As the Federal Association Information and Advice for Survivors of Nazi Persecution, we issue statements on current political and social developments relating to remembrance culture, democracy, antisemitism, antiziganism, racism and other forms of group-focused enmity.
Here you will find our press releases, open letters, position papers and statements.
We stand in solidarity with the VVN-BdA – and are outraged by the actions of the Berlin Tax Office for Corporations I.
The tax office is reviewing the charitable status of the Association of Those Persecuted by the Nazi Regime – Federation of Antifascists (VVN-BdA). The authority explicitly cites the VVN-BdA’s activities surrounding the campaign “Defend Human Dignity – Ban the AfD Now!” as the reason for the review.
For us, one thing is clear: Working to protect our democracy and oppose right-wing extremism is a charitable cause.
A resilient democracy needs a strong civil society – and civil society needs charitable organizations such as the VVN-BdA, which take a clear stand against right-wing extremism and threats to our democracy. A public campaign, particularly by far-right and right-wing conservative media figures, against the VVN-BdA has now been followed by an actual review of its charitable status.
Such actions appear to us as an act of anticipatory obedience in response to political and media attacks on civil society. The fact that this is happening in the run-up to upcoming elections also gives us the impression of using state structures for electoral campaign purposes. We strongly condemn this.
The VVN-BdA’s charitable status was already revoked in 2019. In the subsequent appeal proceedings, the organization was able to regain its status. The VVN-BdA must not be left to face this situation alone this time either.
Now, your solidarity is needed: Support the VVN-BdA and help make this case visible:
Background information:
https://vvn-bda.de/hintergrundinformationen-gemeinnuetzigkeit/
Petition:
https://weact.campact.de/petitions/antifaschismus-muss-gemeinnutzig-bleiben
Statement by the VVN-BdA:
https://vvn-bda.de/antifaschismus-muss-gemeinnuetzig-bleiben/
Statement by Holocaust survivor Ernst Grube:
https://vvn-bda.de/im-besten-sinn-gemeinnuetzig-erklaerung-von-ernst-grube-zum-angedrohten-entzug-der-gemeinnuetzigkeit-der-vvn-bda/
Let us stand together to ensure that we do not leave the field to those who seek to undermine democracy.
In its decision of 26 February 2026, the Administrative Court of Cologne prohibited the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, in summary proceedings, from classifying the AfD nationwide as “confirmed right-wing extremist.” This applies until a decision is reached in the main proceedings that are still pending. Since this ruling, there has been significantly less public attention on the question of initiating a ban procedure against this party. We consider this to be wrong.
In the process of overcoming the Nazi dictatorship, Germany adopted a Basic Law in 1949 that contains instruments enabling us to protect our liberal democracy from those who seek to abolish it. These include bans on associations and political parties, which are decided upon in due process under the rule of law. Only the Federal Constitutional Court can assess and decide on the initiation of a party ban procedure.
For decades, we have been actively and non-partisanly representing the interests of those persecuted under Nazi rule and their descendants. Many of them express great concern in light of the renewed strengthening of a far-right party. For us, this is a clear signal that we too should resolutely advocate for the examination of a possible party ban. We consider inaction in the face of a threat to our liberal democracy to be fatal.
And you can also take action:
With your vote, you can send a clear message in support of our democracy and against its endangerment by far-right parties. There are several petitions, such as one by an alliance of more than 100 groups in North Rhine-Westphalia, which calls on the state government to initiate an AfD ban procedure via the Bundesrat. According to the initiators of the "NRW-Appells", more than 80,000 signatures have already been collected across the state. The Initiative PRÜF ("Prüfung Rettet Übrigens Freiheit!") is also collecting signatures and calling for activities in support of the simple demand: “All parties classified by the Office for the Protection of the Constitution as a suspected far-right case or as confirmed right-wing extremist should be reviewed by the Federal Constitutional Court.”
Such a review can only be requested by the Bundestag, the Bundesrat, or the Federal Government.
We call on all three to live up to their responsibility for our democratic society, to now clarify whether the conditions for such procedures are met, and to initiate them where appropriate.
More than 1,000 organisations and individuals – ranging from educational institutions and church communities to state sports associations – have addressed an open letter to Federal Minister for Family Affairs Karin Prien. The occasion is the announced budget cuts and restructuring of the federal programme “Democracy Lives!”. We would like to use this open letter as an opportunity to contextualise current developments – and to draw attention to a political line that, in our view, goes far beyond individual funding decisions.
Already last year, the CDU/CSU sent a clear signal with its parliamentary inquiry on the “political neutrality of state-funded organisations” ("politische Neutralität staatlich geförderter Organisationen"): 551 questions concerning 14 NGOs fundamentally called into question the non-profit status and legitimacy of civil society actors. Many organisations experienced this as a vote of no confidence and an attempt to delegitimise critical voices.
In 2026, the next step followed: three left-leaning bookshops were excluded from the German Bookshop Prize. The justification of “concerns relevant to constitutional protection” remained vague and without transparent basis. Here too, the impression arises that political classification increasingly determines who receives funding – and who does not.
A similar pattern can be observed in the case of the democracy project “Mut-Muskel-Training” by the organisation “Radikale Töchter”: despite having already passed expert evaluation and being approved for funding by the Federal Agency for Civic Education, the project was halted by ministerial intervention – without any comprehensible justification. Internal voices even warned of potential legal consequences and damage to the credibility of state institutions. Observers see a possible connection to previous sharp criticism of the project initiator directed at Federal Chancellor Merz.
