Exploding administrative costs: Court of Auditors sounds the alarm – How the Federal Employment Agency is burning through billions under Andrea Nahles

400,000 euros for explaining instead of solving problems: The Nahles system on the verge of collapse

### In the business world, she would have been fired long ago: Andrea Nahles's bitter €400,000 balance sheet ### Millions unemployed, open positions, and a record deficit: The true balance sheet of the Federal Employment Agency ### More pay than the Chancellor, but no results: The structural problem of the Federal Employment Agency ###

With an annual salary of around €400,000, Andrea Nahles heads Germany's largest and most important government agency: the Federal Employment Agency (BA). It's a top salary that, in the private sector, would be tied to hard-hitting performance indicators, strategic innovation, and personal responsibility. But the reality in Nuremberg is quite different. While Germany grapples with a demographic shock, progressive deindustrialization, and a growing skills gap, the BA's leadership primarily delivers one thing at monthly press conferences: verbose explanations for why the situation remains difficult. At the same time, administrative costs are exploding, the Federal Court of Auditors is sounding the alarm, and the deficit is ballooning into the billions. This article takes an unvarnished look at Nahles's position and reveals a profound structural problem: What happens when a gigantic agency operates without genuine market pressure and political networks outweigh entrepreneurial competence? It's an analysis of a system that pays top salaries but knows no consequences for failure.

Leadership, salary and failure: Andrea Nahles and the Federal Employment Agency

When administration becomes career insurance — How a top salary without an economic basis works

Andrea Nahles has headed the Federal Employment Agency (BA) since August 1, 2022—for an annual salary reportedly around €400,000. Nowhere in her biography is there any work in the private sector, no position on a corporate board, no entrepreneurial risk, and no personal liability. What she does have to show is a political career: General Secretary of the SPD, Federal Minister of Labor, parliamentary group leader, party chair—and, after her political defeat in 2019, a smooth transition into a well-paid position in the federal administration. This article analyzes what Nahles accomplishes at the helm of Germany's largest federal agency, what she earns, and why the structural problems of the German labor market extend far beyond her tenure.

A career outside of economics: The career path of a professional politician

Andrea Nahles was born in 1970 in Mendig in the Volcanic Eifel region and joined the SPD (Social Democratic Party of Germany) in 1988. She began studying German and political science at the University of Bonn, completing her studies with a Master's degree in 1999—eleven years later. Her Master's thesis was titled "The Function of Disasters in Serial Romance Novels." She began a doctoral program in 2004 but abandoned it when she was re-elected to the Bundestag (German Federal Parliament) in 2005.

Her resume shows no significant contact with the private sector. From 2002 to 2003, she co-headed the Berlin office of the IG Metall union with Michael Guggemos—a union staff position, not an entrepreneurial activity. Afterward, she held exclusively political offices: Bundestag, General Secretariat, Ministry, parliamentary group leader, party chair. Following her resignation from all political offices in 2019, she initially took up the post of President of the Federal Agency for Post and Telecommunications in 2020—a position for which an annual salary of up to €200,000 was rumored at the time.

This is a pattern that is not an exception but established practice in German political administration: those who fail politically land on their feet—in well-paid public positions that are not subject to market logic. The crucial difference to corporate management lies in the fact that there are no real consequences for failure here. In the C-level management of a company, an executive with this track record would have been replaced long ago. At the Federal Employment Agency, one remains in office and explains why things aren't improving.

No turnaround, no light at the end of the tunnel: The labor market data from May 2026

The Federal Employment Agency's monthly figures for May 2026 paint a clear picture: While unemployment has fallen by 58,000 compared to April, to 2.95 million people, it is 31,000 higher year-on-year than in May 2025. The unemployment rate stands at 6.3 percent. Nahles herself commented on this at the press conference in Nuremberg, saying: "Despite a decline in unemployment, the spring upturn hasn't really taken off this year." The Federal Employment Agency openly describes the decline as a "counter-effect" to the particularly weak April, not as a trend reversal.

This assessment is honest, but it also reveals the structural problem: In April, contrary to all expectations, unemployment rose by 20,000 people—a sign of continued weakness. Spring, which seasonally usually brings some relief, was weaker than expected in 2026. At the beginning of the year, the highest January unemployment figures in almost twelve years were recorded. Nahles had already predicted in January 2026 that an improvement could be expected "by the middle of the year"—a prediction that has not been borne out at the time of this analysis.

