A reform proposal buried near the bottom of the German government’s “Programme for Growth and Employment” has triggered a major debate over the future of transparency in public administration. Listed as point 32 among 34 measures, between initiatives on digitalisation and regulatory reform, the plan to amend the Freedom of Information Act (IFG) could significantly change how citizens access government records.
Under the current law, introduced in 2005, citizens can request information from public authorities about government activities. The right extends to a wide range of official documents, including files, emails, expert reports, administrative instructions, funding decisions and, in some cases, ministers’ calendar entries. For journalists and civil rights organisations, the law has become a key tool for investigating government decisions and holding institutions accountable.
The proposed reform would introduce stricter conditions for accessing such information. According to the government’s plans, only natural persons with a “legitimate interest” in obtaining information, and who cannot obtain it through other regulations, would be eligible to make requests. However, the proposal does not define what would qualify as a legitimate interest or what additional steps applicants would need to take before filing a request.
The government is also considering higher fees for information requests, moving beyond the current limit of 500 euros in line with the principle of cost recovery. Another proposal under review would restrict access to people living in Germany and citizens of European Union member states, potentially excluding other applicants.
The reform idea was not introduced unexpectedly. Changes to the IFG had already been included in the coalition agreement between the governing parties. The issue was discussed during weeks of negotiations known as the “Sherpa process”, involving senior officials including Alexander Dobrindt of the CSU, Chancellor’s Office head Thorsten Frei of the CDU and Finance State Secretary Björn Böhning of the SPD. According to information reported by Die Zeit, the proposal originated within the government, with all ministries understood to have an interest in changing the current system.
The IFG was introduced by the Social Democratic Party-Green coalition government in 2005 shortly before Chancellor Gerhard Schröder left office. Its original purpose was to make government actions more transparent, allow citizens to better understand administrative decisions and help prevent corruption and misuse of authority. The principle behind the law was the idea of a more open state.
Since coming into force, the legislation has repeatedly assisted journalists investigating government affairs, tracking lobbying activities and uncovering controversial decisions. Die Zeit itself has used information requests under the law to obtain documents relating to discussions between Schröder and his successor Angela Merkel, as well as contracts between the Federal Ministry of Health and a logistics company during the coronavirus pandemic.
The proposed changes have drawn criticism from opposition parties and civil society groups. Oliver Wiedmann, head of the information freedom division at Mehr Demokratie e.V., argued in a statement issued by a coalition of civil society organisations that declining trust in institutions should not be met with reduced transparency. The Green Party has also criticised the proposal, with party leader Franziska Brantner describing the planned changes as a significant restriction of citizens’ information rights.
Resistance has also emerged within the SPD. According to an internal parliamentary group document seen by Die Zeit, existing information rights for citizens, the press and civil society should not be reduced. The document stated that there would be no support for eliminating the current level of transparency provided by the IFG.
The government has officially justified the reform by pointing to an altered security environment. The coalition’s paper refers to the need to protect public employees and sensitive information amid a “complex threat situation from within and outside”.
However, the law already contains several exemptions. Current provisions allow authorities to reject requests involving areas such as diplomatic relations, military secrets, ongoing court proceedings and public security concerns.
Within the CDU, another argument has gained attention: administrative workload. Party officials have cited figures suggesting that around 480,000 working hours were spent responding to IFG requests in 2024 alone. They argue that such resources could be used for other administrative tasks, particularly as the government seeks to reduce the size of the federal administration by eight percent as part of its broader bureaucracy-cutting programme.
The number of information requests has increased significantly over recent years. According to government figures, applications rose from around 8,900 in 2016 to nearly 19,000 last year. In approximately 40 percent of cases, requested information was provided, while around 4,000 requests were fully or partially rejected. Others were resolved because documents did not exist or responsibility lay with another authority.
The increase has placed pressure on government departments. Officials have reported that teams of staff can sometimes spend weeks or months dealing with individual requests, particularly when applications are broad or unclear. During the coronavirus pandemic, the Robert Koch Institute was overwhelmed by the volume of IFG requests it received.
Yet transparency challenges extend beyond the number of applications. In practice, obtaining information often involves delays, extensive redactions and, in some cases, legal action. Applicants who challenge government decisions in court face financial and procedural barriers, while authorities generally have greater knowledge of what documents exist and what information they hold.
The current system relies heavily on trust between citizens and government institutions. The proposed reform has now placed that relationship at the centre of a national debate over whether Germany’s transparency rules should be modernised or whether changes could limit public scrutiny of state decisions.
