When will this "shit" finally end? Political credibility in Germany is so incredibly low!

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

We stand here stunned and ask ourselves: When will this finally end? Day after day, we in the German economy work with full commitment to find solutions, make our companies resilient, and reposition Germany as a future-proof business location. We see ourselves as partners who relieve the burden on policymakers and proactively address economic challenges. The latest signals from Berlin are not only a slap in the face to everyone who takes responsibility, but they also raise a crucial question: How can we secure a positive future for this country if our own government is so blatantly undermining our efforts?

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

It's a wake-up call because objective criticism is being ignored

Years of constructive proposals, analyses, and appeals from the business community have fallen on deaf ears in political Berlin. When diplomatic and factual words no longer get through, the language must become louder and more direct. This headline is a deliberate alarm, intended to jolt awake those who still haven't grasped the gravity of the situation.

She names reality without embellishment

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

She breaks through the facade of political platitudes

While politicians get lost in euphemisms and technocratic jargon, this headline speaks the language of those on the ground picking up the pieces. It is the authentic expression of anger, disappointment, and the feeling of being abandoned by their own government.

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

Political credibility, spending practices and economic resilience in Germany

The current loss of trust in politics stems from a mixture of visible symbolic politics, contradictory budgetary priorities, and questionable communication signals—for example, in the styling and PR spending of government agencies—while simultaneously, businesses and society are being called upon to implement structural reforms and build resilience. Transparency, prioritization, impact assessment, and clear guidelines for public relations are key levers for regaining credibility and strengthening economic renewal.

What is behind the outrage over the PR and styling expenses of government ministries?

The heightened criticism stems from 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 the inauguration of the new minister, expenditures amounted to approximately €172,608 for photographers and €58,738 for "personal services" (makeup artists, hairdressers); compared to other ministries, the Finance Ministry was particularly high in spending. Simultaneously, media outlets are reporting on additional styling costs incurred by former officeholders from the previous legislative period, reinforcing the impression that political communication and self-presentation are being given preferential treatment despite austerity measures. This finding comes at a time of already strained trust in political parties and institutions and is therefore perceived as symbolically explosive.

Is it true that the Ministry of Finance is planning highly lucrative photo/video commissions?

Yes. Media outlets are reporting on an EU-wide tender issued by the Federal Ministry of Finance for photo and video services with a budget of up to €580,000 net (approximately €620,000 including VAT), running from January until the end of 2027 with extension options. The tender anticipates 175–225 assignments per year, with short-notice availability nationwide and "in exceptional cases, worldwide," including optional makeup artist and assistant services billed separately. The Ministry cites the Federal Government's mandate to provide information and standard industry practice across all departments. However, parliamentary data from a previous three-month period identifies the Ministry of Finance as the department with the highest photographer costs.

Are expenditures for makeup artistry and styling in federal ministries exceptional or routine?

This is an established public relations practice: According to the government's response, makeup artists and hairdressers are not employed but contracted externally on a case-by-case basis; over a three-month period, these expenditures totaled nearly €60,000 across all ministries. The Ministry of Economic Affairs saw the highest expenditures during this period, while the Federal Chancellery also spent in the four-figure range. Simultaneously, approximately €172,608 was spent on photographers during the same period. Previously, additional styling expenditures had been reported for the preceding legislative period (the "traffic light" coalition), including those at the Federal Foreign Office and the Federal Chancellery, as well as individual, publicly discussed positions held by former officeholders. In short: It's routine – but routine does not necessarily justify the scale; the political impact depends on transparency, earmarking, and proportionality.

Why is the combination of calls for austerity and PR expenditures currently triggering particular criticism?

Because the fiscal policy context is conflict-ridden: The finance minister is urging austerity and consolidation, pointing to large funding gaps (planning years 2027–2029), and demanding substantial cost-cutting proposals from all departments. At the same time, special funds amounting to hundreds of billions are being used for investments and defense, the earmarking and management of which are controversial. This complex situation reinforces the perception of a gap between political ambitions (saving, priorities, impact) and symbolic expenditures (PR, image), which can further erode trust.

Are PR and styling expenses merely "peanuts" – or a fundamental problem?

