Transnational Repression as an Intrusion into Democratic Sovereignty and Institutions - Part I

Abstract

Transnational repression—the cross-border harassment, intimidation, and harm of exiles and diaspora communities by their origin states—has emerged as a sustained, low-intensity threat to democratic governance. Authoritarian regimes increasingly reach into democratic countries to silence dissent, employing tactics from assassinations and abductions to digital surveillance and coercion-by-proxy. This article analyzes how such transnational repression erodes five critical dimensions of democratic states: (1) territorial sovereignty and law enforcement authority, (2) legal accountability and the domestic rule of law, (3) the integrity of democratic public space, (4) the logics of public institutions (through policy manipulation and normalized foreign interference), and (5) civic trust and democratic social coherence. Drawing on current research and policy reports from Freedom House, Human Rights Watch, the United Nations, the Council of Europe, and other sources, the analysis documents the mechanisms and impacts of these erosions. The findings indicate that transnational repression represents a pervasive violation of sovereignty, undermines the rule of law and human rights standards, chills free expression in diaspora communities, co-opts institutional processes in democracies, and sows fear and mistrust among citizens. The article maintains an empirical and analytic tone, avoiding rhetoric in favor of evidence-based assessment of this growing challenge. It concludes that transnational repression constitutes not only a human rights abuse but also an intrusion into the core sovereignty and institutional integrity of democratic states, warranting urgent attention and coordinated policy responses.

Introduction

Democratic states have long held the principle that within their territorial boundaries, they alone exercise sovereign authority and protect fundamental rights through the rule of law. In recent years, however, this principle has been undermined by the phenomenon of transnational repression, wherein authoritarian governments project their power abroad to silence critics and dissidents residing in open societies. In essence, foreign regimes are intruding into the sovereignty and legal order of democracies by targeting individuals on democratic soil. This intrusion is often low-intensity and stealthy—far from conventional warfare—yet it is sustained and pervasive, posing a grave challenge to democratic institutions and norms.

Transnational repression can be defined as “governments reaching across national borders to harm, intimidate, or silence dissent among diaspora and exile communities”. These practices range from violent acts—such as assassinations, abductions, or physical attacks—to more subtle methods like threatening exiles’ families back home, revoking passports, digital harassment, and the abuse of international law enforcement tools. Notable incidents have brought this issue to global attention: for example, the 2018 murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul and the forced diversion of a Ryanair flight in 2021 to arrest Belarusian journalist Raman Pratasevich underscored that authoritarian regimes will violate other states’ territorial integrity to reach their critics. Such cases, once thought exceptional, are now recognized as part of a broader pattern. Freedom House documented physical transnational repression by 38 origin countries in 91 host countries since 2014, illustrating that what may seem like isolated incidents “actually represent a pernicious and pervasive threat to human freedom, democracy, sovereignty, and security”.

The sustained, low-intensity nature of transnational repression means that it often escapes sustained public scrutiny. Rather than a single flagrant violation, democratic societies face a “chilling effect” from numerous smaller-scale threats that accumulate over time. Exiled activists receive anonymous threats, diaspora journalists are surveilled or smeared online, student critics of authoritarian regimes face pressure or spying on campus, and families of overseas dissidents are harassed back home. Each incident may seem minor in isolation, but collectively they “ripple out into the larger community” and create an atmosphere of fear that transcends borders. For millions of people living in democracies as members of diaspora communities, transnational repression has become “not an exceptional tool, but a common and institutionalized practice used by dozens of regimes”. This incremental infringement undermines democratic norms without the overt use of force against the state, amounting to a low-intensity incursion into democratic sovereignty.

This article examines how transnational repression erodes five key dimensions of democratic governance: (1) territorial sovereignty and law enforcement authority; (2) legal accountability and the domestic rule of law; (3) the integrity of democratic public space; (4) institutional logics and norms (via policy manipulation and foreign interference); and (5) civic trust and democratic coherence. The analysis draws on a range of current academic research and policy reports to substantiate each dimension. By focusing on empirical evidence and documented cases, the article avoids emotive or rhetorical framing, instead providing a scholarly assessment of the mechanisms by which authoritarian interference undermines democratic sovereignty and institutions over time.

