn’t invent it. It wasn’t the Right that came up with it when they said this – in their own words, live, on camera. If someone doesn’t have such intentions, then why not say what they want to do? To say “We mustn’t say what we’re preparing to do because then we won’t win the election” gives reason to assume that the programmes that have come to light really do belong to them. It’s that simple. So now I see the same situation as in 2022. Now that Gordon Bajnai has joined the opposition’s campaign, everything is exactly as it was in 2022 – that’s how I see it. This is an opposition alliance, even if it’s all been recalibrated: the same people, the same advisors, the same experts, economists, exactly as in 2022. I can say that I have a feeling of déjà vu. We need to fight the same battle – except that the stakes are higher, because in the meantime the war has entered the scene. The only significant difference between 2022 and the current situation is that in the meantime the Russo–Ukrainian war is ongoing, and pro-Brussels sentiment has been supplemented by pro-Ukrainian and pro-war sentiment. This is the big difference. But in terms of economic philosophy, economic policy and economic instruments, on the opposition side I see no difference between 2022 and 2026. The war is a big difference, and it can change a lot of things. And since for the other side Brussels is the benchmark, and Brussels is moving towards a war economy and towards war, a left-wing government would necessarily be a pro-Brussels and pro-war government. This is my very simple description of the situation. But everyone will have their own opinion on this. The opposition will also express its opinion, which can be heard. And the voters, once they’ve listened to everyone, will then be able to make a decision. 

State Secretary Zoltán Kovács: The next one is The Winston Marshall Show. Please, Mr. Winston.

Winston Marshall (The Winston Marshall Show): Thank you, Prime Minister. May I ask in English? Your reaction to “Operation Absolute Resolve” in Venezuela is distinctive from your counterparts across the world. Not just your twenty-six fellow EU neighbours but your…the liberal elite in Britain, in America as well as the Eurocrats here. Even in Beijing and in Moscow. You call…you say this is the beginning of a new era of the nations, whilst all of them cry, tweet and talk about international law. They don’t stop banging on about international law. Are they wrong to carry on banging on about international law? And is there value – is there even time – for international law in this new “era of the nations”, as you describe it?        

Great temptation to answer. But I have to have some limits on my answers now. Taking it as a complicated question, would you be so kind as to allow me to answer rather in Hungarian? Indeed. The meaning of international law has completely changed. Until now, international law has been sheepishly pushed aside, but that is over now; there is no more embarrassment. The decisions of quite a few major powers aren’t guided by international law; that’s completely obvious. Anyone who fails to see this shouldn’t be involved in foreign policy. The Hungarian position is that we don’t wish to take a global moral stance on the action. It’s happened, and we accept it. It is what it is. And we’re looking at whether it’s good or bad for Hungary. And it’s good for Hungary. First of all, I believe that the fight against drugs, and its intensity, must be increased everywhere in the world. Unfortunately, although in legal terms Hungary is still drug-free, in reality it’s no longer a drug-free country. And so drugs must be eradicated from here. This is why the fall of every narco-state is good news. So I’ll never shed a single tear over the fall of any narco-state – the fewer there are, the better. It would be best if they were all eliminated. We don’t have the power to do this, but it’s in our interest for all narco-states to be eliminated. Let them be eliminated by those who have the means, who are neighbours, and who have the power to do so. The second thing is that I hope that everything that’s happened will exert downward pressure on world energy prices. I repeat what I said earlier: the United States controls 40–50 per cent of the world’s oil reserves. If I understand US economic policy correctly, it’s a policy of reindustrialisation: Americans want to produce again, not just provide services – and they want to produce at home, not in other parts of the world. This requires energy. If I understand correctly, the other direction of their economic policy – supporting modern technologies, artificial intelligence, data-driven governance, and a data-driven economy – also requires an enormous amount of energy. This is why I believe the United States has an interest in there being cheap energy in the global economy. This is entirely in line with Hungary’s interests. We have to hold out until 2032, when Paks II comes online, and then everything will change. But we somehow have to hold out until 2032, and we have to make improvements, even without our own resources. This will require cheap international prices on the energy market. It’s undoubtedly true that the European Union tried to establish a joint EU position on the military action in Venezuela, but Hungary vetoed it. “Veto” isn’t the right word: we didn’t participate in it, and without us there’s no joint position. This is why another document has been produced that wasn’t created on behalf of the European Union. We won’t contribute to that in the future either. We don’t want a joint foreign policy. The founding treaties of the European Union clearly refer to foreign policy being a national competence. In my opinion, without a sovereign foreign policy, there’s no nation state; this is one of the fundamental characteristics of statehood. Coordinating the foreign policy of twenty-seven Member States is a good thing, it can be done; but there’s no need for a common foreign policy, because on many foreign policy issues we don’t agree – and won’t agree. We disagree on the Venezuelan issue, we disagree on the Russo–Ukrainian war, we disagree on the Middle East, on Israel – there’s complete division there, so why should we develop a joint position? Everyone should conduct their own foreign policy. We’ve transferred only one dimension of foreign policy to the joint jurisdiction of Brussels, and that’s trade policy. It’s an important part of foreign policy, and we pursue it jointly. Everything else must be based on national sovereignty. So, for our part, we’ve taken note of the facts that have come to light as a result of the US military action, and we hope that it will have a beneficial effect.