In absolute terms, the aforementioned PR and styling expenditures are marginal compared to the overall budget. Politically, however, they carry significant symbolic weight. In times when businesses and the public are being urged to embrace restraint, efficiency, and prioritization, visibly staged communication efforts sound jarring. Research and surveys indicate a long-term decline in trust in political parties and a widespread perception that elites operate "in their own world." The Federation of Taxpayers has been calling for prioritization, impact assessment, and transparency for years; the current debate surrounding the new special infrastructure fund reinforces this demand. In conclusion: The amount is small, the signal is powerful – and signals shape political credibility.

Is the use of external photographers legally and organizationally justified?

Yes, government and parliamentary documents confirm that public relations and information mandates include the commissioning of external services; the Federal Press Office also employs full-time photographers. Departments without internal photo departments use external services as needed. Responses to media inquiries emphasize the common practice of this. Nevertheless, the question of scope, procurement model, service description, impact, and monitoring—and of alternatives (e.g., using the Federal Press Office, joint framework agreements, greater consolidation)—remains a political consideration, not merely a legal one.

Why is the discrepancy between "saving" and visible communication performance interpreted as a credibility problem?

Because public communication embodies political style. A government that announces "tough decisions," calls for consolidation, and outlines structural reforms must act in accordance with expectations. When contracts for visual staging simultaneously increase or are extended, many citizens perceive a lack of clear prioritization: "impact first, packaging second." The criticism isn't that communication is taking place, but that the order of the means signals the wrong focus. This tension is exacerbated by debates surrounding special funds, diversionary bureaucracy, and unclear impact management. Trust research and surveys confirm that trust in political parties is historically low and that there is a perceived disconnect from elites. In this environment, small symbols have a significant impact.

What specific figures support the current criticism?

The figures reported in inquiries and media reports for the three months following the government's inauguration were as follows: €172,608 total for photographers; the Ministry of Finance led the way with approximately €33,700. For styling/hairdressing, the total was €58,738 over three months; the Ministry of Economic Affairs led with €19,264.76, followed by the Federal Chancellery with €12,501.30. Previously, almost €50,000 had been reported for makeup artists during the previous coalition government (January–March 2025). These figures illustrate the pattern: public relations work is continuously commissioned, but in the current situation, understanding for such spending patterns is waning, especially when significant consolidation is being demanded.

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

Yes. Political credibility depends on priorities, results, and coherence. The budget pursues record investments, defense spending, and consolidation simultaneously; critics see misplaced priorities (cuts to social programs and climate protection, insufficient future-oriented investments, inadequate impact assessments), while proponents emphasize the need for security, economic development, and growth incentives. At the same time, economists and consultants warn of structural problems (energy prices, regulation, demographics, productivity) and call for a growth agenda with sometimes painful reforms. When communication signals clash with these priorities, it reinforces existing mistrust.

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

Many companies are working on resilience, particularly on supply chain transparency, dual sourcing, inventory management, digitalization of risk management, circular economy principles, 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 (risks of deindustrialization, location costs, labor market shifts) are weighing on the outlook; therefore, greater political courage for reforms is needed. In short: The business community is taking action – and expects governance that ensures prioritization, a predictable investment environment, and targeted, effective spending.

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

Special funds are borrowing authorizations managed outside the core budget with specific earmarks (e.g., defense, infrastructure, climate). By political design, they serve as leverage for large investment programs. Criticism focuses on reallocations of funds, a lack of transparency, the temptation to shift regular spending, and the potential for misuse, creating the illusion of additional stimulus. The Federation of Taxpayers demands robust criteria, increased impact, and strict oversight to prevent political disillusionment. Media reports also highlight creative budget accounting practices and allegations of a lack of transparency, further exacerbating the question of trust.

Should political communication be fundamentally reduced – or rather realigned?

Political communication is necessary to fulfill information obligations, ensure democratic accountability, and create transparency. The focus should not be on reducing communication itself, but rather on cutting inefficient, ineffective, and self-serving expenditures. Areas for action include: consolidating and bundling contracts, utilizing central image libraries, establishing clear output and outcome indicators (e.g., reach, target group coverage, accessibility), publishing contracts and performance monitoring as open data, implementing strict guidelines for styling and presentation, and prioritizing accessible information over visual aesthetics. In this way, communication becomes more of a service to citizens than a PR stunt.