The stakes are high. As the Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly warned in 2023, acts of transnational repression “are a threat to the rule of law, democracy and the national security of the States where those individuals live and have found refuge,” fundamentally “undermin[ing] the values and principles” of the democratic international order. Likewise, a coalition of human rights organizations has noted that transnational repression “undermines the rule of law, imperils civil and political liberties, and spreads authoritarianism”, demanding concerted responses from democracies. By analyzing the five dimensions of erosion in detail, this article aims to deepen understanding of how transnational repression functions as a sustained assault on democratic sovereignty and to inform more effective safeguards against it.

Literature Review

The Emergence of Transnational Repression as a Global Concern

Although the term transnational repression has gained currency only in the past decade, the practice itself is not new. During the Cold War, authoritarian states already pursued exiles abroad—famously, Bulgarian agents assassinated dissident writer Georgi Markov in London in 1978 with a poisoned umbrella. Earlier still, the coordinated cross-border assassinations and kidnappings of opponents by South American dictatorships in the 1970s (Operation Condor) illustrated that repressive regimes have long defied territorial sovereignty to eliminate threats beyond their border. What is new, however, is the global scale and normalization of such tactics in an era of globalization, mass migration, and digital connectivity. Scholars observe an “emerging field of international studies research” around how modern autocracies project power transnationally, sometimes described as an aspect of “global authoritarianism”rm.coe.int. In modern times, more regimes are integrating extraterritorial repression into their state policy, emboldened by technological tools and inter-state cooperation, making it a systemic global phenomenon rather than a series of isolated incidents.

Several comprehensive studies by human rights organizations and think tanks in recent years have documented this trend. Freedom House launched a multi-year project on transnational repression, publishing reports such as Out of Sight, Not Out of Reach (2021) and Defending Democracy in Exile (2022), which catalogued hundreds of incidents worldwide and analyzed authoritarian methods. According to Freedom House’s database, between 2014 and 2022 there were at least 854 direct, physical cases in which origin-state agents “physically reached an individual living abroad” through detention, assault, kidnapping, or assassination. This count does not even include the far more numerous cases of “everyday” transnational repression—such as online harassment, spyware attacks, coercion of exiles’ families, and mobility restrictions—which often go unrecorded but create an ambient climate of fear. Freedom House finds that many authoritarian governments have made these tactics routine, turning once-extraordinary violations into a normalized extension of their domestic repression apparatus.

Human Rights Watch similarly reported in 2024 that it has documented over 100 cases of transnational repression in the past decade across dozens of countrie. Its global report “We Will Find You” emphasizes that no region is immune: examples range from Rwandan and Ethiopian refugees assassinated or extradited from neighboring African countries, to Chinese, Iranian, and Turkish dissidents harassed across Europe and North America. Importantly, while authoritarian powers like China, Russia, Turkey, Rwanda, Iran, and Saudi Arabia are among the most prolific perpetrators, democracies have occasionally been complicit in enabling transnational repression – whether by failing to protect vulnerable exiles, mishandling extradition and asylum cases, or even directly cooperating in rendition. This blurring of lines is part of what makes transnational repression a complex challenge for the liberal international order: it exploits the openness of democratic societies and the gaps in international cooperation mechanisms.

Concepts and Frameworks in Existing Research

Analysts frame transnational repression as a direct affront to Westphalian norms of sovereignty and non-intervention. By definition, it entails one state exerting coercive power inside the territory of another state without consent, violating the basic principle that a state’s law enforcement and coercive power stop at its borders. As one policy study succinctly states, “Transnational repression is a violation of sovereignty because its perpetrators reach over borders to control the behavior of individuals in host states”. Such actions usurp the host country’s exclusive authority over its territory and people. Indeed, officials in targeted democracies have started to publicly affirm this. For example, U.S. authorities reacting to secret Chinese police outposts in American cities described them as a “flagrant violation of our nation’s sovereignty” by a foreign power, an unacceptable intrusion into domestic jurisdiction. Researchers note that framing transnational repression as a sovereignty violation usefully highlights how these acts “go far beyond the bounds of acceptable nation-state conduct” and require a firm defensive response.

