When will this "shit" finally stop? Political credibility in Germany is so below zero!

“A slap in the face”: Why anger at the government is escalating

We stand here, stunned, and ask ourselves: When will this finally end? Day after day, we in the German economy are working diligently to find solutions, make our companies resilient, and make Germany a viable business location for the future. We see ourselves as a partner who relieves the burden on politicians and proactively addresses the economic challenges. The latest signals from Berlin are not only a slap in the face for all those who assume responsibility, but they raise a crucial question: How can we secure a positive future for this country when our own government is thwarting our efforts in such a way?

The choice of this drastic headline is not a coincidence, but a conscious and necessary decision for three reasons:

It is a wake-up call because objective criticism is ignored

Years of constructive suggestions, analyses, and appeals from the business community are falling on deaf ears in political Berlin. When diplomatic and objective words no longer cut through, the language must become louder and more direct. This headline is a deliberate alarm to wake up those who still haven't grasped the dramatic nature of the situation.

She names the reality unvarnished

We're not playing Monopoly here, where you just pack the board away at the end. This is about real livelihoods, about jobs, and about the future of Germany as a business location. The word "shit" is not an insult, but a precise description of the feelings of many who are confronted daily with the consequences of unpredictable and unrealistic politics. It reflects the raw, unfiltered truth.

She breaks through the facade of political phrases

While politicians get lost in euphemistic phrases and technocratic jargon, this headline speaks the language of those at the grassroots level picking up the pieces. It is an authentic expression of anger, disappointment, and the feeling of being let down by their own government.

In short: The harshness of the wording is a direct result of the harshness of reality. When trust is destroyed so fundamentally, we need language that makes it unmistakably clear: This cannot continue.

Political credibility, spending practices and economic resilience in Germany

The current loss of trust in politics is fueled by a mix of visible symbolic politics, contradictory budgetary priorities, and questionable communication signals—for example, in government agencies' styling and PR spending—while simultaneously calling on business and society to implement structural reforms and build resilience. Transparency, prioritization, impact monitoring, and clear guidelines for public relations are key levers for regaining credibility and strengthening economic renewal.

What is behind the outrage over government ministries' PR and styling spending?

The sharp criticism is sparked by the fact that ministries, on the one hand, are urging budgetary discipline and drastic cuts, while on the other hand, they are awarding new or ongoing contracts for photo, video, and styling services. According to government responses, in the three-month period following his inauguration, expenses of approximately €172,608 were incurred for photographers and €58,738 for "personal services" (makeup artists, hairdressers); compared to other departments, the Ministry of Finance was particularly expendive. At the same time, media reports are reporting on additional styling costs for former officeholders from the previous legislative period, reinforcing the impression that political communication and self-presentation are receiving privileged treatment despite austerity measures. This finding coincides with an already strained level of trust in parties and institutions and is therefore perceived as symbolically explosive.

Is it true that the Ministry of Finance is planning high-paying photo/video contracts?

Yes. Media reports on an EU-wide tender by the Federal Ministry of Finance for photo and video services with a framework value of up to €580,000 net (approximately €620,000 including VAT), running from January until the end of 2027 with extension options. 175–225 assignments per year are expected, with short-term availability nationwide and "in exceptional cases worldwide," including optional makeup artist and assistance services with separate billing. The ministry cites the federal government's information mandate and standard industry practice across all departments. Irrespective of this, parliamentary data from a previous three-month period shows the Ministry of Finance as the department with the highest photography costs.

Are expenses for make-up and styling in federal ministries unusual or routine?

This is an established public relations practice: According to the government's response, makeup artists and hairdressers are not listed as employees, but are contracted out on a case-by-case basis. In a three-month period, expenditures across all ministries totaled just under €60,000. Peak figures during this period were recorded in the Ministry of Economic Affairs, while the Federal Chancellery also saw four-digit figures. At the same time, around €172,608 was spent on photographers during the same period. Additional styling expenditures had previously been reported for the previous legislative period (traffic light coalition), including in the Federal Foreign Office and the Federal Chancellery, as well as for individual, widely discussed positions held by former office holders. In short: It's routine – but routine doesn't necessarily justify the extent; the political impact depends on transparency, earmarking, and proportionality.