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

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

First, immediate transparency

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

Secondly, priority screening

Mandatory review of “communicative must-step cascades” before every assignment (information request vs. self-presentation).

Thirdly, bundling

Expand central production capacities at the Federal Press Office and make them the standard service, with external requests being the 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 (goal achievement, citizen benefit, access). This combination reinforces the message "We're cutting costs ourselves first.".

What can businesses expect from the state – and what can't they?

Clear, reliable framework conditions, accelerated procedures, predictable energy and grid costs, modern infrastructure, and focused funding and investment programs can be expected. Risk-free conditions or complete compensation for global shocks cannot be anticipated. Therefore, building resilience within companies is essential, but it must be accompanied by structural government reforms: deregulation, targeted technology and digital investments, skilled labor strategies, and competitive tax systems. Advisory boards and studies identify specific reform pathways; 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 force, 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 constructively present alternatives. Media reports on styling and PR expenditures heighten awareness of symbolic politics; however, they do not replace structural financial control. A crucial lever is data-driven, open, and ongoing transparency regarding expenditure and impact, enabling fact-based political debate.

How can the discrepancy between "saving" and "communicating" be operationally resolved?

Through a governance framework for political communication with four pillars: guidelines (What constitutes mandatory information? What is dispensable?), centralization (BPA lead, departments as need indicators), evidence (KPIs, audits), and ethics (staging vs. information). The resulting practice should establish visible behavioral norms: minimal use of makeup/styling, maximum information content, accessible formats prioritized over image staging, reuse instead of new production, and initial digital publication via open data channels. This reduces 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 a growing distance from political elites. Many citizens perceive the priorities as unfair or out of touch with everyday life. Symbolic cuts alone are not enough to achieve lasting results; tangible outcomes are needed: accelerated planning and construction, measurable reduction of 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 a reality – only then will credibility follow.

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

Proponents argue that high-quality, up-to-date photo and video documentation is a matter of democratic transparency, especially at national and international events. They point to legally sound procurement procedures, demanding operational profiles, and the need for professional standards in government communication. This is understandable—provided the scope serves its purpose, the services are bundled and delivered efficiently, and reliable impact assessments are conducted. Furthermore, in a fiscally strained situation, cost-saving and prioritization principles must be clearly applied to the executive branch as well.

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

First: Communication departments respond quickly (new productions, portraits, social media content), which creates short-term spending peaks. Second: Departments without their own image departments more frequently commission external services – this offers potential for centralization and cost reduction. Third: "Personal services" vary considerably from department to department; without binding guidelines, reputational risks arise. Fourth: A transparent schedule for publishing communication commission data (monthly/quarterly) would depoliticize debates.

How can businesses and government work together to build trust?

Through an honest, prioritized reform roadmap: Companies address resilience, digitalization, and skills development; the government delivers accelerated planning, reliable energy cost frameworks, tax and regulatory relief in impactful areas, and a focus on growth drivers (AI, microelectronics, biotechnology, mobility, networks). Political communication provides explanatory—not sensationalist—support and makes progress measurable and comparable. A shared objective: "Every euro generates impact," demonstrated through key performance indicators and project success.

What specific, short-term measures would reverse the trend?

• Publication of a cross-departmental 12-month consolidation plan specifically for communication expenditures 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 before external commissioning; external requisition only in case of capacity limits with justification.
• Standardized production “reuse” policy (image/video archives, free licenses) to avoid duplicate productions.
• KPI set for communication projects: reach in relevant target groups, accessibility, informational value; independent audit publication every six months.

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

How do make-up/styling expenses fit into the historical context?

Such expenditures have occurred before; the differences lie in their scope, transparency, and context. In the recent debate, the sums involved carry more weight because they coincide with broad structural reforms, special funds, and a strained economic environment. Comparisons with previous terms of office provide context but do not resolve the current prioritization problem. What matters is the signaling effect today and the future management of these expenditures.

Why does the outrage escalate despite small amounts?