Another recurring theme in the literature is how transnational repression undermines international legal norms and institutions. Authoritarian states often abuse legitimate mechanisms—such as INTERPOL red notices, extradition treaties, or mutual legal assistance agreements—to pursue exiles under false pretenses, effectively laundering political persecution as criminal justice. This not only threatens individual rights but also weakens the integrity of those mechanisms. For instance, systematic misuse of INTERPOL by some governments to issue politicized arrest warrants has “weaken[ed] the organization’s credibility in combating real threats” and prompted calls for reform. Similarly, when democracies unwittingly honor tainted extradition requests or allow covert surveillance on their soil, they risk eroding the rule of law from within. The Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly observed that “targeted violations of human rights by one state in the territory of another… undermine the effectiveness of international human rights conventions”, creating accountability gaps and impunity.

A body of sociological research focuses on the impacts on diaspora communities and civic space in democracies. Scholars like Dana M. Moss (2016) have documented how regimes’ long-distance intimidation instills “fear, mistrust, and division between co-nationals” abroad, deterring collective action and sowing discord within exile communities. Exiles who might otherwise mobilize for change often feel compelled to keep their heads down, curtail their activism, or police their speech even while living in free societies. This chilling effect on freedom of expression, association, and assembly in host countries is well-established. Human Rights Watch notes that transnational repression “can have far-reaching consequences, including a chilling effect on the rights to freedom of expression, association, and assembly among those who have been targeted or fear they could be next.”. In other words, the shadow of the authoritarian state stretches into democratic public life, constraining the very liberties that democracies promise to those on their soil.

Finally, policy-oriented analyses increasingly frame transnational repression as a national security concern for democracies. It is characterized as a form of “gray zone” threat or hybrid warfare tactic that authoritarian states employ to project influence without provoking full-blown conflict. The Atlantic Council, for example, emphasizes that foreign surveillance or enforcement operations inside a democracy “undermine state sovereignty and threaten to erode public trust in institutions,” representing a significant security threat. Trust is a crucial factor: when residents (especially from vulnerable communities) lose confidence that their government can protect them from foreign intimidation, it erodes the social contract and can fracture civic cohesion. Moreover, democratic allies have begun coordinating responses, viewing the defense against transnational repression as part of defending the “rules-based international order” against authoritarian encroachment. There is recognition that a “whole-of-society” and multilateral approach is needed, since the threat straddles the domains of law enforcement, counterintelligence, human rights, and diplomacy.

In summary, existing research and reports establish that transnational repression is a multifaceted threat: it is at once a breach of sovereignty, a human rights violation, a law enforcement challenge, and a tool for authoritarian influence. The following analysis builds on these insights, examining in depth how each of five dimensions of democratic governance is affected. By dissecting these dimensions, we can better understand the full impact of transnational repression on democratic states, beyond the individual harm to victims.

Erosion of Territorial Sovereignty and Law Enforcement Authority

Territorial sovereignty is a bedrock of the international order, granting each state supreme authority within its borders. Transnational repression strikes at this foundation by allowing foreign powers to violate the sanctity of a democratic state’s territory and operate coercively inside it. Every time an authoritarian regime conducts a police operation, violent attack, or intimidation campaign on the soil of a democracy without the host state’s consent, it erodes that state’s sovereign monopoly on the use of force and law enforcement. In effect, the foreign power is asserting that its laws and will can reach into the host country, superseding the host’s authority.

