CEU Eyes Budapest Return as Hungary Enters New Era

Central European University (CEU), the institution forced to relocate most of its academic operations from Budapest to Vienna following years of political pressure under former Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orbán, is considering expanding its presence in the Hungarian capital. The possibility of a partial return represents a significant development for academic freedom in Hungary and reflects growing confidence in the country’s political direction following the recent change of government.

The university’s interim president and rector, Carsten Q Schneider, has indicated that CEU is interested in developing additional programmes in Budapest, provided that any expansion protects the quality of education and does not compromise the experience of students. Although formal negotiations with Hungary’s new administration have not yet begun, Schneider has expressed optimism that both sides are prepared to establish a constructive relationship.

The development comes after Péter Magyar and his Tisza party secured a decisive victory in April, ending Orbán’s long period in power and raising expectations of institutional reform. Magyar campaigned on promises to address corruption, restore democratic standards and strengthen the independence of public institutions. His government has also pledged to improve academic freedom, an issue that became one of the most internationally visible controversies during Orbán’s administration.

For CEU, the political transition offers an opportunity to reconsider its relationship with the country where it was established. However, university leaders are approaching the possibility of renewed activity in Budapest cautiously, recognising that rebuilding academic confidence requires more than political promises.

Schneider said the university had not yet held formal discussions with the new government, but described the relationship as one in which both sides were extending an invitation for dialogue. He acknowledged that the administration had numerous urgent responsibilities following the election and suggested that discussions could develop as the government begins addressing its wider reform agenda.

Founded in 1991 by Hungarian-American financier and philanthropist George Soros, CEU was established with the ambition of supporting democratic transformation, independent scholarship and open intellectual debate across Central and Eastern Europe. Its academic mission placed particular importance on the social sciences, humanities and law, disciplines considered essential to understanding democratic institutions and the political changes that followed the collapse of communist systems in the region.

The university’s position in Hungary became increasingly difficult under Orbán, whose government introduced legislation that was widely criticised as an attempt to restrict the institution’s operations. The law, commonly known as Lex CEU, imposed requirements that threatened the university’s ability to award degrees in Budapest.

The dispute became a major international controversy, attracting criticism from academics, European institutions, civil society organisations and supporters of academic freedom. Critics argued that the legislation placed political pressure on an independent university and undermined the principles of educational autonomy and freedom of research.

In 2019, CEU moved the majority of its academic operations to Vienna, Austria, after the political and legal environment in Hungary made it impossible to continue its principal degree-awarding activities in Budapest. The relocation marked a serious setback for Hungary’s international academic reputation and was widely regarded as a symbol of the deteriorating relationship between the previous government and independent educational institutions.

The European Union’s highest court later ruled against Hungary over the legislation in 2020, finding that it violated fundamental rights and European Union legal obligations. However, the ruling came after the university had already transferred its main academic operations abroad. The legal victory therefore could not immediately reverse the consequences of the political confrontation.

Despite the relocation, CEU never completely disappeared from Budapest. The institution continues to employ 312 staff members in the Hungarian capital, although most of these positions are administrative. Its principal academic activities, including teaching, remain concentrated in Vienna, where the university has developed a substantial international presence.

The institution currently has more than 1,400 students representing 103 countries, with most enrolled in master’s and doctoral programmes. Its academic focus includes social sciences, law and humanities, attracting students and researchers interested in political development, international relations, economic change and contemporary social challenges.

Schneider has described the university’s academic environment in Vienna as thriving, making clear that CEU is not preparing for a complete return to Budapest. Instead, any expansion would involve a carefully considered arrangement that allows the institution to maintain its international standards while rebuilding a stronger presence in Hungary.

One of the principal challenges would be ensuring that students could access academic opportunities across both locations without unnecessary disruption. For example, a student studying economics and history should be able to combine relevant courses without having to travel more than 200 kilometres between Budapest and Vienna. University officials believe that academic integration, practical accessibility and the quality of student life must remain central to any future decision.

Schneider also stressed that CEU would not seek preferential treatment from the Hungarian government. Rather, the university wants an environment in which it can operate independently and contribute to the country’s academic and intellectual development. He suggested that a stronger institutional presence in Budapest could become an important symbol of resilience and renewed academic freedom.

