Several accusations: How WELT & BILD lied to you about NGOs
Volksverpetzer
Right-wing media such as WELT and BILD systematically spread false claims about NGOs to discredit critical voices and weaken public support. But what is behind these campaigns, and how do they influence our democracy? The truth often remains hidden.
It is now official, in black and white: The Axel Springer newspapers WELT and BILD have repeatedly deceived their readership shamelessly. The German Press Council, the highest body of voluntary press self-regulation, has issued several reprimands against the right-wing media – due to multiple gross false claims about NGOs. WELT has lodged an objection – and it has now been rejected. These are not harmless isolated cases. Disinformation like that from WELT is part of an orchestrated campaign against NGOs – aiming to silence a critical public. Just now, Federal Family Minister Karin Prien called for cutting off funding to 200 NGOs – probably not coincidentally in an interview with WELT. These lies are meant to silence critical voices.
Abysmal journalism: WELT was already debunked before they published their fakes
To start from the beginning: In early summer 2025, WELT claimed that the EU Commission had paid environmental groups in alleged "secret contracts" to lobby for climate protection, to torpedo coal power and sabotage trade agreements. A huge story, a supposed scandal. But: The story was, as so often with WELT, just blatant propaganda.
There were no secret contracts, no paid lobbying, no bought activists. What existed were normal grant applications submitted by NGOs themselves – as has been customary for public funding for decades. The EU Commission did not commission anyone, and the affected environmental groups were not even quoted in WELT's coverage.
The fact check: WELT simply shamelessly spread disinformation
WELT suggested – beware, here comes disinformation – that the EU Commission had engaged environmental NGOs with secret contracts and taxpayer money to conduct lobbying and even lawsuits "on behalf" of the Commission, to push certain "green" climate goals. Specifically, WELT claimed that Brussels officials had coordinated with activists in detail to convince the public of EU climate policy – in return, millions of euros of tax money had flowed to NGOs. Some organizations supposedly received up to €700,000 per year.
Allegedly – again: this is false! – for example, the environmental law organization ClientEarth was supposed to sue German coal power plants with EU funds to impose "financial and legal risks" on operators (they paid 350,000 € for this). According to WELT, Friends of the Earth Europe was even commissioned to fight against the Mercosur free trade agreement. While other groups received money to influence EU policy. In short: The EU Commission secretly paid activists to run campaigns against companies and unpopular policies (e.g., trade agreements) – so the false (!) narrative of WELT. ClientEarth even sued the Commission itself once. So much for "government-aligned."
Serious media like the Süddeutsche Zeitung and the ZEIT had already debunked the allegations before WELT presented them as supposed news. Ironically, among the media that did their job properly was also Politico – a US sister publication of WELT from Axel Springer.
Here is the truth behind the WELT fake:
Politico (and others) were able to review 28 contracts between the EU Commission and NGOs and analyze them, and found (already in February 2025 – months before WELT's article!) no evidence that the Commission paid green groups to lobby on its behalf. Instead, the documents show that the Commission legally grants amounts of up to €700,000 annually to some environmental NGOs – as general operating grants, not earmarked for specific actions.
The corresponding funding programs ( LIFE program) were officially approved by the European Parliament as early as 2020 and are publicly announced. The goal is to give civil society voices in Brussels a platform, because in the lobbying battles over EU laws economic interests with huge budgets often dominate. Nothing about this practice is "shady" or secret: The funding conditions are transparent. And nowhere is it required that NGOs follow the Commission's line or work on behalf of Parliamentarians.
The organizations must roughly outline their plans for the coming year confidentially – but this work program is written by the NGOs themselves, not dictated by the Commission. No censorship or instructions are given. Accordingly, every contract even includes a disclaimer that the views expressed by the NGO "do not necessarily" reflect those of the EU. In short: WELT simply parrots an old right-wing conspiracy narrative.
The list of all funded NGOs is public
The accusation of lack of transparency remains. In fact, the European Court of Auditors criticized in April 2025 that EU contracts with NGOs are sometimes confusing – it called for clearer information on exactly which sums are allocated for what . But the Court of Auditors also found no indication that the Commission only funds government-aligned or loyal NGOs.
On the contrary: The list of all funded NGOs and the respective amounts are publicly accessible. The project selection is done through open calls with set criteria (e.g., NGOs must be non-profit, independent of parties and corporations, and active EU-wide). The evaluation is carried out by executive agencies like the climate protection agency CINEA – not the Commission itself – and the grants are regularly reviewed and audited. "Secret" or "non-transparent" looks different.
The EU Commission itself has strongly rejected the allegations that WELT revived: There are no secret contracts with NGOs; rather, they are very transparent about these financial aids, with recipients and amounts publicly listed in the financial transparency system. Furthermore, the Commission stated that no NGO work programs are approved that involve specific activities against EU institutions or their representatives.