Now, the programme “Democracy Lives!” (“Demokratie leben!”) is affected.
Around 200 projects are to be discontinued, including initiatives against antisemitism, against digital violence, against racism, and for the empowerment of marginalised groups. These are projects that have been built up over years – and whose impact is, in some cases, still being evaluated. The minister’s justification: greater efficiency, greater impact, and stronger orientation towards the “centre of society.”
This reasoning is supported by commentators such as Nikolaus Blome, who describe criticism from civil society as exaggerated. His thesis: it is legitimate and necessary to review publicly funded projects in terms of usefulness and efficiency – and resistance to this reflects more self-righteousness than substantive argumentation.
From our perspective, this view falls short.
It ignores key contradictions: while the review of democratic projects is presented as responsible fiscal policy, decisions are simultaneously being made that contradict professional standards:
A look at the initiatives directly affected also shows that this is by no means only about abstract “efficiency questions,” but about very concrete work on the ground – such as counselling for victims of digital violence, educational work after right-wing terrorist attacks, or projects against antisemitism in sport. At the same time, public discourse is shaping a narrative that discredits this work: civil society projects are portrayed as part of a “left-wing milieu” seeking to evade state control. The fact that many programmes demonstrably have positive effects and are regularly evaluated is increasingly pushed into the background.
Particularly problematic is the resulting uncertainty:
These questions do not concern individual projects alone.
They concern the foundations of civil society engagement as a whole. A vibrant democracy depends on independent actors being able to criticise, contribute perspectives, and represent uncomfortable positions without fear of sanctions.
In addition, there is the central question of the much-cited “centre of society”:
Minister Prien justified the approach by stating that the focus should be more strongly on the “centre of society.” Who is meant by this? And who is implicitly excluded? Current practice suggests that projects dealing with racism, antisemitism, or right-wing violence are particularly coming under pressure. The temporal and substantive sequence – from the parliamentary inquiry to the exclusion of bookshops to the current budget cuts – can therefore hardly be understood as a mere series of isolated decisions. Rather, it creates the impression of a political strategy through which critical civil society is increasingly placed under justification pressure.
We share the concerns of the signatories of the open letter:
If funding decisions are perceived as a political steering instrument, trust in state programmes suffers, as does confidence in the framework conditions for democratic engagement overall.
Practices in which financial support appears to be tied to political conformity are primarily known from authoritarian contexts. In a pluralistic democracy, they must have no place – because democracy lives from diversity, from dissent, and from a strong, independent civil society.
Civil society organisations in the Federal Republic of Germany are an essential and constitutive element of a pluralistic and democratic society. They provide a counterbalance and corrective to state structures and offer citizens the opportunity to actively participate in key societal processes.
Anyone who defames, intimidates, economically pressures, or attempts to silence civil society organisations has failed to understand their important contribution to a democratic society.
This applies in particular to the field of “culture of remembrance” in Germany, which has been significantly shaped by civic engagement since the end of the Nazi dictatorship. “Culture of remembrance” in the context of commemorating the Nazi regime does not only mean establishing and maintaining memorial sites and observing regular days of remembrance – it also entails a direct mandate arising from the memory of the horrors of the Nazi terror regime, often summarised in the simple phrase “Never again!”. Antifascist work that actively opposes right-wing radical, extremist, and populist movements is a service to the democratic community and, when conducted within the framework of the free democratic basic order and applicable laws, is unquestionably of public benefit.
We expect the new federal government to respect, expand, and sustainably support civil society structures.
The implementation of the “Democracy Promotion Act” (printed matter 20/5823), which was already initiated by the “traffic light coalition”, must be included in any future coalition agreement, as must a reform of German non-profit law. The EU has again stated eight months ago that Germany “has made no progress in pursuing its plan to adapt the tax exemption rules for non-profit organisations in order to address the challenges associated with the current regulations governing their practical operation, taking into account European standards for the funding of civil society organisations.”
In this spirit, we have approached the negotiation teams and ask them to support our demands in the upcoming coalition negotiations.
Volker Kirchesch Dr. Jost Rebentisch
Chairman Managing Director
“The subsequent generations want to be heard. They write books, comics and blogs, they make films and they have a great deal to say. They are witnesses to their own history — a history that extends from the end of Nazi persecution to the present day. This is why they must become important actors in historical and political education.” (Dr Jost Rebentisch, Managing Director of the Federal Association Information and Advice for Survivors of Nazi Persecution)
For many years, the Federal Association Information and Advice for Survivors of Nazi Persecution has been committed to supporting the descendants of those persecuted by the Nazi regime. Their histories, the burdens they carry and their concerns must become part of public discourse.
It has been scientifically demonstrated that parents can pass on the effects of traumatic experiences to their children. Researchers refer to this phenomenon as the “transgenerational transmission of trauma resulting from persecution”. Such conditions are currently not included in the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD). However, their recognition is necessary to enable those affected to receive appropriate diagnoses and, where necessary, treatment more easily.
There is still much work to be done in this field. The Federal Association Information and Advice for Survivors of Nazi Persecution has outlined specific goals together with the members of the “Working Groups on Descendants of Survivors of Nazi Persecution” in the declaration below.
Join us in taking a stand against decades of silence and sign the declaration on shared goals for supporting descendants of survivors of Nazi persecution.
Making a contribution is simple: just send us an email with your name and, if applicable, your institution, and we will add you as a signatory to the declaration.
Thank you for your support!