One clear manifestation is the establishment of clandestine “overseas police stations” or networks by authoritarian governments. In 2022–2023, revelations emerged about the People’s Republic of China running covert police outposts in numerous countries—often under the guise of cultural or community centers—to monitor and pressure Chinese diaspora members. In one high-profile case in New York City, the FBI uncovered a secret police station operated on behalf of China’s Ministry of Public Security; U.S. prosecutors noted this operation was a “flagrant violation of our nation’s sovereignty”, as no foreign police force has the right to clandestinely enforce laws on U.S. soil. The individuals involved were charged with acting as unregistered agents of a foreign government. Beyond the legal charges, the message was clear: A democracy cannot tolerate a scenario where “China’s security apparatus [establishes] a secret physical presence… to monitor and intimidate dissidents” inside its cities. Such an intrusion subverts the host country’s law enforcement authority, effectively setting up a parallel, unlawful policing mechanism loyal to an external power.

Transnational repression also includes physical incursions such as kidnappings, assaults, or even assassinations carried out by foreign agents in a host country. These operations are often covert, but when exposed they represent egregious breaches of sovereignty. The murder of Jamal Khashoggi, a Saudi citizen and U.S. resident, by Saudi agents in Turkey is a stark example: Saudi officials lured him into their Istanbul consulate and killed him, effectively carrying out an extrajudicial execution on Turkish territory. This incident not only violated Turkish sovereignty but also flouted the protections Khashoggi should have enjoyed as a resident of a democratic country. Similarly, Iran and Russia have been implicated in plots to assassinate dissidents in Europe and North America. The United Kingdom confronted this reality in 2018 when Russian operatives poisoned former spy Sergei Skripal on British soil, deploying a military-grade nerve agent and endangering local citizens. The UK government labeled it an unlawful use of force by the Russian state in Britain—a direct affront to UK sovereignty—and responded with diplomatic expulsions and other measures. Each such case underscores that foreign regimes are willing to violate the territorial integrity of democracies to eliminate critics, treating the host country’s laws and borders as irrelevant obstacles.

Even when not using deadly force, authoritarian states often insert themselves into democratic law enforcement processes, thereby undermining host authorities. One tactic is to manipulate host-country police and immigration systems via “co-opting other countries”. For instance, an origin state may issue an INTERPOL red notice or a bilateral extradition request for an exiled dissident on fabricated criminal charges. If local police execute the arrest without due scrutiny, the foreign regime has effectively commandeered the host’s law enforcement to do its bidding. Freedom House observes that many of the most common forms of transnational repression—such as “detentions and unlawful deportations at the origin state’s request”—entail exactly this kind of exploitation of host institutions. The host state’s police and immigration officers, meant to uphold domestic law impartially, are used to harass or hand over a person whom the authoritarian government considers a political enemy. In the worst cases, host officials may knowingly collude (for example, pressured by diplomatic or economic incentives), but even unwitting cooperation (through lack of awareness or poor vetting of requests) represents a failure of the host’s law enforcement authority to protect those on its territory.

What makes these sovereignty intrusions particularly insidious is their often clandestine and deniable nature. Authoritarian governments frequently carry out operations through covert agents, organized crime intermediaries, or by abusing legal channels, so they can claim respect for sovereignty even as they violate it. Democratic hosts, committed to rule of law, must gather evidence and follow legal procedures to respond, which takes time and allows perpetrators to evade accountability. This asymmetry is exploited by the repressive states. As a result, democratic countries find their ability to enforce their own laws curtailed: foreign hitmen slip out of the country, proof is hard to come by, and diplomatic barriers (like the perpetrators enjoying immunity or a lack of extradition treaties) may prevent justice. Each unresolved incident—such as a murder on foreign soil that goes unpunished—chips away at the host nation’s claim that within its borders, its law is supreme and will be enforced.

Moreover, the mere knowledge that foreign security services are active inside a country can alter the behavior of that country’s institutions. Law enforcement may become more cautious or even intimidated in handling cases involving certain regimes. In some instances, authoritarian states have infiltrated host countries’ institutions directly. A notable example involved a naturalized U.S. citizen serving as a local police officer in New York who was arrested in 2020 for secretly acting on behalf of China to surveil the Tibetan-American community. Such penetration of domestic law enforcement by foreign agents not only betrays sovereignty but can compromise investigations and trust within the force.