Why is the combination of austerity appeals and PR spending triggering particular criticism right now?

Because the fiscal policy context is conflicting: The Finance Minister is urging austerity and consolidation, pointing to large funding gaps (planning years 2027–2029), and demanding substantial savings proposals from all ministries. At the same time, special funds worth hundreds of billions are being used for investment and defense, the purpose and management of which are controversial. This conundrum reinforces the perception of a gap between political ambition (savings, priorities, impact) and symbolic spending (PR, styling), which could further erode trust.

Are PR and styling expenses just peanuts – or is it a fundamental problem?

In absolute terms, the PR and styling expenditures mentioned are marginal compared to the overall budget. Politically, however, they are powerful symbols. In times when companies and the public are sworn to renunciation, efficiency, and prioritization, visibly staged communication expenditures seem discordant. Research and surveys indicate a long-term loss of trust in political parties and a widespread impression that elites operate "in a world of their own." The Taxpayers' Association has been calling for priority setting, impact monitoring, and transparency for years; the current debate surrounding the new infrastructure special fund reinforces this demand. In conclusion: The amount is small, the signal is large – and signals shape political credibility.

Is the commissioning of external photographers legally and organizationally justified?

Yes, government and parliamentary documents confirm that public relations and information mandates involve the commissioning of external services; the Federal Press Office also employs permanent photographers. Departments without internal image units use external services as needed. The response to media inquiries emphasizes the common practice of such a practice. Nevertheless, the question of scope, procurement model, service description, impact, and controlling—and of alternatives (e.g., use of the Federal Press Office, joint framework agreements, greater consolidation) remains a political, not merely a legal, consideration.

Why is the discrepancy between “savings” and visible communication performance interpreted as a credibility problem?

Because public communication embodies political style. A government that announces "tough decisions," demands consolidation, and announces structural reforms must act in line with expectations. When contracts for visual staging grow or are extended in parallel, many citizens lack the visible priority of "effect first, packaging second." The accusation is not that communication is taking place, but that the order of resources signals the wrong focus. This tension is exacerbated by debates about special funds, marshalling yards, and unclear impact management. Trust research and surveys attest that trust in political parties is historically low and that a sense of distance from the elite is felt. In this environment, small symbols have a big impact.

What figures specifically support the current criticism?

The three-month figures reported in inquiries and media reports after the government took office: €172,608 for photographers in total; the Ministry of Finance topped the list with approximately €33,700. For styling/hairdressing, €58,738 total in three months; the Ministry of Economic Affairs topped the list with €19,264.76, and the Chancellery with €12,501.30. Previously, just under €50,000 for makeup artists had already been reported for the traffic light coalition government (the remaining government in January–March 2025). These figures confirm the pattern: public relations work is continuously commissioned, but in the current situation, understanding for such spending patterns is dwindling when, at the same time, calls for significant consolidation are being made.

Does the cause of the credibility problem lie deeper than PR spending?

Yes. Political credibility depends on priorities, results, and coherence. Record investments, defense spending, and consolidation are all pursued simultaneously in the budget. Critics see the wrong priorities (cuts in social and climate protection, too little forward-looking investment, inadequate impact monitoring), while supporters emphasize the need for security, location policy, and growth stimulus. At the same time, economists and advisory groups warn of structural problems (energy prices, regulation, demographics, productivity) and call for a growth agenda with sometimes painful reforms. When communicative signals clash with these priorities, it reinforces existing mistrust.

What is the economic context – are companies already creating resilience?

Many companies are working on resilience, particularly on supply chain transparency, dual sourcing, inventory building, digitization of risk management, the circular economy, and more robust processes. Studies and guidelines (VDI, BMBF Resilience Compass, industry compendiums) document the practical implementation and challenges (costs, personnel, measurability). At the same time, structural disruptions (deindustrialization risks, location costs, labor market shifts) are weighing on the outlook; therefore, greater political courage for reforms is being called for. In short: The economy is moving – and expects a government that ensures prioritization, a predictable investment environment, and targeted, effective spending.

