ALG, Hartz IV, basic security: Getting further and further away from securing the minimum subsistence level and even fear-free livelihood security

dossier

"... The black-red coalition is planning to massively tighten the obligations to cooperate and sanctions for basic security - worse than during the Hartz IV era: missed appointments and job rejections should be punished more harshly, with benefit cuts up to and including the complete elimination of the standard rate and accommodation costs. The federal government is talking about a realignment that should put the focus on promoting and demanding again. The federal government is clearly heading towards a breach of the constitution. Because that In 2019, the Federal Constitutional Court made it clear that cuts of more than 30 percent of the standard rate are not covered by the constitution (…) The reform is therefore symbolic politics at the expense of the weakest, which is legally uncertain, morally reprehensible and economically senseless...”Comment by Christopher Wimmer from October 15, 2025 in ND online (“New basic security: Worse than the Hartz IV regime”) as a good introduction to a selectionfirst facts and basic informationas well as comments, but also protests:

• Handbook on the “New Basic Security” published by the “AufRecht Persist” alliance: information and tips for the unemployed and supporters
  “The changes to the Second Social Code (SGB II) through the 13th SGB II Amendment Act, most of which came into force on July 1, 2026, mean significant restrictions for those entitled to benefits. The law was prepared, fueled by quite a few politicians, through a media campaign in which the receipt of benefits was interpreted as alleged individual misconduct by unemployed people. The federal government's legal reform is based on this campaign, so that the pressure on the unemployed and people on low incomes, who top it up with benefits from the “New Basic Security”, is further increased. Access to services is restricted, sanctions and control instruments are tightened. However, the law was written by the coalition partners with different objectives, and that shows. Many legal wordings are unclear. How they will be interpreted and applied in real life is difficult to predict. In many disputes we will only be able to gain legal certainty through a social court review. The “AufRecht Persist” alliance has therefore developed a handout for those affected as well as a series of associated sample letters. With this working aid and some we want to inform those affected and interested parties about the changes in the receipt of SGB II benefits as well as about their rights and to encourage those affected to stand up for their rights and exercise them. We also call for political protest against the tightening measures…”Report dated September 7, 2026 to the coordination office of union unemployed groups toHandout as well as several sample letters regarding the obligation to cooperate in the job search and apartment search for the job center
• On July 1st, the “new fundamental uncertainty” comes into force: abolition of central protective rights and also a threat to workers – “welcomed” by a vigil in Düsseldorf
  • Vigil against the New Basic Security: On July 1, 2026 in Düsseldorf: Defend yourself against prejudices - in dialogue for respect
    “The social activist and affected person Thomas Wasilewski from Mönchengladbach is known for fighting for a humane welfare state. Wasilewski is a convinced Christian, non-partisan, a member of ver.di and the SoVD and a volunteer at Tafel e.V. Mönchengladbach. He is also involved in the Alliance for Human Dignity and Work in Mönchengladbach. Now he is organizing a vigil against the tightening measures for those entitled to benefits through the New Basic Security. This vigil will take place on July 1, 2026 from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. in front of the Ministry of Labor, Health and Social Affairs of North Rhine-Westphalia in Düsseldorf…”Contribution from Dr. Utz Anhalt from June 13th, 2026 on gegen-hartz.de , see the full oneCall from Thomas Wasilewski at Tacheles : Come to the vigil in front of the State Ministry of Labor, Health and Social Affairs, Fürstenwall 25, 40219 Düsseldorf on July 1st between 10 a.m. and 1 p.m.! (alsoat ver.di NRW )
    • What lies ahead for the recipients now? New basic security: Thomas Wasilewski describes how the unemployed are struggling and what can be done about it
      “…In my comments I read every day: "Parasite", "unemployed bitch", "off to the camp with you critters" and so on. This is the mood that politics and the media are fueling. For people like Dobrindt and Söder, impoverishment through basic security is not enough. We are driven through the village like pigs. Meanwhile, those affected hardly receive any training or qualifications for jobs. No matter how hard we are beaten: the new basic security will not noticeably reduce the number of unemployed. (…)
      The sanctions and harassment from the job centers will increase. Since the waiting period for assets and accommodation costs are limited and the standard rates will not be increased this year and - it looks like - next year, the situation of many people will worsen significantly. The fact that housing benefit is being cut at the same time will push more people below the subsistence level and into receiving benefits. By the way, people here suffer from the fact that there is not enough affordable housing. (…)
      [What can those affected hope for?]
      Only solidarity among each other can save them. Unfortunately I don't see them. In many protests against social cuts, basic security is left out. The unemployed have hardly any allies. I find it shameful that nothing comes from the Protestant Church. The social associations and the trade unions must be thoroughly motivated. The unemployed themselves have to struggle to make ends meet every day and therefore have little strength to resist. I help at the food bank and every week I see people who – to put it bluntly – have nothing to eat.
