BUDAPEST — Hungary’s National Assembly has taken a historic step toward removing President Tamás Sulyok from office, advancing a constitutional amendment that would force his exit in a rare legislative rebuke to the political order established under former Prime Minister Viktor Orbán. The vote, passed with 137 in favor and 53 against, marks the first time Hungary’s parliament has attempted to unseat a sitting president through a constitutional mechanism rather than impeachment or resignation. If approved in a second vote within 30 days, the amendment would trigger a new presidential election, reshaping the country’s symbolic leadership at a time of deepening political fractures.
What Happened
On July 14, 2026, Hungary’s parliament voted to amend the constitution to remove President Tamás Sulyok, a former constitutional court judge elected to the largely ceremonial post in 2024 with the backing of Viktor Orbán. The amendment, which requires a second parliamentary vote to take effect, does not specify a legal basis for Sulyok’s removal. Instead, supporters of the measure have framed it as a necessary step to restore “institutional balance” in Hungarian governance.
The vote was carried by a coalition of lawmakers from the ruling Fidesz party and smaller allied factions, though a significant number of Fidesz members either voted against the measure or abstained. Opposition parties, including the Democratic Coalition and Jobbik, also supported the amendment, though their motivations differ. While opposition lawmakers have accused Sulyok of overstepping his constitutional role by criticizing government policies—particularly judicial reforms—Fidesz dissidents appear to be using the vote as a means of distancing themselves from Orbán’s lingering influence.
Justice Minister Judit Varga, a close ally of Orbán, told state media that the amendment was “not about personalities but about the functioning of democracy.” However, the government’s official statement avoided direct criticism of Sulyok, instead emphasizing the need for “harmony between state institutions.” The lack of a formal legal justification for the president’s removal has fueled speculation that the move is politically motivated, particularly as Hungary approaches local elections later this year.
Why It Matters
The attempt to remove Sulyok is more than a procedural dispute—it represents a direct challenge to the political order that Orbán spent 15 years constructing. Since stepping down as prime minister in 2025, Orbán has remained a dominant figure in Hungarian politics, retaining influence over Fidesz and key state institutions. His departure from the premiership was widely seen as a strategic retreat rather than a loss of power, with many analysts predicting he would continue to shape policy from behind the scenes.
Sulyok’s presidency was itself a product of Orbán’s influence. Elected in 2024 with Fidesz’s support, he was widely viewed as a loyalist who would not challenge the government’s agenda. However, his recent public criticisms of judicial reforms—particularly a controversial law that expanded government oversight of the courts—appear to have alienated key factions within Fidesz. The timing of the amendment, coming just months before local elections, suggests that some lawmakers may be seeking to reposition themselves ahead of a potential realignment in Hungarian politics.
The presidency in Hungary is largely ceremonial, with limited formal powers. However, the role carries significant symbolic weight, particularly in matters of constitutional interpretation and public messaging. If Sulyok is removed, the new president could either align more closely with the current government or emerge as an independent voice—a prospect that may explain the urgency behind the amendment.
The move has also drawn international scrutiny. The Council of Europe’s Venice Commission, which monitors constitutional developments in member states, called the amendment “unprecedented” and warned that it could further erode democratic norms in Hungary. The European Union, which has repeatedly clashed with Orbán’s government over rule-of-law issues, has not yet issued a formal statement, but diplomats in Brussels have privately expressed concern about the potential for political instability.
Background and Context
Hungary’s political landscape has been dominated by Viktor Orbán and his Fidesz party since 2010. During his tenure as prime minister, Orbán oversaw a series of constitutional and institutional reforms that centralized power in the executive branch, weakened judicial independence, and restricted media freedom. These changes drew repeated criticism from the EU and international human rights organizations, but Orbán’s government defended them as necessary measures to protect Hungary’s sovereignty and traditional values.
Orbán’s decision to step down as prime minister in 2025 was unexpected, though not entirely surprising. By that point, he had already served longer than any other democratically elected leader in Hungary’s post-communist history. His successor, Prime Minister Péter Szijjártó, was widely seen as a loyalist who would continue Orbán’s policies, but the transition also created space for internal dissent within Fidesz. Some lawmakers, particularly younger members, have sought to distance themselves from Orbán’s more controversial legacy, including his confrontations with the EU and his government’s handling of migration and LGBTQ+ rights.
