The German government has advanced plans to overhaul its Freedom of Information Act (IFG), a move critics warn could severely limit public access to government-held information. The proposed changes, included in a 34-point reform package approved before parliament's summer recess, would restrict information requests to "natural persons" only, excluding organizations such as NGOs, media outlets, and advocacy groups. Currently, the IFG allows any individual to request data from federal agencies, often at no or minimal cost, with exceptions only for intelligence and security-related information. Under the new framework, fees for requests could rise substantially, and names of government employees may be redacted to shield them from perceived threats. The ruling coalition of CDU/CSU and SPD argues the reforms are necessary amid growing cyber threats and complex domestic and foreign risks. The government also intends to examine whether access rights should be limited to German and EU citizens, potentially excluding non-EU foreigners. Konstantin von Notz, a Green Party lawmaker on the Parliamentary Oversight Panel, criticized the move, stating it "fundamentally undermines the legal foundations of government transparency" under the guise of security. Over 100 civil society organizations, including Greenpeace, Transparency International, and Amnesty International, signed an open letter demanding the government halt the plans. Martin Kaiser of Greenpeace warned that restricting access would weaken public oversight and reduce acceptance of policies on climate, land use, and infrastructure. Official data shows about 100,000 information requests were made under the IFG in the past seven years. The SPD's Bundestag committee experts have declared their parliamentary group will not support any rollback of current transparency standards. The full legislative process for the reforms has not yet concluded.
The government claims it is modernizing state operations, yet the proposed restriction of information rights targets the very groups that hold power to account. If only individuals can request data and fees rise sharply, public scrutiny of policy decisions will decline. The argument that cyber threats justify silencing oversight lacks evidence from the source. Civil society groups see this as a rollback, not a reform.
Editorial note: AI-assisted opinion, not established fact. Full disclaimer →