State Secretary Zoltán Kovács: China Media Group.

Bu Weijun (China Media Group): Thank you. Hello, I’m from China Media Group. China and Hungary are in an “all-weather comprehensive strategic partnership”. What’s your opinion on China–Hungary relations and China–EU relations, and what role can Hungary play in these China–EU relations? You’ve repeatedly stated that Hungary supports the “One China” principle. What’s your opinion on the recent actions of the Taiwanese authorities and certain external forces that undermine the stability of the Taiwan Strait? Thank you very much.

You’ve touched on some very difficult issues. Obviously the military operation in Venezuela will have consequences in other parts of the world. So it would be naive to believe that this is an isolated case with no impact on world politics; we must therefore expect that similar cases may occur in other parts of the world. We have to face this fact: this is an inevitable feature of the new era. Hungary does indeed align itself with the “One China” principle, but this is a very old tradition. I can tell international journalists that even during the “commie” era, when there were conflicts between China and Russia, Hungary never took a stand against China. In fact, going back as far as 1948–49, Hungarian communists always maintained a special relationship with the Chinese. There were strategic considerations behind this, and it was the right decision. So this is a tradition in Hungarian foreign policy that we’re continuing. And just so that everyone understands, the questioner brought up the issue of weather because in Chinese foreign policy all bilateral relations are classified into categories, and we belong to the “All-weather” category – which means that we maintain our partnership under all circumstances. Hence the reference to weather. There’s only one level above this – the Chinese have a higher level, a system of deeper cooperation, and we’re at the second level, directly below that. This is a huge achievement, and good for Hungary. So Hungary sees China not as a threat, but as a huge opportunity. And the fact that the Chinese president made a fantastic, historic visit to Hungary, where he invited Hungarian businesses to participate in China’s modernisation, presents great business opportunities for us. He also said that they’d be happy to participate where needed in the modernisation of the Hungarian economy. This is why there are investments. And this is a huge opportunity for us. So I see this historical tradition as one of the great opportunities of the modern age, and we want to exploit all the business opportunities it offers – which is why we’ll continue to work with China in the future. Your question also touched on the other countries: the other countries of the European Union. Unfortunately, our pro-China policy and our desire to cooperate with China isn’t the majority position in the European Union today. There are more people there who would rather restrict cooperation with the Chinese – which is something I’m personally trying to correct. I also see attempts to revive ideological confrontation. So I consider the seemingly innocent statement that China is a “systemic rival” – regularly echoed in the Hungarian press without us ever thinking about what it actually means – to be completely meaningless; or if it does have any meaning, then it’s a flawed idea. China is not our systemic rival. There are no systemic rivalries in the modern world. What’s happening is simply that culture has regained its dominant role, and that culture is more important than politics. Peoples with different cultures govern themselves differently. We knew this long ago. Perhaps I’ve already told you that the ancients knew that the Romans couldn’t be governed in the Greek way, and the Greeks couldn’t be governed in the Roman way. This is true. So China is China. Europe is Europe, and America is America. Everyone has a system of government that’s grown out of their own culture. Those who want to standardise these, synthesise them, or create systemic conflicts from them, are completely misguided; that way of thinking is bad for humanity. This is why we don’t consider China to be a systemic rival. We don’t want to live the way the Chinese live. That’s the Chinese way of life. We want to live the way Hungarians know how to live, the way that’s good for us, the way in which we feel comfortable in our own skin. But we don’t therefore think that China is our systemic rival. I don’t want to prove that the Hungarian way of organising the economy is better than the Chinese way. What does that have to do with me? That’s your business! And I very much hope that China doesn’t want to prove that its economic organisation and methodology are better than Hungary’s. Why would that be necessary? Everyone should do their job in a way that suits their cultural background, and then everyone can thrive. And, in the process, they should feel good about themselves. That’s the right attitude. So I consider it important that in 2026 the deep cooperation between China and Hungary should continue – and even strengthen. I’m expecting more large Chinese investments, and we also have serious export plans with regard to China. We’d very much like to see Hungarian food exports – which are currently restricted by health barriers due to the epidemics here – return to their previous volume in China. We’re working on this, by the way. The Chinese are cooperative and respectful, they recognise Hungary, and we also show them respect. I think this is a good system of cooperation, and it’s good for Hungarians.