      When Hartz IV was introduced, many academics were unemployed; Of course they could defend themselves. Today two thirds of the unemployed have no qualifications at all. They humbly endure their fate in the belief that they have no chance anyway. Many then vote for the AfD. This also strengthens the government with basic security: these are the stirrup holders. As long as the unemployed, to put it bluntly, don't get off their asses and take to the streets, nothing will change in this misery.”Interview by Niki Uhlmann in the young world from June 30, 2026 – Thomas Wasilewski is unemployed due to illness and advocates for the rights of those who have been rejected by the labor market.
  • The coldness of bourgeois society
    “…Now the 147th change to basic security for the unemployed and those with reduced earning capacity. And this reform is not about improving living conditions either.
    We think that these tightening measures are not only intended to patch up the state treasury, but also to increase competition between job center houses. Every job center has to legitimize itself and explain why so much is invested in staff and buildings. We think that the very loud speculation about how much money could be saved is justification and a mandate to employees to reduce expenses under the threat of cutting their jobs.
    So when it comes to extensive savings, the usual competition in the system of government bureaucracy plays a role.
    So: which authority issues the most sanctions, is the most economical in spending the money that secures the food and rent of the people who apply, which authority has the fewest long-term unemployed customers, can send many young people to the Bundeswehr and gets rid of most of those entitled to basic security right from the start.
    And all this with increasing layoffs, even in the auto industry, which is supposedly so firmly anchored in Germany. But as always with social cuts, the material reality is only incidentally important. Prejudices of the bourgeois classes and the enemy images of right-wing radical propaganda mix in times of crisis and the conservatives can once again think of nothing other than to go along with it in order not to lose control. (…)
    We stand with impoverished and marginalized people, not just because it's the right thing to do. It is an act of self-defense. The vast majority of people in this country are just a really shitty year or two away from poverty. Each of us can find ourselves in the situation of standing in the subway and having to ask for money. Remember, when you see people who are worse off than you, when you hear people you know kicking people down, or when middle-class millionaires want to burn down the welfare state that has already been torn down - all of this is also directed against you..” From theSpeech by the Basta Unemployed Initiative for the “Enough” rally on June 27, 2026 
  • New basic security comes into force: “It will be a tough fight”
    “The new basic security provides for tougher sanctions. This is also a threat for people with work, says activist Helena Steinhaus.
    taz: Ms. Steinhaus, the “new basic security” comes into force on July 1st. What is the biggest innovation for you?
    Helena Steinhaus: The most drastic are certainly the new sanction options, which, as Labor Minister Bärbel Bas puts it, “are exhausted to the limit of what is constitutionally permissible”. There are different opinions as to whether you are really still on the permissible side of the border. We take a critical view of the fact that 100 percent of the services are stopped - including the costs of accommodation. This may not affect that many people, but the threat that is being created here obviously affects everyone. (…)
    taz: Are clerks really that different: some are understanding, others tough dogs who think everything is reasonable?
    Steinhaus: That's really a big problem. Many job center employees do a good job according to their abilities. Surveys show: 30 percent of “customers,” as they are called, are satisfied with their clerks, 30 percent are not. But: If you have a clerk with whom you don't get along, you don't have the option of getting someone else. And the clerk has the upper hand. This can mean that he says: "Oh yes, your depression, it can't be that bad. You just have to make a little effort now." And then a certificate of incapacity for work will no longer be accepted to cancel an appointment at the job center, but only a certificate of incapacity to travel. (…)
    Steinhaus: The threatening atmosphere extends to the middle class. It's about fears of decline: the worse the basic security is, the less likely it is that employees will make demands or stop their paid work. If you have no other choice, you will do lower paid work. We have a very strong low-wage sector and very few people who work in it would say: "Oh, citizen's money is almost the same as what I get for working. Then I'd rather take citizen's money!" Everyone knows it's better not to do that…”Interview by Susanne Memarnia from June 16, 2026 in the taz online 
    • See our dossier on Helena Steinhaus:[Campaign] Sanction-free
  • The new basic insecurity: In the future, the unemployed will be punished even more severely than before
    ““Citizens’ money” is being replaced by “basic security,” and the sanctions for the unemployed are becoming tougher. But the government cannot answer how the plan to throw even more cheap labor onto the market will fit in with economic reality. A column about performance ideology and German madness. (…)Merz's hatred of the working class, which is fully supported by the SPD, will have real impact from July 1st, because from this date onwards many will have to deal with the so-called basic security, which will replace the previous "citizen's money". The “basic security” is a fantasy that has become law of the brutalized bourgeoisie, which basically sees the unemployed as parasites who must be forced into gainful employment, even if they have to stop their training or further education to do so. (…)
    You don't need a doctorate in applied demagoguery to realize that Merz's government is not interested in revitalizing Germany's weakening economy by supplying cheap, essentially forced-recruited workers. It's more about satisfying the desires of those voters who are too stupid to understand the causes of their own dissatisfaction and therefore need scapegoats and projection surfaces…”Column “News from the Hamster Wheel” by Bernhard Torsch in the Jungle World from June 11, 2026 