In summary, transnational repression erodes territorial sovereignty and law enforcement authority by breaching the monopoly on force that democratic states claim within their borders. Whether through unauthorized policing, violent covert operations, or manipulation of legal processes, authoritarian regimes usurp powers that belong exclusively to the host state. Democratic governments have started to push back against this encroachment. For example, U.S. officials have vowed to “resolutely defend… against efforts to undermine our democratic freedoms” by foreign repression, pledging to hold foreign agents accountable for breaking domestic laws. Such responses underscore that what is at stake is not just the safety of individual dissidents, but the fundamental principle of sovereignty. Every incursion that goes unchecked sets a dangerous precedent, implicitly allowing that a democracy’s territory is open for authoritarian enforcement. Therefore, resisting transnational repression is part and parcel of defending national sovereignty and the integrity of law enforcement in democratic states.

Erosion of Legal Accountability and the Rule of Law

Democratic governance rests on the rule of law—the idea that all individuals and authorities are accountable to transparent and just laws, and that rights will be upheld through legal processes. Transnational repression undermines this pillar in multiple ways, leading to erosions of legal accountability both for perpetrators and in the treatment of victims. In effect, these cross-border abuses create zones of impunity and legal mismatch that authoritarian actors exploit, thereby corroding the host country’s domestic rule of law.

Firstly, transnational repression often involves extrajudicial actions that circumvent legal due process entirely. When an authoritarian regime opts to kidnap or assassinate a dissident abroad instead of pursuing lawful avenues (like evidence-based prosecution or formal extradition), it is delivering the message that it will operate outside the law to achieve its ends. Democratic legal systems are ill-equipped to respond to such lawless acts, especially when they originate from state actors shielded by sovereignty. The result is frequently a failure of accountability: perpetrators escape justice, and victims (or their families) see no legal redress. The murder of Jamal Khashoggi is illustrative – Saudi Arabia’s agents carried out a killing that violated a host of laws (Turkish criminal law, international human rights law, diplomatic law), yet meaningful accountability has been elusive. Saudi courts prosecuted a few operatives in a trial widely criticized as opaque and orchestrated to shield higher-ups; no independent court could effectively adjudicate the crime due to jurisdictional hurdles and Saudi Arabia’s refusal to extradite or cooperate fully. This impunity signals a breakdown in the normal operation of law: a murder on Turkish soil remains effectively unpunished in any transparent way, undermining confidence that the law applies equally and can remedy wrongs.

Even when victims survive, they often confront a legal gray zone. Consider a dissident who is unlawfully rendered (abducted) from a democracy back to their authoritarian home country. Such a rendition bypasses extradition law (which includes judicial review and human rights safeguards) and thus violates both domestic and international legal standards. The victim finds themselves in the hands of a regime that will likely subject them to unfair trial or extrajudicial punishment. From the perspective of the democratic host state, its rule of law was bypassed: a person present under its jurisdiction was taken without the required legal process. This happened, for example, in the case of Paul Rusesabagina (a prominent Rwandan critic and Belgian citizen residing in the U.S.), who was deceived into flying to a third country (UAE) and then captured and transported to Rwanda. The incident was essentially a state-sponsored kidnapping thinly veiled as legal arrest. Such acts “in circumvention of domestic and international law safeguards” point to how authoritarians deliberately evade rule-of-law mechanism. For the host democracies, allowing or failing to prevent these renditions can be seen as a dereliction of their legal responsibility to those on their territory (especially if the person had refugee or protected status). It also sets a precedent that legal norms (like non-refoulement, which forbids returning someone to a country where they face persecution) can be undermined by crafty extralegal maneuvers.