State Secretary Zoltán Kovács: Patrióta please. Dániel Bohár.

Dániel Bohár (Patrióta): Thank you. I’m Dániel Bohár, from Patrióta. Prime Minister, the President of the Tisza Party continuously denies that left-wing experts, background figures and politicians are working with the Tisza Party – for example, in developing their policy package. You’ve already mentioned their tax plans. László Kéri is one such person. Péter Magyar also denies that László Kéri is involved, but today the press published recordings showing László Kéri in the Tisza Party headquarters, in its office, consulting with the Tisza Party’s campaign experts. What do you think is the reason that these left-wing people are constantly appearing behind and around the Tisza Party, and what do you think about the party president’s public stance towards them? What’s the reason for this? 

Well, if we handle this with sufficient generosity – and why shouldn’t we? – I think we should set aside the petty aspects, the denials, and all the little underhanded tricks. It may be somewhat unworthy, but if we’re magnanimous enough, we have to acknowledge that it can’t be any other way. In Hungary today there are two schools of thought regarding the direction of economic and social policy. One argues that Western Europe and Brussels are on the right track, and that Hungary’s job is to align itself with Western Europe on as many points as possible, smoothing out differences of opinion and joining the pro-Ukrainian position. Tisza voted for that, didn’t they? On whether Ukraine should be admitted [to the EU]. There was a formal, binding vote. The Tisza representatives voted, and they said, “Yes, Ukraine should be admitted, obviously. Let’s support Ukraine. And on the issue of migration, let’s implement the Migration Pact.” They’ve always said that. And indeed, when they didn’t know what to say, they said that migration isn’t even a problem. I remember that too. So let’s face it, those who don’t support our economic and social policies have no choice but to support Brussels’ economic and social policies. They gather there, and so in Hungary there’s no other economic policy concept based on national principles. We have a concept. I wouldn’t say that the distinguished journalists here are biting their nails with excitement to hear this, but we have a work-based economy and a family-based social system. Neither of these exist in the EU. Let’s be clear: the EU has a welfare-based economy and an individual-based society, not a family-based society. That’s a different concept. And those who don’t accept this are heading in the direction of Brussels – there’s not much choice. So it doesn’t matter whether or not they like each other, whether or not they deny it. To name just a few cases: there’s György Surányi, whom we can rightly respect for his professional competence; and there’s Gordon Bajnai, whom we respect less, because he took away the thirteenth month’s pension and ruined the country in a single year – and before that devoted three years of his life to being the Minister for Economy, cheating I don’t know how many millions of Hungarians into foreign currency loans; or there’s András Kármán, who’s an expert delegated from Erste Bank; and then there’s László Kéri, whom I’ve known well since my student days, so I know everything about László’s thinking. So there’s nothing unusual about the fact that they’re gathering there. I see nothing to hide, nothing surprising, nothing new in that. That’s how it usually is, isn’t it? That’s how it was in 2022. Quite rightly, you need to focus on the future, not the past, but if you could rewind to January 2022 and look at the domestic political situation in Hungary, believe me you’d pretty much see what we see now: nothing new, everyone’s where they belong. To repeat, there’s only one new thing, which raises the stakes in this election: the war, and the fact that the Left hasn’t taken a national stance on the war. So Tisza is clearly following Brussels’ position – and Brussels has decided to go to war. This is a painful thing, because it would also be possible to have a Left that said “no” to Brussels, that didn’t want Ukraine to follow the EU, that didn’t want to support Ukraine, and that didn’t support continuation of the war. It would also be possible to have such a Left – there are European countries where such a Left exists. Ours isn’t like that. Ours is pro-war, pro-Ukraine and pro-Brussels. But I see these little pulp fiction episodes, with various people popping up in various places. But that’s not how you should look at things: you have to look at them from a higher perspective – and from that point of view everything falls into place. Things are where they’re meant to be, where they usually are.