The figures for unemployment insurance are particularly alarming: In May 2026, 1.073 million people received unemployment benefits—113,000 more than the previous year. These individuals come directly from jobs subject to social security contributions, often having paid into the system for decades, and are now without work. Every month, around 15,000 jobs disappear in the manufacturing sector alone. Even the number of people in jobs subject to social security contributions, for which the most recent data extends to March, shows a decline of 75,000 compared to the previous year.

The paradox of the German labor market: millions of unemployed, millions of job vacancies

Germany is caught in a structural dilemma that cannot be resolved with traditional economic stimulus measures. In May 2026, 643,000 job vacancies were registered with the Federal Employment Agency (BA)—8,000 more than the previous year, but at a historically low level. At the same time, almost three million people were unemployed. For every 100 registered vacancies, there are significantly more than 100 unemployed people—a ratio that puts the simplistic assertion of "skills shortage as the main problem" into perspective, but does not refute it. The paradox lies in the structural mismatch: those who are unemployed often search for jobs where there is no shortage—and conversely, skilled workers are lacking precisely where the unemployed are unwilling or unable to work.

The Federal Employment Agency's (BA) annual skills shortage analysis identifies a total of 157 shortage occupations for 2025, compared to 163 in 2024. More than half of these occupations are classic skilled trades within the dual vocational training system: nursing, crafts, professional drivers, electricians, and cooks. In academic professions, only 25 of the 157 shortage occupations are experiencing problems—and surprisingly, the BA found no shortage of software developers and IT sales staff in the IT sector, despite this having been the case the previous year. The number of unemployed IT professionals rose by 25 percent year-on-year by the end of 2025. What was considered a prime example of digital transformation just a few years ago is now a sector with a significant surplus of skilled workers.

According to the Federal Employment Agency (BA), in 2024 only a quarter of registered unemployed skilled workers were seeking employment in a shortage occupation. This means that even if all unemployed people were placed in jobs, a large proportion would not go into the sectors that are actually recruiting. This skills and motivation gap is one of the key challenges—and it cannot be closed through job placement alone.

Demographic change as a structural shock

For the first time in post-war German history, the potential working-age population will shrink in absolute terms in 2026—by around 40,000 people to 48.62 million. The Institute for Employment Research (IAB) confirms this historic turning point: The large baby boomer generation is leaving the labor market, and the subsequent cohorts are simply too small to fill the gap. Almost a quarter of all employees subject to social security contributions—around 7.8 million people—are between 55 and 65 years old and will retire within the next ten years. Just ten years ago, this figure was around 17 percent.

Nahles at least clearly identifies this connection: "Demographic change is also impacting professional drivers, cooks, and electricians. The number of employees with German citizenship is declining in these sectors as well." That's an accurate diagnosis. But a diagnosis alone doesn't justify top salaries. The question is what the Federal Employment Agency (BA), under her leadership, is doing to develop and implement structural solutions.

Deindustrialization is exacerbating the effect in a perverse way. According to an EY analysis, German industry lost 124,000 jobs in 2025—almost twice as many as in the previous year. The automotive industry alone lost 50,000 jobs; since 2019, a total of 111,000 jobs have been lost in this leading sector. Month after month, the manufacturing sector loses jobs—and these former skilled workers, who come directly from their jobs, end up on unemployment insurance and thus in the statistics of the Federal Employment Agency (BA). The IAB forecasting institute expects another 140,000 jobs to be lost in industry in 2026 alone. A "broad recovery" is not expected until 2027 at the earliest.

Migration as the sole support system: Realistic assessment or political exoneration?

Nahles deserves objective recognition on one point: she names the contribution of labor migration to stabilizing the German labor market without embellishment. In the nursing sector, for example, the number of employees with German citizenship fell by 5,000 between June 2024 and June 2025, while the number of foreign employees increased by 46,000 during the same period. Without immigration, many nursing homes and hospitals would "probably be barely able to maintain operations"—this is not a political assessment, but a finding supported by IAB data.

Total employment in the nursing sector grew by 26 percent between 2013 and 2023, with a large proportion of this increase attributable to foreign workers. In elderly care, the number of employees with foreign citizenship rose by 87,000 (an increase of 273 percent) during this period, and in hospital nursing by 109,000 (an increase of 256 percent). The proportion of foreign workers in hospital nursing is currently 14.5 percent, and in elderly care, it is 18.9 percent. The increase in employment in Germany is now entirely driven by people from abroad.

