Hungary’s Election Results and Implications for U.S. Policy

In the recent parliamentary elections in Hungary, voters have decided to replace Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and his Fidesz party. This outcome, which many had anticipated based on opinion polls, points toward a potentially smooth and democratic transition of power. Notably, Hungarians seemed unfazed by any foreign attempts to sway their electoral choices.

This isn’t particularly surprising for Americans, who also tend to reject the notion that anyone other than eligible citizens should influence the democratic process. Besides the more extreme fringes of our political landscape, there’s minimal evidence suggesting that foreign influence has a significant impact on American voters’ opinions.

Traditionally, American leaders have adhered to the principle that politics stops at the water’s edge. They’ve generally avoided even the appearance of interfering in the domestic affairs of other sovereign nations, keeping foreign policy separate from domestic political considerations.

I’ve strongly criticized any departure from these principles, especially the ways in which certain elected Democrats engage in Israel’s political scene. Meanwhile, Hungarian politics has attracted considerable attention from some factions on the American right for much of this decade.

It’s a curious phenomenon. Right-wing national conservatives in the U.S. have depicted Orbán’s Hungary as a bastion of traditional values amidst what they see as a degenerate liberal Europe. Some American politicians seem to buy into this narrative.

But let’s be honest: it’s a misconception. Orbán’s supporters in the U.S. may accept his controversial policies, including court-packing and restrictions on free speech, as necessary for creating a social utopia. Yet, despite the talk of reviving faith and family through nationalist policies, Hungary has seen declines in religious participation and birth rates, much like other Western nations.

The admiration some have for Hungary’s supposed unique strengths might provide a rationale for personal support, yet it shouldn’t inform U.S. foreign policy. Shared values can foster alliances, but historically, U.S. foreign policy has focused on protecting strategic interests, not merely on ideological conformity.

Moreover, Orbán’s praise for authoritarian regimes doesn’t reflect the values held by many Americans. His connections with Russia and cooperation with China’s undemocratic practices, as well as his growing ties with Iran, clash with U.S. interests.

This alignment should matter to American conservatives, who expect European partners to contribute to the collective defense against shared threats. The Trump administration’s National Security Strategy in 2025 emphasized the necessity for a strong Europe in competing with adversaries. However, even with Hungary’s defense budget increases, Europe has made strides in burden-sharing efforts. Orbán’s resistance to EU support for Ukraine contrasts with what other nations are doing to reduce their reliance on Russian energy, while Hungary has remained heavily dependent on it.

Under Orbán, Hungary hasn’t offered much in terms of strategic coordination with the U.S. Instead, the most significant value shared between Americans and Hungarians today is the fundamental right to choose their leaders freely and fairly, without interference.

For those on the American right particularly anxious about the moral fabric of Hungary’s economy, the next prime minister likely won’t plunge Budapest into turmoil or impose extreme laws. I have yet to hear him advocate for open borders or compromise on national sovereignty for the sake of the EU.

What truly seems to motivate Hungarian voters is a rejection of the crony capitalism and corruption that have marred the country’s economy and the ruling party’s reputation. The forthcoming prime minister emerges from a party that campaigned on addressing economic challenges rather than merely pointing fingers. It seems likely that Hungarians will evaluate their government’s performance based on its successes.

From an American perspective, particularly one rooted in Kentucky, it’s puzzling how some on the right believed that U.S. interests were best served by intervening in Hungary’s elections. The relevance of Hungary to American interests is less about social policies and more about ensuring global actions align with U.S. strategic goals.

It remains unclear what the future holds for the U.S.-Hungary relationship under new leadership. Nevertheless, welcoming this shift could be beneficial, provided Hungary’s next leaders prioritize cooperation with the U.S. over subservience to adversarial powers and focus more on the common good.