National Alliance (Nacionālā apvienība, NA)
EU RANK: 144 (Tier 4: Low Performance)
The National Alliance (Nacionālā apvienība, NA) is a national‑conservative party that combines strong Latvian‑identity politics, cultural conservatism and hawkish positions on security and migration with a generally pro‑NATO but more Eurosceptic tone than other mainstream parties. In the 2022 Saeima election it won 13 seats (9.3% of the vote) and subsequently moved into opposition after declining to join Prime Minister Evika Siliņa’s 2023 coalition. NA remains a significant parliamentary force, shaping debates on language policy, de‑Russification of the information space and historical memory, and it secured two seats in the 2024 European Parliament election.
Disinformation and alternative media
NA’s communication strategy relies on mainstream national TV and radio, public debates and social media, with a focus on identity, history and security rather than on a separate ecosystem of fringe outlets. Its politicians are frequent guests on talk shows and in opinion columns where they advocate tougher lines on Russian‑language education and broadcasting, which often sets the frame for broader public discussion. Mapping of disinformation in Latvia concentrates on explicitly pro‑Kremlin networks and Russian‑language portals; NA is not described as an organiser of coordinated disinformation campaigns, though its sharp rhetoric on national identity can polarise debate.
There is little evidence of a centrally directed NA‑linked alternative media infrastructure systematically producing conspiratorial content. Fact‑checking initiatives and watchdog reports focus more on actors who echo Russian state narratives or use Russian‑language platforms to undermine Latvia’s institutions; NA instead positions itself as part of the national‑security mainstream pushing against such influence, even if its identity politics are sometimes criticised as inflammatory.
Foreign influence and external alignments
National Alliance is firmly pro‑NATO and supports strong defence spending, the presence of allied forces in the Baltics and robust assistance to Ukraine, framing these policies as essential to Latvia’s survival. It is more sceptical of some aspects of EU integration, emphasising national sovereignty, cultural protection and stricter migration control, but does not advocate withdrawal from the EU. At the European level, NA sits within the national‑conservative and right‑wing bloc while maintaining a clear stance against Russian aggression and for sanctions.
Analyses of malign foreign influence in Latvia highlight pro‑Kremlin parties and networks rather than NA, which is among the strongest proponents of limiting Russian‑state media and reducing information‑space vulnerabilities. There is no evidence that NA maintains structured ties with authoritarian regimes or their state‑aligned media; its external alignments are driven by security concerns and cultural conservatism rather than by foreign patronage.
Media capture, advertising and public service media
NA does not own major media outlets and lacks an oligarchic commercial‑TV base, but it exerts influence through agenda‑setting on language and identity issues that shape public‑service broadcasting and regulatory debates. The party routinely pushes for stricter limits on Russian‑language broadcasting and on public‑sector use of Russian, positions that help define NEPLP’s policy agenda and the broader conversation about minority‑language provision. Press‑freedom and media‑pluralism reports note that security‑driven restrictions backed by parties like NA have reduced exposure to Kremlin propaganda while raising concerns about adequate, credible information for minorities.
Financially, NA is a major beneficiary of state subsidies, receiving about €666,000 in 2023 and €376,000 in 2024, though a portion of its 2024 funding was suspended after KNAB found that the party had exceeded the 60% cap on using public money for communications and advertising in the 2022 cycle. KNAB’s July 2024 decision ordered repayment of €210,673.59 and imposed a one‑year suspension of state funding; NA has appealed the ruling in court, which stays the repayment but not the suspension, illustrating how funding compliance directly affects its campaigning capacity.
Corruption, litigation and institutional integrity
Beyond the funding‑cap case, NA has not been at the centre of major criminal corruption trials in the 2015–2025 period. Latvia’s most prominent corruption and governance scandals—such as Aivars Lembergs’ convictions in the ZZS orbit, the Rīga Satiksme procurement investigations linked to Harmony, and illegal financing cases around KPV LV—have primarily implicated other actors. Still, KNAB’s sanction over misuse of state subsidies signals that NA faces significant compliance and governance challenges in adapting to Latvia’s post‑2020 public‑funding regime.
System‑wide assessments by OECD and GRECO underline that Latvian party‑finance laws are robust on paper but unevenly enforced, and NA’s case is used as an example of stricter oversight beginning to bite, with potential consequences for parties that push the boundaries of permitted spending. While there is no evidence of systemic bribery or large‑scale embezzlement involving NA, the funding episode raises the party’s institutional‑integrity risk above that of peers with clean compliance records.
Press freedom, harassment and treatment of critical media
National Alliance’s strong rhetoric on language and identity has occasionally led to tense relations with journalists and outlets that challenge its positions, but there is no consistent pattern of defamation suits or administrative pressure directed by the party against critical media. NA figures regularly participate in LTV and commercial‑TV debates and use social media to mobilise supporters; criticism of coverage tends to take the form of political argument rather than legal escalation. Press‑freedom assessments focus more on structural issues—such as the overall security‑driven narrowing of Russian‑language media and criminal‑defamation provisions—than on NA as a direct source of harassment.
At the same time, the party’s advocacy for phasing out Russian‑language public broadcasting and tightening speech norms in the context of security risks contributes to a climate in which minority‑language media and some commentators feel under pressure. This indirect effect, combined with the funding‑sanction episode and NA’s central role in identity politics, raises some concerns about the party’s sensitivity to pluralistic criticism, even though overt legal or economic attacks on specific outlets remain limited.
| Dimension | Risk level | Short justification |
|---|---|---|
| Disinformation & alternative media | Medium | Uses mainstream and social media with polarising identity rhetoric; not linked to a conspiratorial outlet network, but its narrative framing can sharpen societal divides. |
| Foreign influence & external alignments | Low–Medium | Strongly pro‑NATO and anti‑Kremlin yet sceptical of aspects of EU integration; no evidence of ties to authoritarian regimes or foreign state‑aligned media. |
| Media‑capture & advertising / PSB control | Medium | No media ownership but significant agenda‑setting power on language and security policy; KNAB sanction over communication spending shows how reliance on public funds and tough messaging intersect with regulatory scrutiny. |
| Corruption & institutional‑integrity risk | Medium | Not central to major graft trials, but KNAB’s 2024 finding of unlawful use of state subsidies and the resulting funding suspension highlight real compliance and governance vulnerabilities. |
| Press‑freedom & harassment of media | Medium | Participates in pluralistic debate without systematic legal attacks on journalists, yet its push to narrow Russian‑language media and its confrontational rhetoric contribute to pressures on minority‑language and critical voices. |