Prime Minister Andrej Babiš’s government has advanced legislation replacing independent funding for Czech public broadcasters with state budget allocations, despite protests, warnings from European media organisations and concerns that the changes could expose journalists to political interference.

The Czech government has taken a further step towards fundamentally restructuring the country’s public broadcasting system, pushing controversial legislation through its first parliamentary reading after an extraordinary overnight session that triggered demonstrations and clashes with police in Prague.

In the early hours of Saturday, 24 October, the Chamber of Deputies advanced a government proposal abolishing licence fees for Czech Television (ČT) and Czech Radio (ČRo), replacing them with direct financing from the state budget. Opposition attempts to reject the legislation or return it for revision failed.

The decision represents another stage in the confrontation between Prime Minister Andrej Babiš’s governing coalition and organisations defending independent public broadcasting. Critics argue that the proposed financial arrangements could give successive governments greater leverage over the country’s principal public service media institutions.

Police intervene as protesters confront parliament

Hundreds of demonstrators gathered outside parliament on Prague’s Malostranské Square on Friday, protesting against the legislation and the government’s decision to accelerate its parliamentary consideration.

According to the Czech News Agency’s account of the demonstrations, several dozen protesters attempted to force their way into the parliamentary building. Officers from a special police unit prevented their entry.

Police spokeswoman Eva Kropáčová confirmed that the situation was brought under control without arrests. Demonstrators also confronted SPD parliamentarian Jaroslav Foldyna, requiring police intervention.

Inside parliament, the governing coalition of ANO, Freedom and Direct Democracy (SPD) and the Motorists party imposed limits on parliamentary debate and scheduled the decisive vote for 4.36am.

Of the 177 MPs present, 81 supported rejecting the proposal. The opposition subsequently pledged to continue resisting the legislation during its remaining parliamentary stages.

Financial dependence and political influence

The central controversy concerns the proposed transfer of financial responsibility for public broadcasters from licence-fee payers to the state.

Under the government’s plan, Czech Television would receive approximately CZK 5.74 billion annually, while Czech Radio would receive CZK 2.07 billion.

Combined funding would amount to approximately CZK 7.8 billion, representing a reduction of around CZK 1.4 billion, or 15 per cent, compared with existing licence-fee revenues.

Culture Minister Oto Klempíř, who developed the proposal, maintains that budget financing is an established European model. The government argues that abolishing the combined CZK 205 monthly household charge would reduce costs for consumers without compromising editorial independence.

However, the dispute extends beyond the immediate financial reductions.

Under the existing system, licence fees provide broadcasters with revenue that is substantially separated from annual government spending decisions. Financing through the state budget introduces a different relationship between broadcasters and political authorities.

Even where allocations are established by legislation, future parliamentary majorities can amend the law governing those payments.

A particularly significant development emerged on Saturday when an examination of the government’s own legislative documentation showed that its regulatory impact assessment had identified direct budget financing as the riskiest funding option.

The accompanying documents explicitly acknowledge the possibility of increased dependence on the state and political pressure without adequate safeguards.

European organisations warn of consequences

The controversy has attracted criticism from international organisations responsible for defending independent journalism.

In a joint statement issued on 23 October, the European Broadcasting Union, Reporters Without Borders, International Press Institute and other organisations warned that the accelerated parliamentary process was incompatible with the thorough scrutiny required for such legislation.

They highlighted the proposed funding reductions and questioned whether the new arrangements would sufficiently protect the broadcasters’ operational and editorial independence.

Their objections have a specific legal foundation.

Article 5 of the European Media Freedom Act requires EU member states to provide public service broadcasters with adequate, sustainable and predictable financing, based on transparent and objective criteria.

Budget financing is not prohibited under EU legislation. However, financial arrangements must contain safeguards against political interference.

As EU Today previously examined, the European Media Freedom Act establishes legally binding obligations intended to prevent governments from undermining independent journalism through institutional or financial pressure.

The Czech proposal therefore raises questions about whether its safeguards and funding provisions satisfy those requirements.

Journalists prepare further industrial action

Employees of Czech Television and Czech Radio have announced a nationwide strike for Tuesday, 3 November, organised by the Veřejnoprávně initiative.

The industrial action follows an earlier warning strike in June, when journalists and other broadcasting employees protested against the government’s plans.

A further public demonstration is scheduled for Sunday, 25 October, in Prague’s Old Town Square.

The confrontation also reflects the broader political divisions that have emerged since Babiš returned to government in December 2025.

Opposition politicians have drawn comparisons with political intervention in public broadcasting elsewhere in Central Europe, particularly Hungary and Slovakia.

The government rejects accusations that it intends to nationalise public broadcasters or interfere with their editorial decisions.

For the moment, the legislation remains subject to parliamentary scrutiny and has not become law. Its passage would nevertheless change the financial relationship between the Czech state and two of the country’s most established news institutions.

The central question is whether future governments would acquire additional means of influencing broadcasters through their budgets, even without exercising direct control over individual editorial decisions.

President Donald Trump has been ordered to answer questions under oath by 11th December in his $10 billion defamation action against the BBC, after the broadcaster complained that the American president was delaying evidence-gathering.

US Magistrate Judge Enjoliqué Lett issued the order at a hearing in Miami on Thursday, 22nd October. The judge warned that non-compliance could result in sanctions, potentially including the dismissal of the lawsuit, unless the discovery schedule is formally extended.

The dispute concerns a BBC documentary that edited together passages of a speech Trump delivered on 6th January 2021, ahead of the assault on the US Capitol. The broadcaster acknowledged that the presentation created a misleading impression of continuity but disputes Trump’s claim that it is legally liable for defamation.

Trump’s lawyers cancelled an earlier deposition scheduled for 16 October, citing presidential responsibilities. The BBC’s legal representatives challenged the delay, maintaining that the plaintiff’s testimony is essential to assessing the allegations and the damages sought.

The developments are detailed in the latest reporting and official material, against the background of EU Today’s earlier coverage.

A dispute over the editing

The broadcaster faces questions about its editorial judgment, but the court must separately decide whether the legal elements of the president’s claim are established. A misleading edit does not automatically determine the outcome of a defamation case, particularly where questions of publication, harm and applicable American law are disputed.

The amount sought, $10 billion, is a claim made by Trump’s side and not a judicial assessment of damage. Evidence-gathering may examine the effect of the programme, how it was distributed and whether it caused measurable reputational or economic harm.

The BBC has already apologised for the edit. It is contesting legal liability, leaving the litigation centred on both the programme’s presentation and the extent of any injury attributable to it.

What the judge ordered

The court permitted a video recording of the deposition, restricted to use by legal representatives. It also ordered production of figures relating to membership applications and fees at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago club, material the BBC believes could help it evaluate the claim for damages.

Lawyers have also disputed whether former special counsel Jack Smith should testify. The Justice Department must consider authorisation for that testimony, adding a further procedural complication.

The discovery period is currently due to close on 18 December. The judge’s intervention therefore leaves little time for the parties to complete outstanding exchanges if the existing timetable remains unchanged.

Wider implications

The case places the conduct of a British public-service broadcaster before an American court at a moment of intense political scrutiny of news organisations. Its outcome may influence the BBC’s legal costs and editorial procedures, although any broader precedent will depend on the issues eventually decided.

Trump’s position as a sitting president creates scheduling difficulties, but it does not remove the usual evidential obligations assumed by a person bringing civil proceedings. The immediate question is whether he will comply with the December deadline or seek further relief from the court.

Neither the deposition order nor the BBC’s apology resolves the merits of the lawsuit. Those questions remain for later proceedings.