State Secretary Zoltán Kovács: The Times, please.

Marc Bennetts (The Times): You said last month regarding the war in Ukraine, that it is not clear who attacked whom. Yet the entire world saw on the morning of February 24, 2022, President Putin gave the order to bomb Kyiv and other Ukrainian towns and cities. Could you explain what you meant? Also, in the year that brings the 70th anniversary of the Hungarian Revolution of 1956, how do you think the Hungarians who gave their lives to resist the Russian occupation would feel if they knew that under your rule, Hungary has become Moscow’s diplomatic and ideological ally and opposes support for Ukraine, another country – in fact your neighbour – fighting to be free of Moscow? Is this not a betrayal of the ideas of 1956? Also, while you constantly describe Brussels and Kyiv’s allies as “pro-war”, do you think Putin is pro-war? I don’t think I’ve ever heard you describe him in those terms. Thank you.

I think the situation is clear: in February 2022 Russia attacked Ukraine. I don’t understand what the uncertainty is about. It’s completely obvious. I think the ’56-ers were waiting for the Americans to come. Today the Americans have come, and they want peace. It wouldn’t be difficult for them to side with the Americans. This isn’t a question of ideology. I don’t think anyone would seriously argue that the Americans are on the same ideological platform as the Russians. That’s not what this is about. It’s about wanting peace, wanting to end the war. The ’56-ers would have been very happy if the Americans had come in. And together, we could have taken a stand with them. But unfortunately, that didn’t happen. I think that’s all. If I understand correctly, you think that the United States and Russia are positioned on the same ideological platform? That’s your position? No, no, that’s a key question. Whether you see, you can see ideologically United States and Russia on the same way or not. I don’t. Probably that’s the reason why we disagree. 

State Secretary Zoltán Kovács: 444, please.

Pál Dániel Rényi: Hello, I’m Dániel Rényi, from 444. I’d like to return to the subject of Central Bank foundations for a moment – at least tangentially. My question is this. When was the last time you spoke to György Matolcsy – whom you’ve known for thirty years, or perhaps even longer? Did you ask him if he knows anything about these missing assets? And, Prime Minister, do you stand by the statement you made in 2016, that it would take an earthquake to shake your confidence in György Matolcsy? Those are my two questions about him. And I’d also like to ask about the foundations’ assets, because György Matolcsy’s son also had a significant influence over the assets that ended up in the foundation. Do you have a personal relationship with him, have you ever met Ádám Matolcsy? And how familiar are you with the story of how he became wealthy? Thank you very much. 

It was a long time ago, perhaps eight or ten years ago, when I met the son of the Governor of the Central Bank. But I might easily have run into him regardless, because he’s often here in the city. It’s not that difficult to meet him. As for the Governor of the Central Bank, in the days and weeks before he left his post I spoke with him for the last time about what was going to happen, about what the new Central Bank leadership would be like, what I thought should happen, and what he thought about it. And I was curious about his opinion of his successor. The Government has never dealt with any financial issues of the Central Bank, nor should it – there are authorised, non-governmental state bodies whose job it is to deal with that. I’m not opposed to bringing the Central Bank under government control and having the Government take responsibility for it – even though that would go against international trends. I wouldn’t shy away from that, but at the moment it’s not possible. And if it’s not possible, then the Central Bank – with its virtues and its problems – shouldn’t be treated as a matter of government responsibility, but within the system in which it exists. That’s a non-governmental system, and I can’t take responsibility for it. I can take responsibility for one thing: if there’s well-founded suspicion of wrongdoing, proceedings will be conducted, because these bodies – at least the police – are overseen by the Government, and the Prosecutor’s Office is answerable to Parliament. These bodies will conduct proceedings, and everyone will get what they deserve. This will be based on the facts uncovered – not based on rumours, but on documented, proven facts. I expect this to happen. And it will happen. 

State Secretary Zoltán Kovács: Thank you. The Free Press in US. Mr. Lane, please.

Charles Mark Lane (The Free Press): Thank you. Some of my questions have already been asked, but I do want to come back to Venezuela. You described that as a benefit to Hungary, because it will reduce the cost of energy. I wonder if you could explain how you think that’s going to work since it would be a very long-term project to revive Venezuelan oil production. And in keeping with that, the President of the United States said something at his press conference about this that I wanted your reaction to. He said that the protection of commerce, territory and natural resources are the iron laws that determine global power. And that, of course, seems to exclude any kind of values or – as was being discussed before – international law. I wonder if you’re…I’d like your reaction to that, and how such a world would affect Hungary.