What role do special funds play and why do they create mistrust?

Special funds are borrowing authorizations managed outside the core budget with specific earmarks (e.g., defense, infrastructure, climate). They serve, politically desired, as a lever for large-scale investment programs. Criticism is sparked by repurposing, lack of transparency, the temptation to reallocate regular spending, and the potential "switching yard" that creates the illusion of additional stimulus. The Taxpayers' Association is calling for robust criteria, additional impact, and strict oversight to avoid political disenchantment. Media reports are also addressing creative budget accounting and accusations of a lack of transparency, which exacerbates the question of confidence.

Should political communication be fundamentally reduced – or rather reoriented?

Political communication is necessary to fulfill information obligations, ensure democratic accountability, and create transparency. What should be reduced is not communication itself, but inefficient, ineffective, and self-promoting expenditures. Areas of action include: consolidation and bundling of contracts, use of central image resources (BPA), clear output and outcome metrics (e.g., reach, target group coverage, accessibility), open data publication of contracts and performance monitoring, restrictive guidelines for styling/staging, and prioritizing accessible information over visual aesthetics. In this way, communication becomes more of a service to citizens than a PR stunt.

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

More about it here:

• Xpert Business Hub

A topic hub with insights and expertise:

• Knowledge platform on the global and regional economy, innovation and industry-specific trends
• Collection of analyses, impulses and background information from our focus areas
• A place for expertise and information on current developments in business and technology
• Topic hub for companies that want to learn about markets, digitalization and industry innovations

How can the federal government mitigate the acute credibility deficit through concrete steps?

First, instant transparency

Publication of all current framework agreements for photo/video/styling with service descriptions, access statistics, and billing items in open data format; annual consolidation targets across departments.

Second, priority screening

Mandatory review of “communicative must-have cascades” before each assignment (information assignment vs. self-presentation).

Third, bundling

Expand central production capacities at the Federal Press Office and make them a standard service, with external requests as an exception.

Fourth, capping

A digital spending cap per department for "personal services" with strict documentation requirements. Fifth, impact monitoring: Standardized KPIs and independent evaluation of communication campaigns (target achievement, citizen benefit, access). This combination reinforces the message "We save on ourselves first."

What can the economy expect from the government – ​​and what can’t it expect?

Clear, reliable framework conditions, accelerated procedures, predictable energy and grid costs, modern infrastructure, and focused support and investment programs are to be expected. Risk-free environments or complete compensation for global shocks are not to be expected. Therefore, building resilience in companies is essential, but it must be accompanied by government structural reforms: reducing bureaucracy, targeted technology and digital investments, skilled labor strategies, and competitive tax systems. Advisory groups and studies identify concrete reform paths; the political task is prioritization and implementation with impact monitoring.

What role do the opposition and the media play in the vote of confidence?

The opposition and the media act as a corrective by questioning the distribution, earmarking, and impact of public funds. Current budget debates reveal widespread criticism of the use of special funds and the setting of priorities; at the same time, the mandate is to present constructive alternatives. Media reports on styling and PR spending heighten sensitivity to symbolic politics; however, they are no substitute for structural financial control. The decisive lever is data-based, open, and ongoing transparency regarding spending and impact, which enables fact-based political debate.

How can the discrepancy between “saving” and “communicating” be closed operationally?

Through governance for political communication with four building blocks: guardrails (What is mandatory information? What can be dispensed with?), centralization (BPA lead, departments as demand reporters), evidence (KPIs, audits), and ethics (staging vs. information). The resulting practice should set visible norms of behavior: minimal use of makeup/styling, maximum information content, accessible formats over image staging, reuse instead of new production, and initial digital publication in the open data channel. This can reduce costs and reputational risks without compromising the obligation to provide information.

How serious is the loss of trust in Germany – and what can help in the long term?