Another facet is the misuse of legal instruments such as INTERPOL notices, extradition requests, or civil lawsuits to persecute exiles. Authoritarian governments routinely accuse exiled dissidents of crimes ranging from corruption to terrorism, not through genuine evidence but as a means to trigger legal action abroad. INTERPOL red notices, for instance, have been abused to cause dissidents’ arrests or travel restrictions. Freedom House notes that “Interpol abuse” is a common tool, whereby a regime issues a notice on spurious charges, leading host-country authorities to detain a person who has actually done nothing criminal. A documented example involved a Russian dissident entrepreneur who fled to the United States: he was arrested and held in U.S. immigration detention for over a year on the basis of a frivolous red notice that Russian authorities had filed, alleging fraud. During that time, he effectively had no opportunity to contest the politically motivated charges in a court of law, illustrating how the mere appearance of legal process (an Interpol alert) can upend someone’s life without due process. Although democracies like the U.S. eventually released some individuals after recognizing the notices’ illegitimacy, the interim detention and trauma represent a failure of the rule of law to protect the innocent. It also diverts legal resources and undermines confidence in international policing cooperation. In response, many have called for stricter vetting of such requests; indeed, policy experts urge democracies to “apply additional vetting to extradition requests, Red Notices and other interstate legal assistance… from governments known to engage in transnational repression”.

Transnational repression also tests the rule of law through the challenge of holding perpetrators accountable within democracies. When foreign agents are caught breaking the law (e.g., surveillance, harassment, or violence against exiles), democracies face diplomatic and practical hurdles in prosecuting them. If the agent is a diplomat, they may have immunity and simply be expelled rather than prosecuted—escaping criminal accountability. Even non-diplomat agents might flee or be protected by their home state from extradition. This limited ability to punish offenders can create a sense of impunity. For instance, several Iranian and Chinese plots to kidnap or surveil dissidents on U.S. soil have resulted in U.S. indictments against foreign intelligence officers or proxies, but those indictees remain at large overseas. The lack of accountability for such crimes erodes the authority of law: laws are on the books criminalizing stalking, harassment, conspiracy to kidnap, etc., but if offenders cannot be brought to court, the deterrent effect is weakened. As Freedom House emphasizes, ending the impunity of perpetrators is crucial to restoring rule of law; it calls for measures like targeted sanctions and extraterritorial prosecutions where possible to ensure there are consequences for transnational repression.

Furthermore, the domestic legal order can be strained or subverted by transnational repression in less direct ways. Consider how an authoritarian regime might pressure a democracy to change or bend its laws in the regime’s favor. A glaring contemporary example is Turkey’s leveraging of its geopolitical position to demand extraditions of exiled dissidents (such as journalists or political opponents) as a condition for diplomatic agreements. Turkey has, in some cases, used its influence or bargains (even the NATO accession of Sweden, as noted by the Council of Europe) to push democratic states into acts that would undermine their own legal principles regarding asylum and due process. If a democracy yields and deports a wanted individual without solid legal basis, it effectively sacrifices rule-of-law principles (like judicial independence or human rights commitments) under political pressure, demonstrating how transnational repression pressures can distort the application of law.

Finally, transnational repression creates fear within targeted communities that the law cannot or will not protect them. If victims feel that reporting threats to the police is futile (because the threats originate from a foreign government beyond reach) or even risky (if local authorities do not understand and inadvertently tip off hostile regimes), they lose trust in the justice system. This reluctance to seek legal protection, born of the unique challenges posed by cross-border repression, means that in practice certain people are not enjoying the full protection of the law on equal terms. Such an outcome is anathema to rule-of-law societies, which aspire to protect all within their jurisdiction. In short, the perception and reality of uneven protection under the law—where exiles are targeted by foreign powers and cannot get equal justice—undermines the democratic legal order’s legitimacy.

In summary, transnational repression erodes legal accountability and the rule of law by fostering impunity for offenders, circumventing judicial processes, misusing legal systems, and exposing gaps in protection. It undermines the ideal that legal systems can and will address wrongs fairly. Democratic states are beginning to grapple with this erosion. Some have passed new laws or adjusted policies: for example, the United States enacted the Transnational Repression Accountability and Prevention (TRAP) Act in 2022 to curb Interpol abuse and enhance review of politically motivated requests. European countries and institutions are likewise issuing guidelines to tighten extradition scrutiny and protect exiles’ right. Rebuilding rule of law in this context means closing loopholes that authoritarians exploit and reinforcing the principle that no one, not even foreign state agents, is above the law when operating on democratic soil. It also requires improving international legal cooperation to ensure that crimes of transnational repression are investigated and prosecuted, even if that means asserting extraterritorial jurisdiction in novel ways. Upholding accountability is critical not only for justice to victims but to send a powerful message: democratic law is not to be trifled with, even by powerful autocracies.