Because political culture is highly performative. People infer the whole picture from what is visible. When tangible burdens, anxieties about the future, and questions about economic viability are pressing, staged performances are less easily forgiven. Likewise, visible self-restraint, open oversight, and strict prioritization are recognized. The legitimacy of special funds and debt trajectories therefore depends not only on legal technicalities but also on the demonstrable seriousness that the government applies to itself.

What do current budget debates reveal about priorities?

The opposition and various associations criticize the government for missing opportunities, distributing investment funds in a poorly targeted manner, weakening climate protection and social programs, and relying too heavily on armaments and debt. The government emphasizes security needs, record investments, and growth incentives. 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 guidelines for the debt brake (or transparent deviation with deadline and justification), strict earmarking of special funds, external impact audits.

Communication ethos

Prioritize information over self-presentation; open data on contracts and costs; consistent accessibility; stringent cost management in PR/styling.

This triad addresses the causes, not just the 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 that when transparency increases and strict guidelines are in place, spending patterns normalize. While "zero-euro PR" is unrealistic, significant reductions, centralization, and improved management are achievable. The greater leverage lies in the visible implementation of structural reforms that boost growth and productivity. If this succeeds, symbolic debates become less significant. If it fails, small expenditures will continue to provoke widespread outrage.

What is the role of parliament?

Parliament can increase precision and control through budgetary provisions, reporting obligations, and evaluation mandates: for example, quarterly reports on communication expenditures, binding sets of KPIs, publication requirements, and caps. Furthermore, it can improve the management of special funds, establish independent performance monitoring bodies, and ensure the priority of "additional" investments in legislation. This forces the executive branch to adopt a coherent prioritization approach.

How can the debate get back to the point?

By demonstrating visible short-term self-restraint (transparency, caps, consolidation) and delivering results in the medium term (infrastructure, digitalization, education, deregulation). The media should contextualize figures within the overall budget while simultaneously focusing on impact and priorities. Companies should communicate their resilience strategies and address verifiable location needs. This will create a cycle of results rather than mere outrage.

Are there any valid counterarguments to reducing PR/styling costs?

Yes: Accessible, well-produced content increases reach, comprehensibility, and political participation—especially in digital, visually driven public spheres. This strengthens democratic legitimacy. However, this doesn't justify any amount of content. Professionalization must go hand in hand with efficiency, a reuse policy, centralized production, and rigorous impact measurement. Otherwise, the benefits will turn into distrust.

Which key performance indicators (KPIs) are suitable for an objective evaluation of political communication?

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

These KPIs must be reported transparently and audited externally.

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

• Turbocharger for planning/approval acceleration in networks, 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 requirements, and an experiment-friendly data protection corridor with clear protection standards.
• Labor market reforms for attracting and training skilled workers.
• Promote supply chain resilience (diversification, nearshoring, energy price stabilization).

This agenda aligns with recommendations from economists and advisory boards.

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

Outrage over styling and PR expenditures reflects deeper doubts about the priorities, effectiveness, and fairness of government action. It will "stop" when the government and administration visibly begin cutting costs themselves, streamline communication, disclose contracts, impose spending caps, and measure impact—and when grand promises translate into tangible results: better infrastructure, digital administration, noticeable reduction in bureaucracy, and clear investment pathways. Building trust is a results-oriented 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 native language!

 

I and my team are happy to be available to you as your personal advisor.

You can contact me by filling out the contact form here wolfenstein@xpert.digital:or simply call me at +49 7348 4088 965. My email address is

I'm looking forward to our joint project.

 

 

☑️ SME support in strategy, consulting, planning and implementation

☑️ Creation or realignment of the digital strategy and digitization

☑️ Expansion and optimization of international sales processes

☑️ Global & Digital B2B trading platforms

☑️ Pioneer Business Development / Marketing / PR / Trade Fairs

Xpert.Digital possesses in-depth knowledge across various industries. This allows us to develop tailored strategies precisely aligned with the requirements and challenges of your specific market segment. By continuously analyzing market trends and monitoring industry developments, we can act proactively and offer innovative solutions. The combination of experience and expertise generates added value and provides our clients with a decisive competitive advantage.

More information here:

• Benefit from Xpert.Digital's 5 areas of expertise in one package – starting from just €500/month