In February 2025, the DIW estimated that Germany would need to integrate at least 1.6 million foreign nationals into good jobs over the next four years to ensure economic and social stability. Nahles points out that the Federal Employment Agency (BA) is better equipped than it was two or three years ago to place Ukrainians and people from the eight main countries of origin into employment. The year-on-year decrease of 103,000 in the number of people receiving citizen's income support is attributed, among other things, to this improved integration policy. This is a genuine success—but one that stems from external pressure and international developments, not from strategic innovations originating in the executive suite.

At the same time, it must be noted that the integration of migrants into shortage occupations is reaching its structural limits. Even qualified professionals are leaving the care sector: From 2022 to 2023, 191,000 people left shortage occupations in favor of other jobs—only 167,000 new ones entered them. Poor working conditions and insufficient wages are also driving immigrants out of systemically important professions. A coherent strategy that goes beyond mere job placement is lacking.

Our EU and German expertise in business development, sales and marketing - Image: Xpert.Digital

Industry focus areas: B2B, digitalization (from AI to XR), mechanical engineering, logistics, renewable energies and industry

More information here:

• Expert Business Hub

A thematic hub offering insights and expertise:

• Knowledge platform covering global and regional economies, innovation and industry-specific trends
• A collection of analyses, insights, and background information from our key areas of focus
• A place for expertise and information on current developments in business and technology
• A hub for companies seeking information on markets, digitalization, and industry innovations

Administrative costs without any return: The Federal Court of Auditors raises the alarm

In a 2025 report, the Federal Court of Auditors (BRH) sharply criticized the Federal Employment Agency's (BA) spending trends. Despite record revenues, the agency is sliding deep into the red: For 2026, the BA anticipates contribution revenues of approximately €49.2 billion, with expenditures of around €52.6 billion—a deficit of over €3.4 billion, which is to be covered by a federal loan. A federal loan of €2.2 billion was already drawn upon in 2025. The reserve fund, which still stood at €25.8 billion in 2019, dwindled to €3.2 billion by the end of 2024.

The situation is particularly critical with regard to the administrative apparatus. Administrative costs have risen to €12.2 billion—around 37 percent more than before the pandemic. Personnel expenses have even increased by 44.3 percent, driven by job creation, promotions, and negotiated wage increases. Before the pandemic, administrative costs stood at €8.9 billion. Personnel and administration now consume 22 percent of the total budget of €52 billion.

Even more serious is the finding regarding active labor market policy: The Federal Employment Agency (BA) is planning record funding of €4.5 billion for integration services in 2026, of which €3.1 billion is earmarked for further training. At the same time, according to the Federal Court of Auditors (BRH), the effectiveness of these measures is declining. The Court of Auditors urges that funding be more strongly aligned with measurable successes—rather than with participant numbers. In other words: More money for less impact.

A private company with comparable spending trends and declining effectiveness of its core products would undertake a fundamental strategic realignment and hold its management accountable. Instead, the Federal Employment Agency (BA) increases its budget, covers its deficit with government loans, and its CEO calls another press conference.

The leadership problem: When explanations replace results

What Nahles has delivered at countless press conferences since August 2022 is a consistent description of problems that she herself does not solve. She explains demographic change, the economy, the industrial crisis, migration integration—all correctly, all comprehensibly, all without strategic consequence. One is not paid for explanations in a board position. One doesn't need a CEO with a €400,000 annual salary to provide explanations—a press secretary is sufficient.

The core problem is structural: Nahles was not appointed to this position for her economic expertise or entrepreneurial innovation, but because of her political network within the SPD. The proposal for her appointment came in January 2022 jointly from the Confederation of German Employers' Associations (BDA) and the German Trade Union Confederation (DGB)—that is, from the social partners who control the BA's (Federal Employment Agency) board of directors and whose interests are closely intertwined with social democratic labor market policy. This is not a scandal in the legal sense, but it is a systemic failure of governance.

In the private sector, particularly in the C-level management of international corporations, the principle is: if you don't deliver, you're out. Not because employees are sidelined, but because capital and investor confidence are limited and performance-dependent. The Federal Employment Agency (BA), on the other hand, is a monopolist with mandatory contributions. There is no competition, no exit mechanism for dissatisfied contributors, and no capital market discipline. Under these conditions, incentives for structural innovation and genuine accountability are systematically underdeveloped.

What needs to be done: Structural answers beyond press conferences

Substantial leadership of the Federal Employment Agency would have to address four strategic challenges simultaneously, for which Nahles has so far provided no discernible programmatic answer.

First: The skills gap in shortage occupations. Of the 157 shortage occupations, over half are traditional skilled trades. At the same time, only 25 percent of the unemployed are seeking employment in shortage occupations. An active matching system that not only finances retraining in shortage occupations but also structurally mandates it and links it to career incentives is lacking. According to the Federal Court of Auditors (BRH), the planned 3.1 billion euros for further training are not being used effectively enough.

