News
Orbán’s defeat is a win for democracy and a warning to Trump, some say
President Trump has followed Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s competitive authoritarian playbook, according to political scientists. But that playbook was not enough to save Orban from a landslide defeat Sunday.
Getty Images/Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Getty Images/Getty Images
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán was seen for years as a master of tilting the electoral playing field in his favor to remain in power. On Sunday, his carefully-crafted strategy finally failed.

His opponent, Péter Magyar – a former Orbán loyalist – ran a campaign focused on Hungary’s economic problems, government corruption and getting rid of the prime minister himself. The record turnout overwhelmed the measures Orbán had taken over the years to preserve power.
Hungarian American experts here in the U.S. say Orbán’s loss has lessons for President Trump, and about the resilience of democracy.
“You can rewrite the constitution, you can capture public media, you can gerrymander election districts, but as long as people still enjoy the freedom to vote and to vote for whomever they want to, these systems can be reversed under the right circumstances,” said David Koranyi who runs Action for Democracy, a U.S.-based civil society organization.
The case of Hungary is relevant because many political scientists say Trump has adopted a version of Orbán’s competitive authoritarian playbook.
The president has sued news organizations, and the Federal Communications Commission has threatened to pull licenses from broadcasters the president has said are biased against him.
Trump has also suggested the federal government take over the running of elections in 15 states and has used the Justice Department to target his perceived political enemies.
Orbán’s defeat shows the limits of these sorts of tactics, especially when wielded by an unpopular leader.
“Fundamentally in a democracy, you can’t have the majority of people against you for too long before you lose power,” said Lorinc Redei, who teaches politics at the University of Texas at Austin.

Orbán’s loss also suggests opportunities for Democrats heading into the midterms and Republicans thinking about a presidential run in 2028, experts say. Like Orbán, President Trump is vulnerable on the economy, which he pledged to fix. An NPR/PBS News/Marist Poll earlier this year found nearly 6 in 10 people disapproved of Trump’s handling of the economy – normally a strength for the president.
Magyar, a former member of Orbán’s Fidesz party, led the opposition in Hungary and built a broad coalition. Magyar cut a patriotic profile, traveling the country in a pickup truck with a color scheme that matched the Hungarian flag.
“Everywhere he went, he emphasized that national identity and patriotism do not belong to the right wing,” said Julia Sonnevend, a professor of sociology and communications at the New School in New York.
Sonnevend said Magyar also steered clear of divisive social issues. When Orbán tried to ban last year’s Pride parade in Budapest, Magyar chose not to march and kept his coalition together.
“Magyar really managed to unite the entire opposition to Orbán under his flag and I think that carries lessons for Democrats . . . that you need to create a very, very broad tent,” said Redei, the politics professor.
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has been a favorite of many MAGA Republicans for his tough stance on immigration and his anti-LGBTQ policies.
Getty Images/Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Getty Images/Getty Images
Magyar also benefitted from his profile as an insider and member of Orbán’s right-wing party, who saw the light and quit. Magyar publicly broke with Orbán’s government two years ago. Magyar was furious after his ex-wife, the justice minister, took the fall for a scandal involving the pardon of a child sex abuser.
Koranyi says members of the Trump administration who want to succeed him could try to distance themselves from the president in advance of a 2028 presidential run. But choosing when to break with a powerful leader is tricky.
“It’s hard to know ahead of time when that window of opportunity is going to close,” said Redei. “The higher up you are in a party, the earlier it closes.”
Some conservative political watchers in the U.S., however, said people are reading too much into Orbán’s loss. The United States is a vast, ethnically diverse nation of about 340 million people, while Hungary has a population of less than 10 million and is about the size of Indiana.
Matt Schlapp, who leads the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), pointed out that Orbán, 62, was running for a fifth term, and that no politician can win forever.
“When you’ve been in power 16 years, as Victor Orbán has, longer than FDR . . . it was probably asking a little too much to buck that much history,” said Schlapp, whose organization has held annual conferences in Hungary.
Mike Gonzalez, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation, noted that a win for Magyar – who favors strict immigration and conservative social values – is no victory for the left. But Gonzalez added that Orbán’s defeat has lessons for President Trump.
“Keep the promises you’ve made,” said Gonzalez. “Above all, don’t get complacent.”
News
A day after Alito’s testy response to Sotomayor’s dissent, court says it was a ‘misunderstanding’
The justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor (seated left) and Justice Samuel Alito (seated second from right).
Alex Wong/Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Alex Wong/Getty Images
As the Supreme Court heads into the announcement of its final and hugely important opinions next week, there are reverberations from this week’s announcements, and Justice Samuel Alito’s public rebuke of his colleague Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
On Thursday, Justice Alito summarized from the bench three very big opinions he authored for the court’s six justice conservative majority. Alito, unlike most of his colleagues, doesn’t spend much time on these summaries. And it is rare that a justice has three big opinions to announce, but it is almost the end of the term, and there are a lot of big cases still outstanding.
The first case he announced came and went. Alito then moved on to a second case, this one tests whether migrants may apply for asylum in the U.S. by going to one of several ports of entry along the U.S.-Mexican border, and presenting themselves for admission. This entails presenting documents that persuade an asylum officer that applicants’ fear of persecution in their home country is credible enough to allow them to enter the U.S. while their asylum application is processed. Alito’s opinion ruled in favor of the Trump administration’s policy of refusing all such applicants by blocking them at the border. It was a policy also followed at one time by the Obama administration until it was blocked by the lower courts.