Studies and surveys show a significant decline in trust in political parties and increasing distance from political elites. Many citizens perceive the priorities as unfair or out of touch with everyday life. Sustainable results are not achieved through symbolic cuts alone, but rather through tangible results: accelerated planning/construction, measurable reduction in bureaucracy, investment priorities with demonstrable impact (e.g., networks, schools, administration), consistent security and location policies, and reliable communication. In short: political practice must make the promised priorities tangible – then credibility follows.

What do supporters of communications spending say – and how should this be assessed?

Proponents argue that high-quality, up-to-date image and video documentation is a matter of democratic transparency, especially for national and international events. They point to legally compliant procurement, demanding deployment profiles, and the need for professional standards in government communication. This is understandable – as long as the scope serves the purpose, the services are bundled and delivered efficiently, and robust impact monitoring is in place. In a fiscally strained situation, austerity and priority logic must also visibly apply to the executive branch.

What lessons can be learned from the figures in the first months of government?

First, communications apparatuses quickly ramp up (new productions, portraits, social media material), which creates short-term spending peaks. Second, departments without their own image departments outsource more frequently—this offers potential for centralization and cost reduction. Third, "personal services" vary greatly by department; without binding guidelines, reputational risks arise. Fourth, a transparent schedule for publishing communication contract data (monthly/quarterly) would make debates more objective.

How can companies and governments work together to build trust?

Through an honest, prioritized reform roadmap: Companies address resilience, digitalization, and training; the government provides accelerated planning, reliable energy cost frameworks, tax and regulatory relief in high-impact areas, and a focus on growth drivers (AI, microelectronics, biotechnology, mobility, and networks). Political communication provides explanatory guidance—not stage-managing—and makes progress measurable and comparable. A shared goal: "Every euro makes an impact," demonstrated by key performance indicators and project success.

What concrete, short-term measures would change the signal?

• Publication of a cross-departmental 12-month consolidation plan specifically for communications spending with quantified savings targets and central purchasing mechanisms.
• Immediate capping of “personal services” per department (quarterly), with publication of each invoice in the open data portal.
• Mandatory initial review by the Federal Press Office prior to external commissioning; external retrieval only in cases of capacity limitations and with justification.
• Standardized production reuse policy (image/video archives, free licenses) to avoid duplicate productions.
• KPI set for communication projects: reach among relevant target groups, accessibility, information value; independent audit published semi-annually.

These measures are not symbolic cosmetics, but rather create real incentives, reduce costs and increase the legitimacy of mandatory communication.

How do makeup/styling expenses fit into history?

Such expenditures have occurred before; differences lie in scope, transparency, and context. In the recent debate, these sums are significant because they coincide with broad structural reforms, special funds, and a tense economic environment. Comparisons with previous terms of office serve as context, but do not solve the current prioritization problem. What is crucial is the current signaling effect and future management.

Why does the outrage escalate despite small amounts?

Because political culture is highly performative. People draw conclusions from what's visible. When palpable burdens, concerns about the future, and questions about where to live are pressing, staging is harder to forgive. Likewise, visible self-restraint, open control, and strict prioritization are recognized. The legitimacy of special funds and debt paths therefore depends not only on legal subtleties, but on the tangible seriousness that governments take in themselves.

What do current budget debates say about priorities?

The opposition and associations criticize the government for wasting opportunities by distributing investment funds inappropriately, weakening climate protection and social welfare, and placing too much emphasis on defense and debt. The government emphasizes security needs, record investment, and growth stimuli. The truth lies in impact measurement: Projects need clear goals, milestones, and outcome monitoring; without these, record sums remain politically vulnerable.

How can trust be systematically regained?

Three levels:

Results orientation

Prioritized, few, large projects with clear key performance indicators (network expansion, administrative digitization, education, industrial transformation) and public interim reporting.

Financial integrity

Visible compliance with the debt brake guidelines (or transparent deviations with deadlines and justification), strict earmarking of special funds, external impact audits.

Communication ethos

Information mandate over self-promotion; open data on contracts and costs; consistent accessibility; stringent cost management in PR/styling.

This triad addresses causes, not just symptoms, of the loss of trust.

How long will this continue – and what is realistic?

