From Washington to Berlin – When Trump, AfD and CDU/CSU Undermine Federalism

It is a scene that has long been recorded in the history books: summer 1932, the so-called "Preußenschlag" (Prussian Coup). Under the pretext of restoring security and order, the Reich government removed the democratically elected government of Prussia and took control of its police. It was a step that shook the federal character of the Weimar Republic – and paved the way for the authoritarian forces that would soon abolish all municipal freedoms. Then as now, it was not tanks in front of the town halls, but legal levers and a rhetorically charged security discourse that initiated the upheaval.

Almost a century later, in the early hours of a Friday morning, the streets of Washington lie under a very similar shadow. On U Street, night owls crowd together, laughing, arguing, waiting for pizza or falafel. Patrol cars of the Metropolitan Police circle at the edges of the crowds. But the announced "takeover" of the city by President Donald Trump – a massive deployment of uniformed federal forces – is not visible on this night. Not yet. The president had announced the evening before that, starting at midnight, he would place the streets of the capital under direct control for at least seven days, "with the option to extend." In his logic, this is the beginning of a reconquest of an "unsafe, dirty and poorly run" city. In reality, it feels like the prologue to an experiment that touches on historical abysses.

Officially, over one hundred federal agents from the Secret Service, FBI and US Marshals Service are participating in the operation, supported by other agencies. The White House reports initial arrests – two stolen firearms, suspected fentanyl, marijuana. Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt speaks of "the first step to stop the violent crimes." The trigger is an attack on a high-ranking official of the "Department of Government Efficiency" by teenagers in an attempted carjacking. Two 15-year-olds were arrested, other suspects are at large. For Trump, this is proof that the city has "lost control."

The legal dimension is significant. In his current steps, the president is acting within his powers: He can deploy federal agents, and he can – if he wishes – call up the National Guard. But any takeover of the Metropolitan Police or even the repeal of home rule requires a state of emergency and would likely end up in court. The most radical option, the repeal of the Home Rule Act of 1973, requires an act of Congress. This law, signed by Richard Nixon, was the late victory of the capital’s residents over a history of external administration: for the first time, they were allowed to elect their own mayor and city council. Previously, Washington had been governed by federal commissioners – a structure that denied citizens political participation, but also responsibility.

This power logic is not solely an American phenomenon. In Germany, too, there are political forces that, under the guise of security, seek far-reaching centralization. The AfD has repeatedly proposed in strategic papers to curtail the decision-making rights of states and municipalities in key areas – such as asylum policy, police powers or media oversight. In its "migration turnaround" agenda, there are demands to deny municipalities any choice as to whether they accept refugees, and to create nationwide rights of intervention that would in fact undermine the municipal self-government guaranteed under Article 28 of the Basic Law. This is accompanied by a "state of emergency rhetoric" that frames migration, the threat of terrorism or supposedly failed integration policy as justification for such interventions. The AfD’s closeness to Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orbán is no coincidence. For many in the party leadership, he is proof that democratic structures can be gradually steered into a system that concentrates power, controls the media and marginalizes opposition – and yet still maintains the appearance of a formal democracy. For the AfD, Orbán thus embodies a political template that works in its logic just as Trump’s model in Washington does: centralize, secure, retain.

But it is not only the radical right that thinks in such terms. The CDU/CSU has in the past repeatedly presented concepts that amount to a gradual strengthening of federal powers – especially in security and migration policy. Under the slogan "efficient hazard prevention," Union politicians have called for the Federal Police to be deployed more easily and without lengthy consultations into areas under state jurisdiction. In crisis scenarios – from terrorist situations to pandemics to energy shortages – there has been open discussion of permanent emergency structures that would concentrate powers at the federal level. In the distribution of refugees, too, the Union has pushed for stricter nationwide requirements that reduce the decision-making scope of municipalities. These are not open "takeover" plans like Trump’s, but the result can be similar in certain areas: less local autonomy, more control from the capital.

Behind all three approaches – Trump’s forceful grab, the AfD’s agenda and the Union-led centralization logic – lies a common denominator: distrust in the ability of local or federal structures to solve complex problems on their own. In the US, this attitude is supported by ultra-conservative evangelical networks, led by Paula White, Trump’s spiritual adviser, who interprets political control as a divine mandate. In Germany, it stems from two currents – in the AfD from an ethnonationalist concept of homogeneity, in the Union from a technocratic notion of "efficiency" and "uniformity." In both cases, however, the same applies: centralization is sold as a solution, although at its core it shifts power – and shifts it upward.

For such shifts in power – whether open and forceful like Trump’s, ideologically charged like the AfD’s or quietly technocratic like the Union’s – rarely occur with a big bang. They come step by step, packaged in supposed reason and security. That is precisely what makes them so dangerous: the moment when a society should rise up and resist has often already passed once the new structures are firmly established, and their reversal has become not only legally but also politically much more difficult. The responsibility to counter this process does not lie solely with parliaments or courts. It also lies with a vigilant public that recognizes, names and openly debates such developments. A society that does not allow itself to be lulled can exert pressure – and thus impose political costs on those who seek to centralize power. This requires investigative media that ask uncomfortable questions; NGOs that secure facts; science that clearly analyzes contexts; citizen initiatives that organize resistance; and individuals who are willing to question prevailing narratives. When terms like "security" or "efficiency" become knockout arguments for restricting self-government, civil rights or federal balance, countervoices are needed to show, based on facts, what is really at stake.

In democracies, passivity is the greatest ally of authoritarian tendencies. What is being sold today in Washington D.C. as a one-sided security initiative can tomorrow become a model case – not only in the US, but also in Europe. In Germany, municipalities and states could quickly become test fields for similar interventions if a tired or distracted public pays too little attention to such initiatives. Historical experience – from the Weimar Republic to the Hungarian and Turkish models to the most recent developments in Poland – shows that the longer a society tolerates the gradual erosion of its democratic rights, the harder they are to win back. The lesson from history is clear: those who remain silent for too long wake up in a state they never wanted.

Investigative journalism requires courage, conviction – and your support.

Investigative
Behind every article – especially our in-depth investigative reports – lies significant journalistic effort and financial investment. We do not wish to fund our work through paywalls, but through your voluntary support. How often and in what amount you contribute is entirely up to you – whether as a one-time or recurring contribution.