International law hasn’t provided Hungary with any protection so far, so we don’t see any significant changes related to us. At the moment international law is being used against us in Brussels. Why should we regret it if something new comes along to replace it? I can form an opinion based on the opinions and information that have been made public – just as you did with your question about oil. I heard the US president’s press conference and spoke with the Hungarian foreign minister, who consulted with his colleagues. We believe that the Americans will be able to bring Venezuela’s oil reserves onto the global market. And if they can do that, it means that supply will increase. And if the increase in supply results in cheaper prices, which is logically in America’s interest based on its industrial policy, we believe that this could be good for us. Indeed, the President is certainly right in saying that in the future influence over natural resources will determine positions of power in the world. I’d quietly add that it seems as if something like this has also been the case up to now. 

State Secretary Zoltán Kovács: Direkt36, please.

Your question is tempting. It’s very tempting question to make kind of a moral judgement, or a moral opinion, or a reinterpretation of the new world order. Unfortunately, it’s too early to ask me to do so. I’m thinking a lot on that, but I’m…but I think the process is not completed yet. So the old world, I mean, the liberal world is out, but the new one which is just coming in – which is the age of the nation as I understand, or I like to title – is not…it has no clear-cut format at this moment. So we have to wait. That action, what we called military action on Venezuela, was just one, which will shape it. Some other things will happen, which will shape as well this new age. So I would not like to appear as somebody who is able to do a forecast in a precise way of this new age. But my job is to understand what’s going on and what is the impact of that on Hungary. That’s my limit I have to respect. I hope the Americans will be successful anyway to mobilise the natural resources of Venezuela. I hope they will be able to create circumstances which can be resulted in a democratic government in Venezuela. I hope that the narco-state is gone with the wind forever. So I have rather hopes at this moment.

State Secretary Zoltán Kovács: Thank you. Direkt36.

Patrik Galavits (Direkt36): My name is Patrik Galavits, from Direkt36. Prime Minister, I’d like to ask you about public services, as there’s ample evidence that over the past sixteen years your governments haven’t considered them to be a priority. As a percentage of GDP we spend well below the EU and OECD average on healthcare, Hungarian students’ results in mathematics and reading comprehension have declined in PISA tests, the proportion of top-performing students has also declined, and train delays have steadily increased in recent years. In 2024, for example, the total cumulative delays on MÁV services was equivalent to almost seven years. Sixteen years ago you promised the opposite of all this. You promised that you’d fix healthcare, education and public transport, and your government received a lot of EU funding to help with this. My question is this: How personally responsible do you feel for the fact that, despite your promises and opportunities, these public services are currently in such a state? 

I’m proud of what we’ve achieved. In healthcare, we’ve renovated 91 hospitals and outpatient clinics – 91 in total! We’ve built or renovated 625 medical practices. These are fantastic results. Healthcare spending has increased two and a half times in real terms compared to 2010. That’s fantastic! Fifty per cent in real terms, two and a half times in gross terms. If you look at the 2026 budget, you’ll see that the healthcare budget is increasing by 8 per cent. In times of war like these, I think that’s a big deal. Looking at transportation, I can say that since 2010 we’ve built 870 kilometres of highways and expressways. So that’s fantastic too! If I remember correctly, in terms of the length of these, in 2024 our expressway network was, surprisingly, even longer than Austria’s – not to mention all the other Central European countries. I think this is a huge improvement. And as you can see, the railway system is being overhauled at full speed. You can see the new investments and developments: new railway construction is underway; we’ve just purchased new locomotives and new carriages; and we’ve introduced systems that establish responsibility for delays, so there can be no delays without consequences – otherwise fares will be refunded. So I believe that within a few years the railways will also reach a standard worthy of Hungary. As for education, I can say that the annual budget for public education has increased by 175 per cent compared to 2010. That’s 175 per cent – which in real terms means 60 per cent! Teachers have received a 60 per cent pay rise over the past two years, and a further 10 per cent this year. So this year they’ll earn more than 70 per cent more than in 2023. So I think that the Government is not only paying attention to public services, but also allocating funds to them. And I’d like to defend the people who work there. I don’t think teachers are doing a bad job, and I’d also defend those working in healthcare. I think doctors, nurses and the support staff who maintain hospitals are all performing their duties with honour. There’s surely room for improvement, as there is in every profession, but to say that public service workers are incapable of operating the systems they work in is, in my opinion, unfair. But that’s what you’re saying, because if they’re not operating, there must be a reason. We’re putting more money into it, but according to you, performance is deteriorating – so there’s only one explanation. So I think there’s a problem with the work there, whether it’s with the managers or the employees – there can’t be any other explanation. So, to reiterate, we’re investing 8 per cent more in healthcare, teachers are earning 73 per cent more than they did two years ago, and we’ve built the most extensive expressway network. We’re currently investing huge sums in modernising Hungarian State Railways. This is happening. To say that the country isn’t functioning is to belittle the people who are doing their jobs conscientiously every day in these sectors. I stand by them. My employees – excuse me, government employees – are doing a great job. 

