Little D.O.G.E. in Germany: The Same People Are Whining

As the United States grapples with the controversial rollout of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) under Elon Musk’s leadership, a parallel drama is unfolding in Germany, where the Christian Democrats (CDU/CSU), led by Friedrich Merz, are targeting state funding for political NGOs. Both events, though oceans apart, share a striking similarity: a conservative push to slash government involvement and spending has triggered fierce outcry from the same types of critics—left-leaning politicians, activists, and unions—raising questions about consistency, ideology, and the limits of democratic governance.

" "cartoon of Elon Musk and Friedrich Merz as puppeteers""

(AI pic by GROK)

In the U.S., DOGE’s recent mandate, demanding federal workers submit five bullet points detailing their weekly accomplishments or face resignation, has sparked widespread backlash. Union leaders, Democratic lawmakers, and federal employees have decried the move as chaotic, invasive, and potentially illegal, arguing it undermines worker rights and lacks transparency. Elon Musk’s aggressive cost-cutting approach—targeting agencies like USAID, the Department of Education, and FEMA—has been accused of prioritizing political ideology over genuine efficiency, with critics pointing to the lack of congressional oversight and the politicization of federal operations. The outcry peaked when 21 DOGE employees resigned en masse on February 25, 2025, citing threats to core government systems and public services, while workers and unions labeled Musk’s influence as an overreach by an unelected private citizen.

Across the Atlantic, Germany’s political landscape mirrors this tension. Following their election victory, the CDU/CSU launched a parliamentary inquiry on February 26, 2025, demanding transparency on state funding for NGOs perceived as politically biased, such as Greenpeace, Correctiv, and Omas gegen Rechts. The inquiry, signed by Merz and CSU leader Alexander Dobrindt, accuses these groups of violating “political neutrality” by organizing protests against the CDU/CSU, particularly over migration policies. The article from the Neue Zürcher Zeitung, published the same day, argues that civil society should thrive without state support, echoing Merz’s call to end public funding for left-wing activists. This move has drawn sharp criticism from the Greens, SPD, and Left Party, with figures like Sven Giegold warning of an “attack on civil society” reminiscent of authoritarian tactics, and unions and activists decrying it as a threat to democratic freedoms.

The escalation in Germany, reported as of February 26, 2025, has intensified the conflict. The CDU/CSU’s 551-question inquiry into NGO funding—targeting organizations like Campact, Correctiv, and Omas gegen Rechts—has been met with outrage from SPD leader Lars Klingbeil, who labeled it a “foul play” and warned it could jeopardize coalition negotiations with the Union. Klingbeil stated, “I can’t imagine a situation where we sit in working groups in the morning discussing investments in the Bundeswehr, railways, or infrastructure, and in the afternoon, I see the Union sending out such inquiries that put organizations protecting our democracy on trial.” This move, seen by some as a retaliatory act following widespread protests against the Union’s collaboration with the AfD on migration policy, has deepened the rift, with the SPD viewing it as an unfriendly gesture that erodes trust needed for a potential coalition. Political scientist Cord Schmelzle described it as a “revenge action” by Merz, feeling attacked by protests targeting his policies, particularly the Union’s vote with the AfD on an anti-migration law in January.

What’s striking is the overlap in the critics. In both cases, left-leaning political factions, environmental and social justice NGOs, and labor unions are leading the charge against what they see as heavy-handed conservative overreach. In the U.S., the Greens, SPD, and Left Party’s German counterparts—progressive Democrats, environmental groups like Greenpeace, and public sector unions—voice similar concerns about government efficiency initiatives eroding democratic norms. Posts on X reflect this sentiment, with some users sarcastically dubbing Germany’s inquiry a “minimal DOGE moment,” suggesting Merz’s actions parallel Musk’s, albeit on a smaller scale, and drawing ire from the same ideological quarters.

The motivations, however, differ in scope. DOGE’s U.S. initiative focuses on shrinking the federal workforce and cutting agency budgets, driven by Musk and President Trump’s goal to save billions and redirect funds, though critics argue the targets—often agencies seen as promoting liberal agendas—reflect political bias rather than fiscal necessity. In Germany, the CDU/CSU’s inquiry targets NGO funding to restore what they see as a level playing field in political discourse, responding to protests that personally stung Merz and his party. Both, though, share a conservative push for efficiency and reduced state intervention, clashing with progressive fears of authoritarianism and loss of civil liberties.

The outcry in both nations raises deeper questions about the balance between efficiency and democracy. In the U.S., DOGE’s lack of transparency—exemplified by murky claims of billions in savings and access to sensitive data without clear legal authority—fuels accusations of a power grab. In Germany, the CDU/CSU’s inquiry, while framed as a quest for fairness, risks silencing civil society voices, as Giegold and others argue, drawing comparisons to restrictive measures in Hungary or Slovakia. Yet, the NZZ article’s defense of a self-sustaining civil society aligns with DOGE’s rhetoric of cutting waste, suggesting a shared conservative vision that prioritizes market or individual initiative over state support.

Ultimately, the “whining” from the same groups—progressive politicians, NGOs, and unions—underscores a global ideological divide. Whether it’s Musk’s DOGE shaking up Washington or Merz’s CDU/CSU challenging Berlin’s NGO landscape, the resistance highlights a tension between efficiency-driven reforms and the protection of democratic institutions. As of February 27, 2025, both events continue to unfold, with little resolution in sight, but the parallel narratives suggest a broader conservative pushback against perceived liberal overreach—and a predictable chorus of opposition from those who fear the erosion of their influence.