Political systems react to pressure from scandals, election results, and administrative reforms. Experience shows: When transparency increases and strict guardrails are in place, spending patterns normalize. "Zero-euro PR" is not realistic, but significant reduction, centralization, and better management are. The greater leverage lies in the visible implementation of structural reforms that boost growth and productivity. If this succeeds, symbolic debates will be put into perspective. If it fails, small expenditures will continue to trigger widespread outrage.

What is the role of Parliament?

Parliament can increase precision and control through budgetary memos, reporting requirements, and evaluation mandates: for example, quarterly reports on communication expenditures, binding KPI sets, publication requirements, and caps. It can also improve the management of special funds, establish independent performance monitoring units, and ensure the priority of "additional" investments in the legislative text. This forces the executive branch to adopt a coherent prioritization model.

How does the debate get back to the point?

By demonstrating visible self-restraint in the short term (transparency, capping, bundling) and delivering results in the medium term (infrastructure, digitalization, education, debureaucratization). Media should place figures in the context of the overall budget while focusing on impact and priorities. Companies should communicate their resilience paths and address verifiable location needs. This creates a cycle of results instead of excitement.

Are there valid counterarguments to reducing PR/styling costs?

Yes: Accessible, well-produced content increases reach, comprehensibility, and political participation – especially in digital, visually-oriented publics. This supports democratic legitimacy. However, it doesn't justify any level of scope. Professionalization must go hand in hand with efficiency, a reuse policy, centralized production, and strict impact measurement. Otherwise, the benefits tip over into mistrust.

Which indicators are suitable for an objective evaluation of political communication?

• Reach in prioritized target groups (not just total impressions).
• Accessibility rate (subtitles, easy language, screen reader capability).
• Information value (e.g. proportion of factual information pieces vs. image content).
• Cost per relevant user reached.
• Reuse rate (archive material vs. new production).
• Timely availability after event.
• Citizen feedback indicators (understandability, usefulness).

These KPIs must be reported transparently and audited externally.

Which “no-regret” reforms strengthen the economy and credibility simultaneously?

• Turbo for accelerating planning/approval for grid, energy, and industrial projects.
• Digital administration with binding, measurable service levels.
• Targeted, temporary investment incentives in key technologies and energy infrastructure.
• Debureaucratization through sunset clauses, reduction of reporting, and experiment-friendly data protection corridor with clear protection standards.
• Labor market reforms for skilled labor recruitment and training.
• Promote supply chain resilience (diversification, nearshoring, energy price stabilization).

This agenda is consistent with recommendations from economists and advisory groups.

What is the point of this and when will it end?

The outrage over styling and PR expenditures is an expression of deeper doubts about the priorities, impact, and fairness of government action. It will "stop" when government and administration visibly begin to cut costs, efficiently streamline communications, disclose contracts, raise caps, and measure impact – and when big promises lead to tangible results: better infrastructure, digital administration, noticeable reductions in bureaucracy, clear investment paths. Building trust is a results-based process. It begins with immediate transparency and ends with demonstrable impact in everyday life. Until then, every communication expenditure must be justified not only legally but also politically and democratically – through benefit, efficiency, and proportionality.

☑️ Our business language is English or German

☑️ NEW: Correspondence in your national language!

 

I would be happy to serve you and my team as a personal advisor.

You can contact me by filling out the contact form or simply call me on +49 89 89 674 804 (Munich) . My email address is: wolfenstein ∂ xpert.digital

I'm looking forward to our joint project.

 

 

☑️ SME support in strategy, consulting, planning and implementation

☑️ Creation or realignment of the digital strategy and digitalization

☑️ Expansion and optimization of international sales processes

☑️ Global & Digital B2B trading platforms

☑️ Pioneer Business Development / Marketing / PR / Trade Fairs

Xpert.Digital has in-depth knowledge of various industries. This allows us to develop tailor-made strategies that are tailored precisely to the requirements and challenges of your specific market segment. By continually analyzing market trends and following industry developments, we can act with foresight and offer innovative solutions. Through the combination of experience and knowledge, we generate added value and give our customers a decisive competitive advantage.

More about it here:

• Use the 5x expertise of Xpert.Digital in one package - starting at just €500/month