However, the university’s future in Hungary will not be determined by political statements alone. Its 13-member governing board, which includes George Soros and his son Alexander Soros, will ultimately assess whether the conditions are suitable for further investment and expansion. The institution also wants to ensure that any financial arrangements remain independent of government influence.

The possibility of CEU’s return is emerging at a time when universities in several countries are facing growing political pressure. Schneider has expressed concern about the treatment of higher education institutions under the administration of US President Donald Trump, whose government has taken measures affecting university funding, internal policies and academic priorities.

According to Schneider, CEU has noticed an increase in applications from American students since Trump’s return to the White House. For the first time in the university’s history, students from the United States have become the largest national group among its master’s students, accounting for approximately 10 per cent of that cohort.

The changing applicant profile suggests that international students are increasingly considering universities outside their home countries when political disputes create uncertainty about academic independence. The pressure on prominent American institutions has included reductions in federal funding and attempts to influence internal university policies, raising broader questions about the relationship between governments and higher education.

Schneider has also held informal discussions with American academics about protecting academic freedom in environments where political movements challenge universities. He believes institutions should not underestimate organised political campaigns against higher education, arguing that universities can become targets because they influence public debate, research and cultural understanding.

At the same time, he acknowledged that populist movements have sometimes drawn attention to genuine problems within universities, including concerns about social inequality and the reproduction of privileged elites. Addressing such weaknesses, he suggested, is important if universities want to maintain public trust while defending their independence.

For Schneider, the most effective response to political pressure is to build alliances. Universities need support from other academic institutions, students, former students, parents and wider civil society. He also believes that institutions must defend academic disciplines when they come under political attack, including areas such as gender studies.

The rector recalled the public demonstrations in Budapest in 2017, when tens of thousands of people protested against legislation threatening CEU’s future. The demonstrations became a defining moment in the university’s history and demonstrated the level of public concern surrounding academic freedom. Schneider described the support as one of the most humbling experiences of his professional life.

The political transformation in Hungary has also prompted questions about the country’s democratic future. Schneider believes Magyar successfully used elements of Orbán’s own political machinery to defeat the former prime minister, demonstrating an understanding of the political system that had sustained the previous administration.

However, he cautioned that the skills required to defeat an illiberal political movement are not necessarily the same as those needed to establish a stable and genuinely democratic system. Removing a government is only one stage of political transformation; rebuilding independent institutions, encouraging political competition and protecting fundamental rights require sustained commitment.

Schneider suggested that Hungary could potentially become the world’s first example of a successful post-illiberal democracy, offering lessons for countries attempting to restore democratic institutions after periods of political centralisation. Orbán’s political approach had attracted admirers among right-wing populist movements internationally, making Hungary’s next chapter particularly significant beyond its borders.

Nevertheless, he acknowledged that the future remains uncertain. Magyar’s government will have to operate within a difficult economic environment while managing public expectations and addressing the institutional challenges inherited from the previous administration. Delivering meaningful reforms may prove more complicated than winning an election.

A crucial test will come when the new government begins losing public support. Schneider questioned whether Magyar would be able to preserve political openness and encourage a competitive multiparty system when divisions emerge within his movement. The strength of a democratic system, he suggested, becomes particularly visible when those in power face criticism, declining popularity and the possibility of electoral defeat.

For CEU, these questions are directly connected to its long-term future in Hungary. A partial expansion in Budapest would require confidence not only in the current administration but also in the durability of democratic protections beyond a single government’s term.

The university’s willingness to explore a stronger presence in the Hungarian capital therefore carries significance beyond institutional growth. It represents an opportunity to rebuild academic relationships, restore international confidence and demonstrate that universities can operate independently within a democratic society.

Whether CEU eventually expands its Budapest programmes will depend on the practical conditions created by the new government and the decisions of the university’s leadership. A complete return is not currently planned, but even a limited expansion could carry considerable symbolic importance.

After years of political confrontation and relocation, the possibility of renewed cooperation offers a hopeful development for Hungary’s academic community. Yet the lasting measure of change will be whether the country’s new political leadership can establish an environment in which academic freedom, institutional independence and democratic competition are protected not only in principle but also in everyday practice.