Erosion of the Integrity of Democratic Public Space

An essential feature of democratic societies is the existence of an open public space – a realm in which citizens (and residents) can freely express opinions, share information, organize politically, and engage in civic life without fear. Transnational repression strikes at the heart of this openness by exporting the climate of fear and censorship typical of authoritarian states into the public sphere of democracies. The result is an erosion of the integrity of democratic public space: it is no longer fully free or secure for all participants, particularly those from certain diaspora or exile communities. The mere presence of transnational threats can distort discourse, silence voices, and deter civic participation, undermining the pluralism and freedom that characterize a healthy democracy.

One of the primary mechanisms of this erosion is the chilling effect on freedom of expression and association. Many exiles fled their homelands precisely to find a safe environment to speak out or to simply live without political persecution. Yet, when their former rulers can menace them abroad, these individuals often feel compelled to self-censor or withdraw from activism even in democratic countries. Studies confirm that “monitoring leads to self-censorship” among targeted group. For example, Uyghur activists in Europe or North America frequently refrain from attending protests or speaking to media using their real names, because Chinese authorities have been known to quickly learn of such activities and retaliate—often by punishing relatives in China or by other harassment of the activist abroad. Similarly, dissidents from countries like Iran, Syria, Eritrea, and others living in democratic states have reported receiving ominous messages (by email, social media, or phone) warning them against participating in opposition rallies or human rights campaigns. When “dissidents, minorities, activists, and journalists” know they are under foreign surveillance or threat, many will understandably tone down their rhetoric or avoid public events, meaning their viewpoints and voices are lost or muted in the democratic public discours. This is a direct breach of their rights to freedom of speech and assembly, as transnational repression “violates free speech rights by censoring directly…and indirectly (intimidating into silence)”.

The integrity of debate and information in the public sphere is also compromised. Authoritarian regimes don’t just threaten individuals; they actively spread disinformation and propaganda within diaspora communities to discredit exiles and control narratives. For instance, Chinese state-linked networks have orchestrated smear campaigns on social media against prominent overseas critics, flooding platforms with false accusations to destroy their credibility. This not only intimidates the individual target but also warps the information environment for others who might hear or read these smears. Likewise, regimes often plant informants or loyalists in community organizations, student associations, or even media outlets in the diaspora to monitor and counter anti-regime activities. The result is that democratic public forums—be it a campus debate, a community gathering, or an ethnic media space—are infiltrated by fear and mistrust. People begin to suspect each other of being spies or informers (often with good reason, as numerous cases have unveiled diaspora spying networks). Such an atmosphere is toxic to honest, free deliberation. Journalists working in democratic countries to report on their homelands also find it difficult to do their job: sources back home fear speaking, and sources abroad might fear that talking could endanger them or their families. As the Journal of Democracy observed, digital transnational repression has made it harder for journalists in exile to cultivate sources, “erod[ing] the trust reporters must build to obtain information”journal. Thus, truthful reporting and open discussion suffer.