Secondly: Retention policies in shortage occupations. A study by the RWI commissioned by the Bertelsmann Foundation shows that employees in shortage occupations leave their jobs more frequently than employees in other professions—due to poor working conditions and insufficient wages. Germany loses a net total of 24,000 skilled workers from shortage occupations each year. The Federal Employment Agency (BA) has considerable resources for reintegration programs, but according to the Federal Court of Auditors, it does not use them strategically enough.

Thirdly: The digitization of its own processes. The Federal Court of Auditors (BRH) criticizes the inefficient digitization within the Federal Employment Agency (BA) itself. Ironically, the agency tasked with overseeing the structural transformation of the German labor market cannot digitally optimize its own administrative processes. This is not just an efficiency problem—it is a credibility problem.

Fourth: A realistic concept for labor migration that goes beyond the status quo. The Federal Employment Agency (BA) describes migration as an indispensable pillar of the German labor market. At the same time, the unemployment rate among foreigners is rising to around 15 percent. A comprehensive strategic concept that systematically links demand management, language support, recognition of foreign qualifications, and integration pathways into shortage occupations is not yet apparent.

The structural problem behind the person: When authorities know no consequences

It would be intellectually dishonest to project all the problems of the German labor market onto Andrea Nahles personally. Demographic change is not a management failure—it has been predicted for decades and underestimated by many federal governments. Deindustrialization is the result of a misguided energy and industrial policy that far exceeds the competence of the Federal Employment Agency (BA). The economic weakness, exacerbated by geopolitical risks such as the Middle East conflict, which, according to the Institute for Employment Research (IAB), will reduce growth by 0.2 to 0.3 percentage points in 2026, is likewise not a failure of the employment agency.

But this is precisely the crucial point: If the Federal Employment Agency's tasks are truly limited to managing megatrends caused politically and economically by other actors, then why is a manager with an annual salary of €400,000 and the ambition to provide strategic leadership needed? If it's merely a matter of competently describing structural problems, then a solid senior administrative head would suffice for a third of the budget.

The argument for a top salary is the argument for top performance. In C-level management—the only meaningful benchmark for this compensation bracket—a leader is expected to develop new ideas, anticipate market trends, drive innovation, and strategically reposition the organization. Not react, but act. Not explain, but shape. Nahles explains. Month after month. Well-articulated, politically astute—but without a discernible strategic vision.

The numbers as a verdict: A sober assessment after four years

Four years after Nahles took office in August 2022, the situation on the German labor market is significantly worse than when she took office. The unemployment rate has risen, the number of long-term unemployed has increased, the Federal Employment Agency's (BA) reserves have dwindled from a comfortable level to €1.8 billion, and the deficit for 2026 is projected to exceed €3 billion. During the same period, the agency's administrative costs rose by 37 percent.

To be fair, Nahles took office when the economy was already weakening, and the economic environment has deteriorated since then. The IAB forecasts growth of just 0.8 percent for 2026—and that only thanks to massive government fiscal stimulus packages. Nevertheless, the question remains: What structural changes has Nahles implemented that will improve the situation in the long term? What reforms has she pushed through that go beyond day-to-day business? What key indicators demonstrate that her leadership is making a measurable positive difference?

The answer remains elusive—because the Federal Employment Agency (BA) doesn't ask these questions and doesn't need to. In a system without market discipline and without genuine political accountability, the lack of results is not grounds for dismissal. It's a structurally determined, normal state of affairs.

Systemic critique, not personal critique

Andrea Nahles is not the problem—she is the symptom. The real problem is a system that accepts political networks as proof of competence, absolves administrative monopolies of accountability, and pays top salaries without demanding top performance. A system that knows no consequences creates no incentives for excellence.

The German labor market faces its greatest structural challenges since reunification: a demographic collapse of the working-age population, industrial job losses on an unprecedented scale, a skills gap that cannot be closed with traditional placement tools, and a growing dependence on labor migration coupled with rising unemployment among foreigners. These problems demand bold, unconventional, and economically sound solutions—not monthly press conferences with well-formulated situation reports.

When you're responsible for a €52 billion budget and the labor market integration of millions of people for €400,000 a year, you can expect more than just an eloquent explanation of why demographic change is "taking its toll." In a company, if you don't deliver, you're out. But in the Federal Employment Agency—as in so many other public institutions—this rule doesn't apply. That's the real scandal.