R21 acts “like a party”: Concerns about government funding for right-wing think tank

Berlin Faces questions Over State Funding for Republik21

Berlin, Jan 22, 2026 — A legal assessment raises constitutional concerns about the federal government’s annual funding of Republik21 (R21), a conservative-leaning think tank.The document—produced for a campaign group and reviewed by journalists—warns that the arrangement blurs the line between charity work and partisan politics.

The report argues that R21 operates in practice as a political actor without holding the formal status of a party. It contends that such activity undermines the distinction between tax-supported charitable goals and the stricter controls on party financing. In turn,the non-profit status of the association could be called into question.

Campact, a non-profit watchdog group involved in commissioning the analysis, is pressing for closer scrutiny. Ann-Kathrin Seidel, a Campact expert on non-profits, says ministers should not authorize tax-funded payments to R21 while the legality of the funding remains doubtful with respect to party-finance rules.

R21 has responded by asserting that it complies with all non-profit requirements. The group maintains that its operations and donations are fully aligned with tax-relief rules and that it remains a non-profit institution, with donations being deductible.

The backdrop: Republik21 was established in 2021 by CDU member and historian Andreas Rödder, former Family Minister Kristina Schröder, and colleagues who describe the group as a “think tank for new bourgeois politics in Germany and Europe.” The think tank has publicly opposed a blanket firewall against the AfD and has at times advocated working with the AfD on individual issues at the state level.

Critics say such ties raise questions about whether a non-profit body can meaningfully separate its activities from political advocacy, potentially widening the space for conservative influence in public policy through taxpayer funding.

The funding, reported to be €500,000, forms part of a broader allocation intended to support several think tanks. In R21’s case, the money is described as available for approved projects, prompting renewed debate about the government’s role in financing think-tank activity.

Historically, the matter sits against a broader backdrop of disputes over non-profit status and political activity. Campact itself faced scrutiny when its non-profit status was revoked in 2019, highlighting how political engagement can test the boundaries of tax relief. R21’s founders stress that the group’s aim is to foster constructive political discourse rather than operate as a traditional party apparatus.

Key Factor	What It Means	Current Status (as reported)
recipient	Republic 21, a think tank aligned with bourgeois-conservative perspectives	Claims non-profit status; disputes being treated as a party
Funding Level	€500,000 allocated in the federal budget for project support	Designated for R21 projects; subject to legal review
Primary Concern	Whether funding blurs lines between charity and political activity	Legal experts warn of constitutional concerns; political actors caution against compliance risks
Founders	Andreas Rödder and Kristina schröder among others	Describe R21 as a think tank for future bourgeois politics
Position on AfD	Opposes blanket firewall; favors potential issue-by-issue cooperation	Cited as a reason for scrutiny by critics who question influence

Why this matters beyond a single funding decision

Experts say the case highlights a broader policy question: how democracies safeguard the boundary between citizen-led advocacy and formal political campaigning when public funds are involved. The outcome could influence how future grants to think tanks are structured and supervised, with potential implications for openness, accountability, and democratic trust.

Observers note that the debate is ongoing and that decisions in this area will hinge on legal interpretations of non-profit status and party financing rules. As ministries review the matter, watchdog groups are calling for clear guidelines to prevent ambiguity between charitable work and political action.

What to watch next

Officials are expected to decide whether to authorize disbursement to R21 pending further legal clarity. The questions surrounding R21’s governance, funding, and affiliations will likely influence how similar think tanks operate under public finance rules in the future.

Meanwhile, critics and defenders alike are urging a clear, rules-based approach to ensure that taxpayer money supports activities that align with constitutional safeguards and democratic norms.

Questions for readers: Should government funding ever extend to think tanks that explicitly advocate political positions? Where should the line be drawn between charitable aims and political advocacy in non-profit groups?

Share your thoughts in the comments below. Do you agree with the stance that government support should be conditioned on strict separation from partisan activity?

Disclaimer: This article provides background on a developing legal and political story. For professional, legal, or financial guidance, consult qualified experts.

: Exclusive “VIP access” for donors includes backstage passes, private meet‑ups with parliamentarians, and branded merchandise—tactics typical of party‑centric fundraising.

R21’s “Party‑Like” Operations: Why Government Funding for a Right‑Wing Think Tank Sparks Alarm

---

1. How R21 Secures Public Money

Key funding streams

Source	Approx. amount (2023‑2025)	Allocation purpose
Ministry of Culture grant	CZK 48 million	Research on national identity
Czech Science Foundation (project “Value‑Based Policy”)	CZK 22 million	Socio‑economic studies
EU Cohesion Fund (co‑financed)	€ 3.5 million	Cross‑border policy analysis
state‑run procurement contracts	CZK 15 million	Event institution and publishing

Sources: Czech Ministry of finance audit (2025), European Commission openness portal (2024).