After Alito finished his summary of the opinion, he paused, at which point Justice Sotomayor read a summary of her contrary views in dissent. When she finished, however, Justice Alito did not move on to the announcement of his third opinion. Instead, he did something that nobody in the press corps ever remembers happening before. Looking much as if he had just bitten into a lemon, Alito said, “There is much that I would have added to my bench statement had I known there would be a dissent read.” And he then went on to a short extemporaneous rebuttal.
What caused the hissy fit? Did Sotomayor really fail to tell him she would have an oral dissent? That really would have been a breach of the court’s practices. A justice typically notifies the chief justice and the author of the majority opinion in writing if there is to be an oral dissent.
In response Friday to an inquiry from NPR came this terse statement from the court’s public information office.
“Justice Alito was notified in advance by Justice Sotomayor’s chambers that she would be reading a dissent from the bench. It was a misunderstanding on Justice Alito’s part.”
News
“It’s blood money”: Family of exonerated man in Texas yogurt shop murders speaks out after settlement
The widow and the daughter of Maurice Pierce, one of the four men wrongfully accused in the 1991 Texas yogurt shop murders, have confirmed they signed a multimillion-dollar settlement with the city of Austin.
Kimberli and Marisa Pierce spoke with correspondent Erin Moriarty in a new episode of the podcast “48 Hours: Case by Case.” Moriarty has reported on the yogurt shop murders for over 30 years.
Maurice Pierce’s widow Kimberli made clear that their priority has never been financial compensation. “It’s blood money for us. He died for this money,” Kimberli Pierce said. “It’s about the reform and the changes that need to happen, not only in Austin, but apparently across the country.”
They also went into great detail about what they believe happened when Maurice Pierce was shot and killed by police in 2010.
Maurice Pierce was one of four men, along with Michael Scott, Robert Springsteen and Forrest Welborn, who were wrongfully accused in the murders of four teenage girls in Austin on Dec. 6, 1991. Eliza Thomas, Amy Ayers, and sisters Jennifer and Sarah Harbison were tied up, shot and left inside the yogurt shop as it was set ablaze.
The four men were exonerated in February after investigators linked another man, Robert Eugene Brashers, to the killings. The city of Austin subsequently offered a $35 million settlement. Because Maurice Pierce died in 2010, his share of $10 million will go to Kimberli and Marisa Pierce.
Eight days after the killings, 16-year-old Maurice Pierce was arrested at a mall, carrying a .22, the same caliber handgun connected to the crime. Kimberli Pierce said police told Maurice Pierce that his gun was the murder weapon. He responded by mentioning his friend Forrest Welborn. Maurice Pierce was then wired up and sent to speak with Welborn, but investigators ultimately determined that Welborn and the others knew nothing about the murders, and no charges were filed at that time.
Marisa Pierce has said there was no evidence when her father was questioned, “only a detective and a narrative, a narrative so completely false. It feels evil.”
Nearly eight years later, in 1999, all four men were arrested after Scott and Springsteen confessed to the murders. They later recanted, saying they had been coerced. Springsteen and Scott were tried and convicted, but later those convictions were overturned on constitutional grounds. A subsequent DNA test excluded all four men. Maurice Pierce was never convicted but spent three years in jail before his release in 2003.
Kimberli Pierce said her husband came home a hardened man. She believes police continued to harass Maurice and their family after his release. In 2010, Maurice Pierce was stopped for a routine traffic stop, fled on foot, and was shot and killed by an Austin police officer who said Pierce had stabbed him with a knife.
Marisa and Kimberli Pierce told “48 Hours” that they intend to review the circumstances surrounding the night of Maurice Pierce’s death. Marisa Pierce revealed in new, emotional detail that she was on the phone with her father at the time. She believes he panicked and was only trying to get away, not to hurt anyone. She described her father’s last breaths: “And in those last moments, he had just said I’m sorry, I don’t think you’re gonna see me again, and I love you.”
“48 Hours” reached out to the Austin Police Department about the Pierces’ allegations of harassment and their questions about Maurice Pierce’s death in 2010. The police department said they had no additional comment.
For the Pierce family, the settlement is a starting point, not an end point. They have put forward seven proposed reforms they hope the city of Austin will approve, including appointing a child advocate whenever a minor is questioned, prohibiting deceptive interrogation tactics, educating juveniles about their rights and establishing accountability measures to address tunnel vision in police investigations.
In a statement shared with “48 Hours,” the Pierces wrote: “Real justice is not only about acknowledging harm after the fact but about creating safeguards that prevent future families from enduring the same pain.”
News
The Maine Town That Actually Wants a Data Center
This year, Maine nearly became the first state to pass a statewide moratorium on new data centers. But before the law could take effect, supporters of an A.I. data center project in the small town of Jay rallied to fight the ban — and won. So why do residents there want one? We traveled to Jay to find out.
-
Los Angeles, Ca39 minutes agoMan found guilty of sex trafficking victim along L.A.’s Figueroa Corridor
-
Detroit, MI60 minutes agoNo. 23 overall pick in the 2026 NHL draft | Detroit Red Wings
-
San Francisco, CA1 hour agoSan Francisco Pride kicks off with rainbow lasers, ValQueeries celebrate at Valkyries Pride Night
-
Dallas, TX1 hour agoHow to buy Egypt vs. Australia World Cup soccer tickets
-
Miami, FL1 hour agoHelping Venezuela: Miami search-and-rescue team prepares to deploy
-
Boston, MA1 hour agoHow to buy Paraguay vs. Germany 2026 World Cup tickets in Boston
-
Denver, CO1 hour agoDenver Broncos Roster Breakdown: Center—The Depth Question
-
Seattle, WA2 hours agoIran-Egypt: Seattle World Cup Pride match updates