There's a petition against the proposed changes signed by more than 500.000 people. https://weact.campact.de/petitions/spd-stoppt-den-frontalangriff-auf-die-informationsfreiheit (in German).
Critics fear the reforms could weaken government transparency by curbing civil society's access to official information and limiting requests from foreigners.
Does that petition carry any actual weight in Germany? As an example, the Obama Administration created "We the People" where people could create and sign petitions to get the administration to...
Does that petition carry any actual weight in Germany?
As an example, the Obama Administration created "We the People" where people could create and sign petitions to get the administration to directly respond to them.
The popular Change.org petition site on the other hand is completely useless and holds zero actual weight other than making armchair activists feel like they've done something by doing less than the minimum.
This is only a private petition by an NGO. It doesn't mandate any action by the government. There is also a similar mechanism in Germany for petitions to the German federal parliament (Bundestag).
This is only a private petition by an NGO. It doesn't mandate any action by the government.
There is also a similar mechanism in Germany for petitions to the German federal parliament (Bundestag).
Thanks for insight. So if the NGO petition carries no weight and there is a way to petition the German gov't directly, why isn't the latter being used to voice opposition to this instead?
Thanks for insight.
So if the NGO petition carries no weight and there is a way to petition the German gov't directly, why isn't the latter being used to voice opposition to this instead?
I don't know how it works in the US but in Germany the government petition only guarantees that they have to look at it / discuss it publicly. The government doesn't have to change anything if...
I don't know how it works in the US but in Germany the government petition only guarantees that they have to look at it / discuss it publicly. The government doesn't have to change anything if they don't want to. I'm not sure if this would have a bigger impact as the NGO petition.
Well, the wonderful (sarcasm) thing about the US gov't is it doesn't have to make any change either. Obama's administration (it's since been mothballed) created it to allow the public to bring...
Well, the wonderful (sarcasm) thing about the US gov't is it doesn't have to make any change either. Obama's administration (it's since been mothballed) created it to allow the public to bring topics that they were obligated, even if self imposed, to respond/discuss. Still carries more weight than an NGO petition that can be completely ignored.
Because it's far less popular, unfortunately, and people (in the aggregate) only care about "I signed something", not "I made an actual impact", as you've already correctly identified is also the...
Because it's far less popular, unfortunately, and people (in the aggregate) only care about "I signed something", not "I made an actual impact", as you've already correctly identified is also the case for Change.org.
This is the official digital petitioning tool by the federal government, for reference: https://epetitionen.bundestag.de/epet/petuebersicht/mz.nc.html
And the kicker: IIRC only 30,000 signatures (or it might be 50k, not sure) are required for the relevant legislative chamber (Bundestag, "house") to have to deal with it.
Note how the number of signatures ("Mitzeichnungen") is drastically lower, despite private campaigning sites working essentially the same way: Sign up via email, support a petition.
Edit: In this comment I'm linking to the equivalent "official" petition.
Follow-up to my other comment: This is the equivalent "official" petition on the federal government site: https://epetitionen.bundestag.de/petitionen/_2025/_03/_27/Petition_179709.nc.html It has...
It has already been marked as completed, as the responsible office explains in this PDF found in the sidebar of the petition's page above (in German): The topic has already been "forwarded to the Federal Ministry of the Interior".
Oh well.
Edit:
Full translation of the two-page decision explanation PDF, courtesy of DeepL
Committee on Petitions
File Number: Pet 1-21-06-2990-000052
The German Bundestag concluded its deliberations on the petition on March 19, 2026, and resolved:
To refer the petition to the Federal Government—specifically, the Federal Ministry of the Interior—for consideration.
Explanation
The petition calls for the preservation of the Freedom of Information Act in its current
form.
On this topic, the Petitions Committee has received a petition published on the German Bundestag’s website with 1,428 co-signatures and seven comments, as well as another petition with a related objective, which is being considered jointly in Parliament due to the substantive connection between the two.
We ask for your understanding that it is not possible to address all of the points raised.
The main argument put forward is that, since its introduction in 2006, the Freedom of Information Act (IFG) has enabled citizens and journalists to access government documents and information.
As a result, it has helped uncover numerous scandals, such as conflicts of interest and administrative malpractice.
The repeal of the IFG would undo these achievements and significantly restrict public oversight of government actions.
Transparency is indispensable in this context; it also strengthens trust in politics.
A transparent government stands for openness, demonstrates a willingness to be held accountable, and shows respect for the public.
Transparent processes also promote more efficient administration and protect against corruption and abuse of power.
If the IFG were abolished, government decision-making would no longer be transparent and would inevitably lead to a loss of public trust.
As a result, corrupt practices and mismanagement would be significantly more difficult to uncover.
For further details regarding the submission, please refer to the documents provided.
The Petitions Committee has given the Federal Government the opportunity to present its views on the petition.
Taking into account the aspects cited by the Federal Government, the result of the parliamentary review can be summarized as follows:
The Committee emphasizes the importance of effective oversight of government agencies.
It points out that a reform of the Freedom of Information Act (IFG) is planned in the coalition agreement for the 21st legislative period:
“We intend to reform the Freedom of Information Act in its current form to provide added value for citizens and the administration” (see lines 1894 ff.).
The Committee has reviewed the petition.
It is of the opinion that the petition raises important points and is suitable for inclusion in the announced reform process.
It therefore recommends, as a result, that the petition be referred to the Federal Government—specifically, the Federal Ministry of the Interior—for consideration.
This is a bit of a different problem, but I can say that our equivalent in NZ, the OIA (and the LGOIMA) is absolutely being abused and needs reform too. The Acts were written with the idea that a...