WELT's stupidity torn apart by the Press Council
But unfortunately, this bungled propaganda, which has sadly become normal at WELT, was no embarrassment for the right-wing paper. Even worse: the untrustworthy propaganda outlet achieved great success with it. Although the truth and fact checks had been circulating for weeks, other media uncritically picked up the false accusations and right-wing framing, parroting the nonsense. Especially Tagesschau, which we at Volksverpetzer already criticized back then.
If conservative and increasingly untrustworthy media like WELT, Cicero, or NZZ pick up campaigns from the ultra-right NIUS or far-right extremists, they lend them a supposedly serious veneer. They act as transmission belts, channeling disinformation into the mainstream. Journalists relying on a WELT article instead of doing their own research become unwitting multipliers of a targeted campaign.
It is so embarrassing for the German media landscape that they still take seriously such untrustworthy outlets as WELT and BILD (both Axel Springer) and are so unprofessional as to copy their staged narratives. No wonder right-wing fake news is so successful when even Germany’s top media still fall for it en masse. A complaint was filed against WELT's propaganda with the Press Council.
The Press Council's verdict was correspondingly devastating: a "serious misrepresentation of the readership" and a "serious violation of journalistic diligence" – as the official reason. WELT initially tried to contest the reprimand, but the Press Council finally confirmed its decision, as confirmed to Volksverpetzer upon inquiry. The reprimand is final and no longer contestable. And yet, the false articles still remain unchanged on welt.de – since June 2025.
Even more reprimands against anti-NGO Axel Springer hate!
But for those thinking: okay, that was one article and a fake. Weren't there more accusations against NGOs? Yes, and there were even more reprimands regarding Axel Springer fakes about NGOs! When, in early 2025, millions again took to the streets against the right, Axel Springer ranted that these somehow were connected with "tax money." Of course, all nonsense, as you might expect. To briefly summarize what’s behind it, I quote the colleagues from Übermedien:
"To sum up: In the text reprimanded by the Press Council, WELT accuses a club of financing an event with money it had spent long before, in which it was not involved at all."
We also already debunked and denounced the anti-democratic disinformation:
Also, the Press Council reprimanded it. The criticism: The WELT author provided not a single piece of evidence for her nonsense. WELT was not alone with its lies against NGOs. Its sister paper BILD spread the same right-wing propaganda. 31 complaints were received just about this article. And here too the Press Council found: There was simply no evidence for the central claim of the article.
Already in June 2025, the Press Council reprimanded WELT for ANOTHER comment, in which chief commentator Andreas Rosenfelder called Campact, HateAid, and Omas gegen Rechts "unconstitutional institutions" – a fact that the Press Council described as "significantly false" and damaging to reputation.
This is how right-wing media want to manipulate you!
So many lies, so many false accusations, so many reprimands. And the goal is clear: This is an orchestrated campaign against civil society organizations. They want to create distrust so that the funded organizations, which oppose disinformation, hate online, and promote democracy, can have their funding cut off. So they go bankrupt, shrink. And critical opposing voices to the well-paid right-wing media disappear. Which, as you can see here so clearly, channel disinformation to steer public opinion where they want. Uncontested.
But who actually funds the media that spread these lies? Not mentioned so far, but spared from reprimands because they simply do not submit to the press code at all: the ultra-right portal NIUS. It is financed with millions by billionaire Frank Gotthardt, an entrepreneur with close ties to the CDU, including through the CDU's Economic Council. Also connections to Jens Spahn or Julia Klöckner. Briskly: Gotthardt's companies earned millions with orders from the Ministry of Health. Back then under Jens Spahn.
Wealthy entities profiting well from the state against small NGOs
The Axel Springer publishing house, which includes WELT and BILD, belongs to billionaire Mathias Döpfner – the same Döpfner who has demonstrably instructed his editorial offices to interfere in elections ("Please strengthen the FDP"), and who is said to have arranged for his friend Elon Musk to publish a call to vote for the far-right AfD in WELT . Döpfner was only made a billionaire through donations of Axel Springer shares – which were, incidentally, largely tax-free.
Ironically, these media machines funded by the ultra-rich accuse organizations that are financed by small donations and membership fees of allegedly being unlawfully funded by the state. Some organizations are partially funded by the state for specific good projects. But not all, which are lumped together here.
Campact, for example, funds itself solely through donations and membership fees – the claim spread by NIUS that Campact receives state funds is demonstrably false. NIUS has already suffered numerous legal defeats due to spreading such falsehoods. Volksverpetzer is also 100% funded by crowdfunding, and right-wing media have already been convicted for making false claims about us.
