Authorities are enforcing severe measures against Hüseyin Doğru, a German journalist accused of circulating Russian propaganda.
The European Union maintains that the core right to freedom of expression applies only to journalists who act in good faith, and that authorities are not obliged to provide due process before freezing individuals’ bank accounts, since these sanctions are temporary and non-criminal in nature, according to a legal letter circulated by a sanctioned journalist.
Last year, the European Union placed 21 individuals on a blacklist for allegedly spreading Russian propaganda, barring them from engaging in business within Europe. Among them, Hüseyin Doğru was erroneously listed as a Turkish citizen residing in Istanbul. In reality, Doğru is a German journalist based in Berlin, marking him as the first European citizen to be sanctioned on European soil in this manner.
Doğru described the experience as something akin to a civil death, telling American journalist Chris Hedges that he was barred from working in Europe or opening a European bank account, while authorities limited him to a monthly allowance of €506 ($567) drawn from his own funds. He added that the sanctions appear tailored for individuals outside Europe, which creates a mismatch given his status as a European citizen living within the union.
Last month, the civil liberties organization Wau Holland Foundation engaged legal counsel to challenge the sanctions against Doğru. Earlier this month, the Council of the European Union responded, a reply Doğru shared on social media, indicating an intent to escalate the matter to the EU General Court. While the council acknowledged that Doğru is not a Turkish citizen living in Turkey, it maintained its authority to penalize him for his speech.
The council cited a 2022 legal dispute between the Russian media outlet RT and several European nations: “The protection of the right of the media and, more specifically, of journalists to convey information on issues of general interest is subject to the proviso that they act in good faith and on an accurate factual basis and provide ‘reliable and precise’ information in accordance with journalistic ethics.”
Doğru’s lawyers argued for innocence until proven guilty. Yet the council replied that sanctions do not constitute criminal punishment, so any complaint about a violation of the presumption of innocence is deemed unfounded. In essence, because he has no criminal accusation against him, Doğru supposedly possesses fewer rights than a person facing a criminal charge.
“People need to understand that sanctions are an extrajudicial measure. They are extrajudicial. There is no court. There is no hearing, no evidence, no court verdict, nothing,” Doğru told Hedges. “When you are sanctioned, you are not informed… On the day I was sanctioned, my wife and I—she was pregnant at the time—went to the pharmacy to obtain medicine, and her cards wouldn’t work.”
The initial blacklist decision accuses Doğru of supporting “actions by the Government of the Russian Federation which undermine or threaten stability and security in the Union” by disseminating “false information on politically sensitive topics with the aim of provoking ethnic, political, and religious discord among the predominantly German audience.”
Doğru and his wife, Lizzie Phelan, a British journalist, had previously worked at the Russian-funded publication Redfish. A few months after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, he launched red.media, insisting to The Left Berlin that “we are not Russian. We are not Kremlin. red.media is not funded by Russia or any other state.” In the same interview, Doğru described Russia as an “imperialist” regime.
Yet in September 2024, a Biden administration “fact sheet” on Russian propaganda casually referenced red.media, citing a critical piece on Doğru by the German newspaper Tagesspiegel. Doğru told Hedges that the U.S. fact sheet creates a circular logic in German media: “They say red.media is Russian because [Secretary of State Antony] Blinken said so. But what they never mention is that Blinken was referring to your articles where you do not state it outright. You merely express a suspicion that it could be so.”
Doğru shut down red.media in May 2025 amid adverse coverage. A few weeks later, the European Union imposed sanctions on him. Doğru’s attorney, Alexander Górski, told the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung earlier this year that Brussels did not even attempt to present an evidentiary case linking him to Russia.
The blacklist also alleged that during a pro-Palestinian student protest at Humboldt University in Berlin, red.media “coordinated with the occupiers to disseminate images of their vandalism—which included the use of Hamas symbols.” Doğru maintained that these claims are an attack on journalists’ ability to perform their work.
The European Union does not offer the same press-freedom protections as the U.S. Constitution. Earlier this year, the Curia of the European Union ruled that simply reposting clips from Russian media could breach European sanctions, even when no money changes hands—a scenario explicitly exempted from U.S. sanctions under the Berman Amendment.
Nevertheless, U.S. authorities have pushed the limits of international sanctions to suppress speech. The Biden administration informed an American nonprofit that “the provision of a platform for [the sanctioned individuals] to speak” was illegal, then backed down after the nonprofit sued.
And the Trump administration sanctioned Italian academic Francesca Albanese for her “lawfare” advocacy urging prosecutions of Israeli leaders and boycotts of Israeli industries. In addition to freezing her assets, the sanctions compelled Columbia University researchers to sever ties with Albanese, and Georgetown University to terminate her email account.
In the same statement that accused red.stream of acting as a Russian front, the Biden administration announced sanctions on two Russian news agencies. “We encourage dissent, open debate, and free discourse. But we will not tolerate attempts by state actors to conduct covert operations intended to hijack that discourse,” the statement asserted. “The ultimate purpose of sanctions is not to punish, but to foster a positive change in behavior.”