This is a bit of a different problem, but I can say that our equivalent in NZ, the OIA (and the LGOIMA) is absolutely being abused and needs reform too. The Acts were written with the idea that a citizen or resident could access information from a public agency at will, back in the age of pen and paper. They were not written with the idea that people would email fishing expeditions to 200 public agencies in the CC field, and they were certainly not written with the idea that a random bored person could get GenAI to create 10 paragraphs of a technically valid yet impossible to parse request.
Yes, you can ask them to refine and we have the withholding grounds, but that processing still takes time, and the numbers of requests keeps rising.
There's a petition against the proposed changes signed by more than 500.000 people.
https://weact.campact.de/petitions/spd-stoppt-den-frontalangriff-auf-die-informationsfreiheit (in German).
Does that petition carry any actual weight in Germany?
As an example, the Obama Administration created "We the People" where people could create and sign petitions to get the administration to directly respond to them.
The popular Change.org petition site on the other hand is completely useless and holds zero actual weight other than making armchair activists feel like they've done something by doing less than the minimum.
This is only a private petition by an NGO. It doesn't mandate any action by the government.
There is also a similar mechanism in Germany for petitions to the German federal parliament (Bundestag).
Thanks for insight.
So if the NGO petition carries no weight and there is a way to petition the German gov't directly, why isn't the latter being used to voice opposition to this instead?
I bet you have to use De-mail and the German NGOs only know how to fax things.
I don't know how it works in the US but in Germany the government petition only guarantees that they have to look at it / discuss it publicly. The government doesn't have to change anything if they don't want to. I'm not sure if this would have a bigger impact as the NGO petition.
Well, the wonderful (sarcasm) thing about the US gov't is it doesn't have to make any change either. Obama's administration (it's since been mothballed) created it to allow the public to bring topics that they were obligated, even if self imposed, to respond/discuss. Still carries more weight than an NGO petition that can be completely ignored.
Because it's far less popular, unfortunately, and people (in the aggregate) only care about "I signed something", not "I made an actual impact", as you've already correctly identified is also the case for Change.org.
This is the official digital petitioning tool by the federal government, for reference: https://epetitionen.bundestag.de/epet/petuebersicht/mz.nc.html
And the kicker: IIRC only 30,000 signatures (or it might be 50k, not sure) are required for the relevant legislative chamber (Bundestag, "house") to have to deal with it.
Note how the number of signatures ("Mitzeichnungen") is drastically lower, despite private campaigning sites working essentially the same way: Sign up via email, support a petition.
Edit: In this comment I'm linking to the equivalent "official" petition.
Follow-up to my other comment: This is the equivalent "official" petition on the federal government site:
https://epetitionen.bundestag.de/petitionen/_2025/_03/_27/Petition_179709.nc.html
It has already been marked as completed, as the responsible office explains in this PDF found in the sidebar of the petition's page above (in German): The topic has already been "forwarded to the Federal Ministry of the Interior".
Oh well.
Edit:
Full translation of the two-page decision explanation PDF, courtesy of DeepL
Committee on Petitions File Number: Pet 1-21-06-2990-000052The German Bundestag concluded its deliberations on the petition on March 19, 2026, and resolved:
To refer the petition to the Federal Government—specifically, the Federal Ministry of the Interior—for consideration.
Explanation
The petition calls for the preservation of the Freedom of Information Act in its current
form.
On this topic, the Petitions Committee has received a petition published on the German Bundestag’s website with 1,428 co-signatures and seven comments, as well as another petition with a related objective, which is being considered jointly in Parliament due to the substantive connection between the two.
We ask for your understanding that it is not possible to address all of the points raised.
The main argument put forward is that, since its introduction in 2006, the Freedom of Information Act (IFG) has enabled citizens and journalists to access government documents and information.
As a result, it has helped uncover numerous scandals, such as conflicts of interest and administrative malpractice.
The repeal of the IFG would undo these achievements and significantly restrict public oversight of government actions.
Transparency is indispensable in this context; it also strengthens trust in politics.
A transparent government stands for openness, demonstrates a willingness to be held accountable, and shows respect for the public.
Transparent processes also promote more efficient administration and protect against corruption and abuse of power.
If the IFG were abolished, government decision-making would no longer be transparent and would inevitably lead to a loss of public trust.
As a result, corrupt practices and mismanagement would be significantly more difficult to uncover.
For further details regarding the submission, please refer to the documents provided.
The Petitions Committee has given the Federal Government the opportunity to present its views on the petition.
Taking into account the aspects cited by the Federal Government, the result of the parliamentary review can be summarized as follows:
The Committee emphasizes the importance of effective oversight of government agencies.
It points out that a reform of the Freedom of Information Act (IFG) is planned in the coalition agreement for the 21st legislative period:
“We intend to reform the Freedom of Information Act in its current form to provide added value for citizens and the administration” (see lines 1894 ff.).
The Committee has reviewed the petition.
It is of the opinion that the petition raises important points and is suitable for inclusion in the announced reform process.
It therefore recommends, as a result, that the petition be referred to the Federal Government—specifically, the Federal Ministry of the Interior—for consideration.
Though it looks like this is from last year, so the context is different and therefore the numbers are not directly comparable.
This is a bit of a different problem, but I can say that our equivalent in NZ, the OIA (and the LGOIMA) is absolutely being abused and needs reform too. The Acts were written with the idea that a citizen or resident could access information from a public agency at will, back in the age of pen and paper. They were not written with the idea that people would email fishing expeditions to 200 public agencies in the CC field, and they were certainly not written with the idea that a random bored person could get GenAI to create 10 paragraphs of a technically valid yet impossible to parse request.
Yes, you can ask them to refine and we have the withholding grounds, but that processing still takes time, and the numbers of requests keeps rising.