State Secretary Zoltán Kovács: Thank you. InfoRádió.

Zsolt Herczeg (InfoRádió): Hello, I’m Zsolt Herczeg from InfoRádió. Since 2010 the Government has considered family support and halting population decline to be one of its most important tasks, and it’s spending a lot on that. But the fertility rate is stagnating and declining – as is, unfortunately, the number of births. Firstly, I’m curious to know how you see the undoubtedly diverse reasons for this. Secondly, I’d like to know if you see any more tools in family policy based on financial incentives that can be implemented in the near future to bring about meaningful change, or whether it’s become clear that completely different motivations – even social and attitudinal changes – are needed for an expected demographic turnaround.

Where can we start to unravel this? Let’s start with this question: What’s the goal of our family policy? Our family policy has two goals. The first is that those who decide to raise children shouldn’t have a lower standard of living than those who don’t take that decision. This is our first, and perhaps most important, goal. We’re not there yet. The difference is much smaller today, but we’re not there yet. Right now we’re introducing income tax exemption for 40-year-old mothers with at least two children, which represents a pay advantage of 15 per cent. And in answer to your last question, in 2027 mothers under the age of 50 with two children will be exempt from personal income tax, in 2028 this will apply to those under 60, and in 2029 to all mothers. So we’ll reach the point where women in Hungary who have two children won’t pay any personal income tax for the rest of their lives. We could consider including other sources of income in the tax exemption besides earned income, but I think it’s too early for that at this point. Let’s now implement what we’ve already decided. The other goal of family policy is to increase the number of children that are born. Here we come up against a biological limit, and there’s further tangible evidence of why it’s a problem that the Government isn’t omnipotent – because, for example, we can’t overcome the laws of biology. So the question is how many women of childbearing age there are in Hungary, and the number of women of childbearing age is constantly declining; this means that in order to reverse the demographic trend, an ever lower number of women have to give birth to more children. This is the real challenge. I think that money alone isn’t enough, but I also have to admit that the Government can make rules and provide financial resources, but the Government has no jurisdiction beyond that. So family policy in Hungary has a very sensitive aspect – I say this to those here who are from abroad, because perhaps this isn’t the case in their countries. When it comes to their personal lives, Hungarians are the most liberal people in Europe. This word is misleading, but what I’m saying makes sense. So, the idea that “My house is my castle” is, in my opinion, stronger in Hungary than anywhere else in Europe. But we’re certainly among the top countries. People here don’t like it when others interfere in their lives – in fact, they hate it, they don’t accept it. Even when you want to do something good or support something you have to think twice, because from another point of view it’s interpreted as interference in their private world. Family support is like that. I encounter many opinions which state that if we support some people in raising children, it means that we’re discriminating against those who haven’t yet decided to have children. At that moment they feel that they’ve been placed in a negative category, and they begin to defend themselves. So we have to be very careful in Hungary when it comes to anything related to private life, even family life, because we can encounter a great deal of social resistance. Therefore we need to know our own kind, and what we can and cannot handle culturally. This is why the limits of the Government’s influence are regulation and financial aspects, because beyond that people consider intervention inappropriate. I’d gladly evangelise, but we’re prohibited from doing so – perhaps rightly so. There are those who know this better than we do, but it would undoubtedly help a lot if more of us could find our way back to our Christian roots. That would certainly have a beneficial effect on demographics. But that’s not the Government’s job, it doesn’t belong here, and it’s not acceptable in Hungary. So we use these tools: regulation, empathy, care, compassion and financial support. This is what we can give families. We’re trying to build a family-friendly Hungary. But there’s no doubt that we’ve achieved significant results in the first category – and I’d be cautious about the second, because although we’ve not been able to improve the demographic situation, we’ve been able to slow down its deterioration. According to our calculations, if we hadn’t introduced our family policy measures, today there would be 200,000 fewer children in Hungary. If I ever have to give an account before God of what I’ve done, this, first and foremost, is what I’ll put forward in my defence. 