Civil society under pressure
The study "Civil Society Under Pressure" by LobbyControl systematically reveals what is behind these campaigns. It is no coincidence that the organizations attacked are precisely those that oppose the business interests of powerful corporations. Of the 100 largest lobbying actors in Berlin, 81 are from the economy. Only seven are NGOs in the broader sense – including organizations like the German Red Cross or ADAC. The 20 largest economic lobbyists invest 15 times more than the 20 largest environmental groups for lobbying. In Brussels, in 2023 alone, the top 50 companies and business associations spent 190 million euros on lobbying.
So who is telling whom about over-mighty NGOs?
The study shows: Behind the campaigns are authoritarian interests intertwined with corporate interests. Authoritarian forces seek to weaken critical voices to expand their power – a pattern already observable in Hungary under Orbán and in Russia under Putin. Companies profiting from oil, gas, and pesticide businesses see their business models threatened by the engagement of environmental associations.
The new "Initiative Transparent Democracy", which polemizes against NGOs, was founded by PR consultants with ties to the chemical industry. Among its founding members are the head of corporate communications at Bayer AG and the managing director of the employer-funded PR organization INSM. A study by the Maecenata Foundation analyzes in detail how the "Anti-NGO narrative" by NIUS works with generalizations, omissions, and insinuations.
The script of these campaigns follows a clear pattern: first spreading disinformation, then defaming organizations, then cutting off their funding. NIUS coined the term "NGO-Complex" and depicts the enemy image of a supposedly powerful network of elite organizations working against the "honest people." WELT described NGOs as the alleged "deep state" or "shadow state" – a term originating directly from the conspiracy milieu of QAnon and Trump’s MAGA environment.
And the CDU/CSU eagerly adopted these terms: In a parliamentary inquiry with 551 leading questions about funding civil society organizations, the Union faction directly adopted WELT's framing. And all based on lies.
By the way
Monika Hohlmeier, the CSU Member of the European Parliament, who loudly campaigns against NGOs at EU level, has a paid side job with the Bavarian agricultural conglomerate BayWa. The same company receives €6.5 million from the EU's LIFE program, which Hohlmeier criticizes for funding environmental groups – far more than a single NGO from the same pot is allowed to receive in operating grants. Vice President of the Union faction Matthias Middelberg threatened associations with withdrawal of funding if they participate in protests against the breach of the firewall. Family Minister Karin Prien announced she would subject organizations from the "Democracy Lives" program to a broad constitutional protection review . And they now want to cut their funding.
The effects are already visible. In Salzwedel and Bautzen, city councils with votes from AfD and CDU rejected funding for democracy projects. According to the Ziviz survey, thousands of associations in Germany already refrain from political activity out of fear of losing their non-profit status. Volksverpetzer has also already lost its non-profit status, which is why we rely even more on donations.
The abolition of collective legal action rights for infrastructure projects is included in the coalition agreement of the Merz government. In Brussels, environmental organizations are no longer allowed to conduct direct lobbying with EU funds . The first step of the authoritarian script – defamation – has become a reality in Germany. The second – cutting off funds – has begun.
Shedding light on Axel Springer’s machinations
What can we do about it? First: do not let yourself be intimidated. Civil society organizations are not a "complex" or a "shadow state," but the backbone of a functioning democracy. Millions of people volunteer. Large environmental groups like NABU, BUND, or Greenpeace each have significantly more members than CDU or SPD. Weakening these organizations weakens democracy – and strengthens precisely those corporate interests that are already massively overrepresented.
Second: support the organizations currently under pressure. With donations, memberships, your engagement. Campact, HateAid, Omas gegen Rechts, the BUND, the German Environmental Aid, LobbyControl – they all do work that is indispensable in a democracy. And that’s exactly why they are attacked. And of course, us too, Volksverpetzer.
Third: do not let yourselves be indoctrinated. The next time you read an article portraying NGOs as over-mighty lobbyists or as state-controlled activists, ask yourself: Who wrote this article? Who funds the medium? And whose interests does this narrative serve? And: Do they have evidence or just rumors? In most cases, you will find: it is the truly powerful who stage themselves as victims with disinformation, while attacking those who are still able to oppose them.
And now the bitter irony: The lies of WELT about supposed secret contracts went viral. They were picked up by dozens of media, quoted by politicians, incorporated into parliamentary inquiries. They caused real political damage and contributed to organizations losing their funding and people no longer daring to engage politically. And now, as the Press Council has condemned this reporting with its strongest measure – a serious misrepresentation – hardly anyone notices. Behind the lies are millions of euros. Behind the truth are millions of people. Now it’s up to you.
Article image: Annette Riedl/dpa, parts of the article were created with machine assistance. https://www.volksverpetzer.de/ueber-uns/#KI
.