The presidency in Hungary is a largely symbolic office, but it has occasionally served as a check on executive power. The president’s formal duties include signing laws into effect, representing Hungary in international affairs, and serving as commander-in-chief of the armed forces. However, the role also carries moral authority, and presidents have occasionally used their platform to criticize government policies. Sulyok’s public statements on judicial reforms appear to have crossed a line for some in Fidesz, who view the presidency as an extension of the government’s agenda rather than an independent institution.
Competing Claims and Uncertainty
The lack of a clear legal justification for Sulyok’s removal has fueled debate about the motivations behind the amendment. Supporters of the measure argue that it is a necessary correction to restore balance between state institutions, though they have not specified what constitutional violation Sulyok committed. Critics, including some legal experts, have questioned whether the amendment itself is constitutional, as it appears to bypass the established process for removing a president, which typically requires impeachment or resignation.
Sulyok has not publicly commented on the vote, but his office issued a statement calling the amendment “a dangerous precedent” that could undermine the stability of Hungary’s democratic institutions. The statement did not address the specific criticisms leveled against him, including his public opposition to judicial reforms.
Opposition parties have largely supported the amendment, though their motivations vary. Some see Sulyok’s removal as an opportunity to weaken Fidesz’s grip on power, while others view it as a chance to restore credibility to the presidency. However, there is also concern that the move could set a dangerous precedent, allowing future parliaments to remove presidents for political rather than legal reasons.
Within Fidesz, the vote has exposed deep divisions. While the party remains the largest in parliament, internal dissent has grown since Orbán’s departure. Some lawmakers have openly criticized his continued influence over the party, while others remain loyal to his vision. The amendment’s passage suggests that the anti-Orbán faction within Fidesz is gaining strength, though it is unclear whether this will translate into a broader realignment of Hungarian politics.
What to Watch Next
The next 30 days will be critical in determining whether Sulyok remains in office. The amendment requires a second parliamentary vote to take effect, and its passage is not guaranteed. If approved, it would trigger a new presidential election, with the winner likely to be chosen by the current parliament rather than through a direct popular vote. The outcome of that election could signal whether Hungary’s political establishment is moving away from Orbán’s legacy or doubling down on his vision.
Several key factors will shape the coming weeks:
1. Fidesz’s Internal Dynamics: The party’s ability to maintain unity will be tested in the second vote. If more Fidesz lawmakers defect, the amendment could fail, further weakening the party’s cohesion. Conversely, if the amendment passes, it could embolden the anti-Orbán faction within Fidesz, potentially leading to more challenges to his influence.
2. International Reaction: The EU and other international bodies are likely to weigh in on the amendment, particularly if it is seen as further eroding democratic norms. The European Commission has previously taken legal action against Hungary over rule-of-law concerns, and the current situation could prompt renewed scrutiny.
3. Public Response: While the presidency is largely symbolic, Sulyok’s removal could become a rallying point for opposition groups. Protests or public demonstrations could pressure lawmakers to reconsider their support for the amendment.
4. Local Elections: Hungary is scheduled to hold local elections later this year, and the political fallout from Sulyok’s potential removal could shape the campaigns. If the amendment is seen as a power grab by the government, it could energize opposition candidates. Conversely, if it is framed as a necessary correction, it could bolster Fidesz’s standing.
Conclusion
Hungary’s attempt to remove President Tamás Sulyok from office is a rare and significant challenge to the political order established under Viktor Orbán. While the presidency is largely ceremonial, the move reflects deepening divisions within Fidesz and the broader Hungarian political establishment. The lack of a clear legal justification for Sulyok’s removal raises questions about whether the amendment is driven by genuine institutional concerns or political expediency.
The coming weeks will determine whether Hungary’s parliament follows through on the amendment, setting the stage for a potential realignment in the country’s leadership. Regardless of the outcome, the vote signals that Orbán’s influence, though diminished, remains a contentious issue in Hungarian politics. As Hungary prepares for local elections and continued scrutiny from the EU, the stakes could not be higher for the future of its democratic institutions.
Story synopsis gathered from: [Al Jazeera News](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/7/14/hungarys-parliament-votes-to-oust-president-in-latest-anti-orban-move?traffic_source=rss) — source.
Corrections
If you believe this article contains an error, contact Herald Express with the source URL and supporting evidence.
Story synopsis gathered from: Al Jazeera News — source.