State Secretary Zoltán Kovács: Thank you. We’re running out of time, so there are only two questions left. Paraméter please, the Slovak news agency.

László Juhász (Paraméter): Hello, I’m László Juhász, representing the Paraméter news portal. Prime Minister, in December the Slovak government, led by Robert Fico, passed a law stipulating that anyone who questions the Beneš Decrees could face six months in prison. These are the post-war decrees which ascribe collective guilt to Hungarians in Slovakia, on the basis of which land in Slovakia is still being confiscated – not only from Hungarians, but also from them. How will you use your influence and personal relations with Prime Minister Fico to ensure that something is done about these Beneš Decrees? What can the Hungarians in Slovakia expect from you? What specific steps will you take in this regard?

First of all, Hungarians in Felvidék or Slovakia can count on the full support of the Hungarian government. We’ll continue to support them in every way, as we’ve done so far. The second thing I can tell you is that we don’t accept the concept of collective guilt – either in our own country or in other European countries. Collective guilt is a bad thing, and laws that embody collective guilt are also bad. Thirdly, we’re trying to understand this Slovak law. And this situation isn’t easy. Now, it’s unclear whether or not it’s now punishable if someone in Slovakia says that the Beneš Decrees are wrong, that they lack a moral basis, or if they say something like the passages on collective guilt are unacceptable. So does one need to question their existence, or is it forbidden to simply say anything bad about them? These are two different things. I’m waiting for a clear legal situation to finally emerge, so that we know what is and isn’t allowed. What I’ve seen in recent weeks is that many people in Slovakia have said that the Beneš Decrees are wrong, and there have been demonstrations. So they’ve said that they’re bad. I haven’t seen the legal consequences. So I want to understand the exact nature of the legislation that the Slovaks have created, and whether it changes the situation as it stands. What I see is that there are about a thousand hectares of farmland. I’m now trying to find out whether there are specific legal cases in which the Beneš Decrees adopted after World War II are being used in property disputes. And if I’ve understood correctly, at least from what I’ve been able to gather so far, the Beneš Decrees are being used as a tool in a legal dispute relating to about one thousand hectares of farmland. These are specific legal violations, and they need to be addressed. Once I have a clear overview of the whole situation, I’ll discuss it in sufficient depth with the Slovak president and prime minister. This hasn’t happened yet. I’ve already discussed this issue with him, but not in sufficient depth. In the meantime, there are two things I can submit in writing: Hungary continues to unconditionally support the Hungarians living in Slovakia, their elected leaders, the entire Hungarian community, their political organisations, and their civil organisations. And we reject any attribution of collective guilt.

State Secretary Zoltán Kovács: Thank you. Miss Karoleva.

Scarlett Karoleva (freelance journalist): Scarlett Karoleva, independent journalist from the Netherlands. First and foremost, Happy New Year Mr. Prime Minister. It has been a very good year so far for the people of Venezuela, who have been liberated by President Donald Trump from the socialist dictatorship, and a lot of people in Europe are celebrating with them, having equally a desire as they feel that also in Europe and in the United Kingdom, they’re living in a social[ist] dictatorship with Keir Starmer, Emmanuel Macron and Ursula von der Leyen. I ask you this question, not only as a prime minister, but also as a private citizen. What is your thought on that, and do you support them that they have the desire to be liberated by president Donald Trump?

When you ask for my personal opinion I’m in an easy position, because hundreds of Venezuelans have fled to Hungary in recent years. Hungary has taken in people of Hungarian descent who were living in Venezuela and who have fled in recent years. We’re talking about hundreds of Hungarian families who have come to Hungary. From them I know what the situation is like there. So from the Hungarians who fled from there we Hungarians have accurate knowledge about what life has been like there and what the country looked like. And I’m sure that those Hungarians who fled from Venezuela and live here with us are also happy that there’s been a change in the life of the country. My personal opinion coincides with the personal opinions of the Hungarians who fled here. But I’ll say this again: we don’t need to derive our opinions from ideological principles, because there are Hungarian families who had to flee from there, and we took them in. We know the situation from them. So I wish Venezuela every success! It’s one of the richest countries in the world. I’ve not been there yet, but perhaps everyone knows this from what people here have been writing. It’s beautiful, rich and strong, and I believe it has a great future ahead of it. It needs good governance. 

State Secretary Zoltán Kovács: And if the Prime Minister will allow an extra question, so as not to break with a special tradition: Péter Breuer.

