In a Nutshell

According to The Guardian, German chancellor Friedrich Merz warned the US administration not to interfere in German elections. This is after the State Department announced a grant programme for European charities, think tanks, individuals and potentially public institutions. The scheme offers grants of up to $3m for projects addressing national sovereignty, migration, censorship and lawfare.

German officials are concerned that US public money could be channelled into European political debates ahead of state elections in September. Merz said Germany does not interfere in US elections and does not want the US government, or institutions close to it, intervening in Germany. He also noted that German law prohibits foreign financing of political parties.

The programme is administered through the State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, whose mandate has historically included democracy and human-rights promotion abroad. The State Department says political parties are not eligible for the funds.

Our Take

There is more to this story than Merz’s warning suggests.

His concern may be legitimate, particularly ahead of elections. Germany is entitled to enforce rules against certain forms of intervention.

But politically motivated funding is neither exceptional nor necessarily improper. Governments and foundations routinely support ideas they want to prevail, including across borders. Europe obviously does so as well, so do private foundations and advocacy networks across the political spectrum. A foundation supporting asylum seekers, a government supporting democracy activists, or an administration funding migration skeptics are all advancing particular views of the world. Their funding may be criticized and should definitely be disclosed. But neither the nationality of the donor nor the popularity of its politics is enough to make a recipient’s speech illegitimate. Civil society should remain free to publish reports, bring court cases, organise conferences and argue for policies.

The more serious democratic risk arises when funding is used to gain control over institutions that must not belong to any political camp. Electoral authorities, courts, regulators, public broadcasters and essential public infrastructure derive their legitimacy from serving the public under rules that outlast temporary majorities. They cannot become vehicles for a political agenda or, for that matter, for domestic ideological capture.

The proper safeguards are therefore not blanket suspicion of foreign-backed speech, but transparency and strong protection for the independence of institutions that perform essential public functions. Democracies do not protect themselves by policing which opinions may receive support. They protect themselves by ensuring that no one can turn common institutions into instruments of partisan control.

Read the full story at The Guardian.