Another facet of public space integrity is the right to peaceful assembly. Democratic nations regularly see protests and demonstrations by diaspora groups—Tibetan exiles protesting Chinese policies, Iranian diaspora rallying for women’s rights, Turkish and Egyptian dissidents holding vigils, etc. Authoritarian governments often attempt to disrupt or surveil these gatherings. They may send counter-protesters or agents to photograph participants (for later reprisals), attempt to scare people away beforehand, or, in some cases, physically confront protesters. A documented incident occurred in Washington, D.C. in 2017, when Turkish President Erdoğan’s security detail infamously attacked peaceful protesters (many of them American citizens of Turkish or Kurdish origin) outside the Turkish ambassador’s residence. This was a very visible example of an authoritarian regime’s representatives using force in the public space of a democracy to quash dissenting voices. Such brazen actions are rare but send a chilling message: even on the streets of a free country, critics are not safe from the long arm of the authoritarian state. More commonly, intimidation is subtler—community members might say “don’t go to that rally, someone will take your photo and your family back home could pay for it.” When community events or political meetings occur, the fear that regime informants are present can hamper free discussion. People may speak in euphemisms or avoid certain topics altogether. The overall effect is a shrinking of democratic public space for certain groups, undermining the universality of democratic freedoms.

Transnational repression also undermines online public space, which is increasingly a vital arena of democratic life. Cyber harassment, hacking, and surveillance of exiles are rampant. Citizen Lab and others have documented extensive spyware campaigns against diaspora activists—for instance, Pegasus spyware (developed by NSO Group) was found on the devices of dozens of exiled activists and journalists from the Middle East, used by their governments to monitor their communication. Knowing that online activities are monitored or vulnerable to hacking again pushes dissidents to retreat from fully participating in digital discourse. Many activists must weigh the risks of posting on social media or even joining WhatsApp groups, given that authoritarian agents might be watching. This is a direct exportation of the surveillance state into the digital realm of democracies. It violates privacy and chills speech; as one Atlantic Council report notes, these “foreign… intimidation or enforcement actions” through surveillance “threaten to erode public trust in institutions” including the online platforms that facilitate civic engagement. The integrity of online debate is further corroded by bot armies or coordinated trolling deployed by regimes to drown out dissident voices or harass them off platforms.

What makes the erosion of public space particularly damaging is that it undermines the inclusive, pluralistic character of democracy. Democracies rely on the idea that anyone on their soil can peacefully express dissenting ideas, even about foreign governments. When certain communities feel they cannot do so, it creates an unequal landscape of participation. Some voices—often those best positioned to critique authoritarian abuses—are silenced or muffled. This not only harms those individuals but impoverishes the host country’s civic discourse. For example, Chinese democracy activists in the United States contribute important perspectives on human rights and US-China policy, but if many are silenced by fear of Beijing’s retribution, the American public debate loses insight. Similarly, Iranian women’s rights activists in Europe have been a driving force informing Europeans about Tehran’s abuses; intimidation attempts against them (like hacking their emails or threatening them via fake personas) can reduce their visibility and impact.

Finally, the presence of foreign repression can engender censorship by proxy even by well-meaning institutions. Universities, for instance, might cancel an event with a controversial exile speaker after behind-the-scenes pressure from the speaker’s home country embassy, or out of fear for the safety of students from that country. There have been incidents where academic discussions of topics sensitive to Beijing (like Tibet or Xinjiang) at Western campuses were disrupted or discouraged due to worries about Chinese student informants and subsequent backlash. Such self-imposed restraints, aimed at avoiding international incidents, nonetheless compromise the ideal of the university (or any civic institution) as a free forum for ideas.

In essence, transnational repression infuses the democratic public sphere with the fear and repression characteristic of authoritarian regimes, on a targeted basis. By doing so, it creates an unfree enclave within a free society. Democratic institutions and civil society are increasingly acknowledging this problem. Initiatives are developing to support exile communities, such as hotlines to report intimidation, increased police outreach to vulnerable groups, and digital security training to help activists protect themselves. Some governments now publicly affirm that an attack on free expression of exiles is an attack on democratic values overall. For instance, Human Rights Watch calls on democracies to recognize transnational repression “as a threat to human rights generally” and to protect those at risk within their jurisdiction. Safeguarding the integrity of public space means ensuring that everyone, including those targeted by foreign regimes, can exercise their democratic freedoms without fear. The erosion we see today is serious: it strikes at the credibility of democracies as havens for free speech and undermines the fullness of debate and civic activity. Restoring that integrity will require concerted action to expose and counteract foreign intimidation tactics, from better policing of harassment to international condemnations of those who export censorship.