Péter Breuer (Heti TV; Breuer Press): Péter Breuer, Heti TV, Breuer Press.

Happy New Year, Péter!

Péter Breuer (Heti TV; Breuer Press): Happy New Year to you too, Prime Minister, and thank you for having the patience to listen to my question. You began by talking about the Hungarian path and peace. This Hungarian path and Hungary’s peace are envied by many countries in Europe, perhaps even around the world. Here’s an opportunity to increase that envy even further. Earlier you mentioned the Middle East. I usually say in English that it’s the “Capital of the World”, because that’s where the Epochal Events took place. Now there’s an opportunity to further annoy those who disagree with Judeo–Christian culture, by recognising Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and moving the embassy there. And if that is indeed the case, then peace can also be strengthened in Gaza City by the United States and peace advocates, such as yourself, seeking peacekeepers – not combatants, but peacekeepers. In this the Hungarian Armed Forces can also demonstrate their extensive experience and attitude. And all this can be capped off by announcing it in the Capital of the World. Of course, today I’m not asking about relations between the two countries, because there are fourteen flights a day between them, and so we’re on the path to peace. But zero tolerance is good not only for Jews, but for the whole of Europe, and for Christian–Jewish culture as well. You mentioned Germany, France and Western Europe earlier. We don’t have tanks in front of our synagogues – except perhaps in mock-up form in front of Budapest’s “Bálna” Centre, informing people that military events also take place there. So this could be replicated in the European Union, where there’s non-stop condemnation of the Jewish state – a state whose founders included many truly proud Hungarian Jews. Let’s continue on this path! 

Thank you, of course, for all your good wishes, Péter. The same to you! It’s true that Hungary has a special historical connection. I think that there are definitely more than 100,000 citizens of Hungarian origin living in Israel, but according to some estimates, the number could be as high as 200,000. This is a serious matter. And in Hungary too, I think we’re not far off a situation in which, due to the Jewish communities leaving Western Europe, Hungary will become the country in Europe with the largest Jewish community – although the numbers in Western Europe vary. Judging by the events in France, I think we’re close to this. So Hungary has a personal, unique, special relationship with Israel and Jewish communities, and we strive to fulfil the political, moral and cultural obligations arising from this. This is why we’ve declared zero tolerance for anti-Semitism. This means that Hungarian citizens of Jewish origin mustn’t suffer any abuse in Hungary, and we’ll develop this cooperation in areas where we can help the State of Israel and cooperate with it, without undermining Hungary’s interests. If I remember correctly, Gergő, last year, in 2025, both the Israeli prime minister and the Israeli president visited Hungary, or vice versa. That’s not a routine matter. The Prime Minister was last here in 2017, and before that in 1990. So he hadn’t been here between 1990 and 2017, and I just want to point out what qualitative changes had taken place. We’re in constant consultation, there are serious diplomatic relations between the two countries, we’ve established a branch office in Jerusalem, and so we’re one of the few countries that has some kind of diplomatic representation in Jerusalem. I wouldn’t like to open the debate with you, Péter, on whether Jerusalem is the capital of the world, because it would take a long time and several litres of red wine. I thought it was Felcsút, but let’s put that aside for now – everyone’s heart is drawn to a different place. As far as Middle East policy is concerned, we’re now past the first stage of the peace plan, and have reached the second stage. We knew in advance that this would be very difficult, so it won’t be easy to implement. The structure is attractively simple, transparent and sound, but it will be difficult to create. I’ll quietly say that the King of Jordan also visited Hungary this year – obviously not by chance. We were invited to Sharm El-Sheikh, which was also no coincidence. The Abraham Accords, if you remember, were signed in Washington, and Hungary was the only country from this part of the world that was invited. So we’re trying to do what we can, based on our specific historical ties and my personal relationship with the Israeli prime minister, which goes back several decades. So we’re happy to play a role in the implementation of the second phase, although it’s not yet clear what this will entail. Therefore I wouldn’t go so far as to say that military, peacekeeping – or even diplomatic – frameworks have been established yet, but we’re monitoring this closely and we’ll try to participate in its formation and development. I very much hope that the second phase will also prove to be viable. I wish the Jewish community in Hungary a happy New Year, also through you!

State Secretary Zoltán Kovács: Prime Minister, Minister, thank you very much. Our press conference has come to an end. Thank you very much to our colleagues for being here with us today. Have a nice day, see you again soon!

Happy New Year! Thank you very much for your patience!