Since late 2023, Robert Fico’s government has openly targeted critical civil society, independent media and the opposition. Between January 2025 and June 2026, senior officials repeatedly cast NGOs as “foreign mercenaries” and enemies of the state, and in early 2025 even linked them to an alleged coup plot. The ruling party paid for most of the attack advertising against NGOs and journalists on social media. Around €15–16 million in public funding for human rights, culture and environmental organisations was cut or withheld. A 2025 law requiring NGOs to disclose their donors, which activists call the “Russian law”, was struck down by the Constitutional Court. The government then responded with sweeping audits, inspections and criminal investigations against selected organisations. Core freedoms remain legally protected, and the courts continue to act as a real check. Slovakians still give, volunteer and protest in large numbers. Pressure has also pushed CSOs closer together and closer to municipalities, businesses and independent media.
Civic Environment Report 2026: Slovakia
Mixed – Restrictive Leaning
| Standard | Score | Rating |
|---|---|---|
| Cluster A — Institutional and Political Environment and Narratives of CSOs | 1.8 | cluster average |
| A1 Equal treatment | 2 | Restrictive leaning |
| A2 Political recognition as partners | 2 | Restrictive leaning |
| A3 Refrained authorities from smearing | 1 | Restrictive |
| A4 No weaponization of state powers and good governance principles | 2 | Restrictive leaning |
| A5 Transparent and open public institutions | 2 | Restrictive leaning |
| Cluster B — Legal and Financial Framework for CSOs | 2.8 | cluster average |
| B1 Free establishment and operation | 3 | Mostly enabling |
| B2 CSOs enjoy a safe space and protection from arbitrariness | 3 | Mostly enabling |
| B3 Liberality of resourcing | 2 | Restrictive leaning |
| B4 Enabling fiscal environment | 3 | Mostly enabling |
| B5 Free expressions of criticism | 3 | Mostly enabling |
| Cluster C — Public Engagement and Perceptions towards the Work of CSOs | 2.8 | cluster average |
| C1 Citizens' trust | 3 | Mostly enabling |
| C2 Pluralistic presentation in media | 2 | Restrictive leaning |
| C3 Free engagement | 3 | Mostly enabling |
| C4 CSOs embedded in communities | 3 | Mostly enabling |
| C5 Freedom of assembly | 3 | Mostly enabling |
| Cluster D — CSOs as Policy Makers | 2 | cluster average |
| D1 Right to participate in decision-making including in the policy cycle | 2 | Restrictive leaning |
| D2 Timely consultations and equal participation | 2 | Restrictive leaning |
| D3 Policies encourage cooperation with CSOs | 2 | Restrictive leaning |
| D4 Free advocacy and watchdogging | 3 | Mostly enabling |
| D5 Government listens | 1 | Restrictive |
| Composite index (average of cluster scores) | 2.35 | between restrictive leaning and mostly enabling |