The Progressives (Progresīvie, P)

EU RANK: 22 (Tier 1: Top Performance)

The Progressives (Progresīvie, PRO) are a centre‑left, social‑democratic and green party that advocates a Nordic‑style welfare state, strong environmental policy and liberal positions on social rights. They entered the Saeima for the first time in 2022 with 10 seats (6.2% of the vote) and joined the Siliņa government as a junior partner in September 2023, holding key ministries, including transport until a 2025 reshuffle returned ministers to parliament. In the 2024 European Parliament election the Progressives won 7.4% of the vote and secured one MEP, Mārtiņš Staķis, marking their debut representation in Brussels and confirming their emergence as Latvia’s main eco‑social force.​

Disinformation and alternative media

The Progressives rely primarily on mainstream media, public‑service outlets and their own digital channels rather than on a separate ecosystem of partisan alternative media. Their communication strategy centres on programmatic messaging about welfare, housing, climate and anti‑corruption, with an emphasis on policy detail and links to European green and social‑democratic debates. Available mappings of Latvian disinformation ecosystems and Kremlin‑aligned outlets focus on Russian‑language networks and certain populist or explicitly pro‑Kremlin actors, not on the Progressives, who are typically positioned as critics of disinformation and advocates of robust fact‑based public debate.

The party uses social media actively, especially to mobilise younger urban voters, but there is no evidence of a sophisticated, opaque operation akin to Lega’s “La Bestia” or to Kremlin‑linked troll farms; instead, it seeks earned media visibility through investigative and issue‑focused coverage on topics like transport reform and climate policy. Regulatory and watchdog reports on online manipulation and hybrid threats in Latvia do not identify the Progressives as organisers of coordinated inauthentic behaviour or systematic dissemination of false narratives.​

Foreign influence and external alignments

The Progressives are explicitly pro‑EU and pro‑NATO, advocating deeper European integration, ambitious climate action, and strong support for Ukraine and the rules‑based international order. In 2023 they became a full member of the European Green Party, aligning themselves with the Greens/EFA group in the European Parliament and embedding their agenda in a broader transnational green and social‑justice network. Their foreign‑policy positions emphasise sanctions against Russia, increased defence cooperation within NATO, and European‑level solutions to inequality and climate change, leaving little room for alignment with authoritarian regimes.​

Analyses of external influence in Latvia concentrate on Kremlin‑aligned Russian‑language outlets and on actors suspected of assisting Russia or echoing its narratives; in this mapping the Progressives appear on the side of those resisting such influence, not as a vector of it. There is no evidence of structured relationships between the party and authoritarian foreign governments or state‑controlled media that would compromise Latvia’s information integrity.

Media capture, advertising and public service media

The Progressives do not own major media outlets and have no structural stake in commercial TV or large print‑online conglomerates. They gain visibility through Latvia’s public‑service media (LTV, Latvian Radio, LSM), commercial TV3, and digital news portals such as DELFI, alongside local and thematic outlets that cover social policy, urban issues and climate. As a relatively new party, their leverage stems from issue‑driven advocacy and coalition participation rather than from advertising budgets or cross‑ownership, and their media presence depends heavily on earned coverage and debates.

Funding data show that the Progressives receive substantial state subsidies under Latvia’s post‑2020 public‑funding regime (about €448,000 in 2023 and €506,000 in 2024) alongside modest private donations. This stable public funding supports professionalised communication but is subject to KNAB oversight and strict spending caps, and there is no indication of Progressives‑linked attempts to capture outlets through municipal advertising or oligarchic ownership networks. On RAI‑equivalent issues in Latvia, the party tends to argue for strong, independent public media and for safeguards against both security‑driven overreach and political interference, especially in minority‑language provision.

Corruption, litigation and institutional integrity

There are no major corruption convictions or criminal court judgments against the Progressives as a party or against their top leadership in the 2015–2025 period. Country‑level litigation surveys highlight significant cases involving other parties, notably the long‑running corruption proceedings around Aivars Lembergs (ZZS), the Rīga Satiksme scandal in Harmony’s orbit, and KNAB sanctions against the National Alliance—but explicitly note that the Progressives have not been subject to adverse criminal rulings. KNAB’s enforcement actions against misuse of state subsidies and campaign‑finance violations have so far focused on other parties, such as the National Alliance’s 2024 funding suspension, rather than on the Progressives.

Financially, the party operates under the same rules as others in Latvia’s highly regulated regime, with generous public funding and relatively low levels of private donations. This model reduces dependency on large donors and mitigates some classic corruption risks, though it also means that any future breach of spending caps or reporting rules could quickly translate into suspended subsidies and reputational damage; to date, however, no such sanctions have been imposed on the Progressives.

Press freedom, harassment and treatment of critical media

The Progressives frame themselves as strong supporters of press freedom, investigative journalism and transparency, often highlighting the work of watchdogs such as ReBaltica and Re:Check in exposing corruption and disinformation across the political spectrum. In debates about security‑driven regulation of Russian‑language media and the planned phase‑out of Russian‑language public broadcasting by 2026, they tend to argue for balancing national‑security imperatives with the rights of minorities and the need for credible information in all major languages. Press‑freedom indices and assessments of Latvia place the country in the upper tier globally and do not single out the Progressives as a source of pressure or harassment against journalists; rather, they appear among the parties advocating careful, rights‑respecting regulation.

There is no evidence of the party using defamation suits, economic leverage or regulatory capture to intimidate critical media. Criticism of the Progressives in Latvian media focuses on policy disagreements and coalition performance rather than on allegations of media bullying, suggesting a low direct risk to media freedom from the party itself within an overall system that still faces structural challenges.

Dimension	Risk level	Short justification
Disinformation & alternative media	Low	Uses mainstream and party channels with issue‑based messaging; not linked to a structured ecosystem of conspiratorial or systematically misleading alternative media.
Foreign influence & external alignments	Low	Pro‑EU, pro‑NATO social‑democratic‑green party, member of the European Green Party; no evidence of structured ties to authoritarian regimes or foreign state‑aligned media.
Media‑capture & advertising / PSB control	Low	No major media ownership; relies on earned coverage and regulated public funding, and advocates strong, independent public‑service media rather than partisan capture.
Corruption & institutional‑integrity risk	Low	No major corruption convictions or adverse criminal rulings; financed mainly through transparent state subsidies under KNAB oversight, with no recorded sanctions for misuse.
Press‑freedom & harassment of media	Low	Publicly supportive of investigative journalism and media pluralism; not associated with defamation campaigns, legal intimidation or economic pressure on critical outlets.