An article about hot air, cold facts, and the political art of playing with fire.
It was one of those days when you wish politics would at least occasionally recognize the difference between a scandal and a slogan. On June 7, 2025, Alice Weidel took to X (formerly Twitter) to claim that the EU Commission under Ursula von der Leyen (CDU) had paid millions to NGOs to enforce a so-called “climate ideology.” These funds, she argued, were then used to blanket energy companies with lawsuits – as if the European Commission were some left-green guerrilla fund dedicated to sabotaging the free market economy. The sentence she used to cap off this nonsense was as predictable as it was transparent: Anyone who thinks things will change with the CDU in government is gravely mistaken.
In truth, the only person who is mistaken here is Ms. Weidel – about what this funding actually is. The EU Commission has supported civil society organizations for decades, including environmental NGOs. Not secretly, not ideologically, but through public, legally regulated programs. This is not only legal but democratically mandated. The allegation that these funds are being used to undermine industry is so absurd that it could only be made seriously by a party that, as a matter of principle, refuses to accept any reality that doesn’t fit within 280 characters of outrage.
It becomes even more absurd once you know this: Yes, NGOs are allowed to file lawsuits – and they should. The so-called collective legal standing for environmental groups doesn’t exist to annoy governments but to remind them of their legal obligations under environmental law. Turning this into a wave of litigation against the free market reveals not only a questionable understanding of democracy but also a disturbing longing for authoritarian calm. Because that’s what Weidel’s rhetoric ultimately means: criticism is only acceptable if it is quiet – and NGOs are only legitimate if they remain silent.
As proof of her supposed exposé, Weidel posted a screenshot – apparently from the newspaper “Welt.” The article bears the title “Secret Contracts – EU Commission Paid Activists for Climate Lobbying.” One of the authors is Axel Bojanowski, a science journalist known for not denying the climate issue but consistently seasoning it with skepticism that aligns well with pro-industry narratives. The article’s visual framing looks like a textbook example of dramatization: a red-glowing sun, billowing smokestacks – as if Greta Thunberg herself had adjusted the photo filter. But even a full reading of the article reveals no evidence for Weidel’s claims. What becomes clear instead is that the EU supported organizations acting within existing laws and exercising their rights – period. Spinning this into a conspiratorial network against capitalism is intellectually weak and politically dangerous.
Because what Weidel is doing is not journalism and not public enlightenment. It is deliberate disinformation – and it follows a formula. Take a real funding program, choose a charged ideological term like “climate ideology,” pour on a generous helping of suspicion, and serve it all with a CDU logo that one would ideally like to abolish altogether. And voilà – the perfect outrage cocktail for those who value their worldview more than the world itself.
The fact that this supposed “wave of lawsuits” actually consists of isolated cases, most of them legally justified and embedded in democratic procedures, doesn’t matter. In Weidel’s rhetoric, the NGO has long since become a projection screen – alternatively portrayed as a left-wing lobbyist, a state-funded protest machine, or an enemy of the economy. What it never is: a part of open society that not only tolerates criticism but depends on it.
So, Ms. Weidel: please stop lying. It’s annoying. It annoys legal experts who work hard to defend the independence of the judiciary. It annoys scientists who fight every day against climate denialism. It even annoys Christian Democrats who wonder how their own Commission President ended up painted as a left-green conspiracy queen. And above all, it annoys those citizens who want a political debate that knows the difference between critique and calculation.
Climate protection is not a religion. But the way you fight it borders on a crusade against reason. Maybe it’s because reality no longer fits into your worldview. Or maybe because you gave up on it long ago. Either way, the truth remains: whoever seeks to weaken democracy by portraying its checks and balances as “infiltration” has either understood nothing about it – or no longer belongs within it.
English 
German 