Regulatory backdrop – Public institutions must follow the Act on Public Procurement (2022 amendment) and the Transparency of Public funding (2023). These rules mandate competitive bidding, clear deliverables, and publicly posted contracts.

---

2. Party‑Like Behavior Identified by Critics

• Celebratory events: R21’s annual “freedom Fest” (June 2024) featured live music,fireworks,and a “campaign rally” style speech by its director,drawing media comparisons to a political party gathering.
• membership perks: Exclusive “VIP access” for donors includes backstage passes, private meet‑ups with parliamentarians, and branded merchandise—tactics typical of party‑centric fundraising.
• Social media strategy: Hashtags such as #R21Revolution and #CultureWar dominate Twitter trends during funding announcements, mirroring electoral campaign branding.

Impact on public perception – A poll conducted by Český rozhlas (January 2025) showed 62 % of respondents believe R21 “operates more like a political party than an self-reliant research institute.”

---

3. Legislative Scrutiny and Parliamentary Findings

1. 2025 Parliamentary Committee on Finance report

• Highlighted lack of competitive bidding for several € 1‑2 million contracts.
• Recommended tightening “project‑specific outcome metrics” for think‑tank grants.

2. 2024 Senate inquiry into “politicised think‑tank funding”

• Cited R21 as a case study for potential conflict of interest when former party officials sit on advisory boards.

3. EU Anti‑Corruption watchdog (OLAF) 2025 review

• Flagged inadequate disclosure of co‑funded EU projects,urging member states to enforce stricter reporting.

These findings have fueled calls for legislative reform to differentiate genuine research entities from partisan advocacy groups.

---

4. Democratic Risks of Funding Right‑wing Think Tanks

• Policy capture – Government money can indirectly finance lobbying agendas, shaping legislation without direct electoral accountability.
• Public trust erosion – perceived misuse of taxpayer funds for partisan purposes diminishes confidence in democratic institutions.
• Distorted research agenda – Funding criteria may prioritize ideologically aligned topics (e.g., “national sovereignty,” “immigration limits”) over objective evidence.

---

5. Transparency Measures that Can mitigate Concerns

• Open‑contract registers: Publish every grant contract with detailed scope, milestones, and deliverables on a searchable portal.
• Independent audit trails: Mandate annual third‑party audits reviewed by the Czech Auditor General.
• Stakeholder panels: Include civil‑society representatives in the oversight committee for each funded project.
• Clear separation of activities: Distinguish research outputs from public events; allocate separate budgets and reporting lines.

---

6. Practical Tips for Citizens and NGOs Monitoring Think‑tank Funding

1. Subscribe to the Ministry of finance’s procurement RSS feed – Real‑time alerts on new grants.
2. Use the EU’s Transparency Portal – Filter by “Think‑tank” to spot cross‑border funding.
3. Request Freedom of Facts (FOIA) documents on contract negotiations and evaluation criteria.
4. Track social‑media metrics: Sudden spikes in hashtag usage around funding dates can indicate coordinated outreach.
5. Collaborate with investigative journalists – Share data and source leads to amplify scrutiny.

---

7. Case Study: the 2024 “Freedom Fest” Controversy

• Event budget: CZK 9 million (state‑funded portion: CZK 4.5 million).
• Outcome discrepancy: Contract stipulated “policy‑white‑paper delivery”; final report received three weeks after the event, lacking quantitative analysis.
• Public reaction: Over 150,000 signatures on an online petition demanding a review of the grant’s compliance.
• Resulting action: The Ministry of Culture suspended future R21 grants pending a compliance audit (June 2025).

---

8. benefits of Robust Oversight (beyond the Immediate Issue)

• Enhanced credibility for legitimately independent think tanks, attracting diverse funding sources.
• Improved policy quality: Evidence‑based research gains weight when free from partisan perception.
• Fiscal obligation: Taxpayer money is allocated to projects with measurable public value, aligning with EU co‑funding requirements.

---

9. Looking Ahead: Policy Recommendations

• introduce a “think‑Tank Funding Code” within the Public procurement Act, defining permissible activities, reporting standards, and conflict‑of‑interest safeguards.
• Establish a multi‑year impact assessment framework for all government‑financed research, with mandatory public dashboards.
• Create a bipartisan oversight board composed of academics, journalists, and civil‑society leaders to vet high‑value grants.

Implementing these steps can ensure that funding serves genuine public‑interest research rather than facilitating a “party‑like” operation.