  • Pointless search for an apartment on orders from the job center
    “From July 1st, only low housing costs are permitted in the new basic security. Those affected then have to prove that their search for accommodation is often pointless (…) If the rent is too high, the job center can ask the benefit recipients to pay the amount that is above the adequacy limit themselves from the standard rate. Helena Steinhaus, managing director of the Sanktionsfrei association in Berlin, reports that households in Berlin divert an average of 180 euros per month from the standard rent rate because the job center does not cover the full amount of the housing costs. (…) The question is how the legal situation will develop with the new basic security: “It remains to be seen whether the courts will uphold the previous case law, according to which the actual rent must even be paid if it is proven that the search for an apartment was unsuccessful,” says specialist lawyer Steinke. “With the new basic security, the courts may cap the costs at one and a half times the appropriateness limit, even if there is sufficient evidence of efforts to find accommodation.” But that puts the municipalities under pressure. Anyone who loses their apartment may end up in a homeless shelter. And with daily rates of more than 30 euros per person in Berlin, for example, this is becoming really expensive for the state. The Ministry of Social Affairs in Bavaria has issued instructions to the job centers regarding accommodation costs, which the Tacheles self-help association has drawn attention to. Households with children should be treated more generously. However, “strict standards” should be set for an “unavoidably” increased need for housing costs. The application of the “hardship regulation” should also be possible “after the waiting period has expired” if “it can be proven that no alternative living space is available”.However, the recipients of benefits must constantly provide proof of this. This scares those affected.” Article by Barbara Dribbusch from July 1, 2026 in the taz online 
  • In the future, job centers will be able to punish alcohol during job interviews
    “Beneficiaries who are unkempt or drunk during the interview will have problems in the future. The employment agency classifies this as a breach of duty.
    From July onwards, job centers will be able to sanction benefit recipients if they appear at a job interview unkempt or under the influence of alcohol. This emerges from an updated instruction from the Federal Employment Agency to the job centers. The Bild newspaper first reported. In such a case, recipients of social benefits such as the new basic security may have their benefits reduced in the future. The Federal Employment Agency classifies this as a breach of duty. These violations are regulated in Section 31 of the Social Security Code II. They occur, for example, when people prevent themselves from being hired by an employer through negative behavior.
    "This is the case, for example, if people entitled to benefits appear at the job interview in a very unkempt manner or under the influence of alcohol and the employer therefore excludes them from the further process," said the instructions. Anyone who breaches their duties can have their benefits reduced…”Agency report from June 29, 2026 in Zeit online 
  • BA instructions on sanctions and failure to report
    “The BA has updated its instructions on sanctions; those on sections 31, 31a and 31b and on failure to report have been revised and updated. However, the accessibility fiction in Section 7b Paragraph 4 SGB II is not yet there. There are also no instructions regarding the enforcement administrative act according to Section 15a SGB II.
    The current instructions can be found here: under instructions on § 31, 31a and 31b and on § 32 SGB II. Link to the instructions: https://t1p.de/buca " Out ofThomé Newsletter 21/2026 from June 27, 2026 
• CDU politicians are planning the next discrimination attack on those entitled to SGB II benefits: Deutschlandticket as a benefit in kind instead of money
  “North Rhine-Westphalia local politicians from the CDU are planning a radical change in the system for citizens' money. Instead of the monthly mobility share of 50.49 euros, those entitled to benefits will in future receive the Deutschlandticket as a benefit in kind. The plan:https://t1p.de/vjqpl
  Comment:
  CDU politicians are planning the next discrimination attack on those entitled to SGB II benefits. This is an extremely bad idea because not everyone uses public transport. For example, there are people who mostly travel by bike or car, or people who rarely leave the house for health or other reasons.  If politicians are actually keen to promote social participation, they should offer the Deutschlandticket at a social rate of 10 euros per month for those entitled to benefits under SGB II, SGB XII and AsylbLG as well as for people with income below the seizure limit. Then everyone could decide for themselves whether they should use the offer or not. That would be solidarity-based, economically sensible and sensible in terms of energy policy.
  Phrases that this is a contribution to combating abuse of social benefits are simply cynical. This is not about abuse, but about discrimination.
  This path is fatal. Instead of always thinking up new projects about how poor people can be discriminated against, harassed and excluded and ultimately driven into the arms of the AfD, we should think about how they can be enabled to participate adequately in society.
  Because no one enjoys having to get by on the subsistence level. At least that corresponds to my daily consulting experience.” Post inThomé Newsletter 19/2026 from June 7th, 2026 (“CDU plan: Germany ticket as a benefit in kind instead of money”), see also:
  • Citizen's benefit recipients: Germany ticket instead of mobility share?
    “There are occasional calls from the CDU to issue a monthly Germany ticket to all those receiving citizen's benefit - and to eliminate the mobility component of the standard rate. What the legal situation is and why there is much to speak against the idea…”Contribution by Maximilian Heim on June 1st, 2026 in BR 
• Instead of citizens' money: Basic security money will result in 169 euros less benefits from July 1, 2026
  “From July 1, 2026, the rules in SGB II will change noticeably: job centers will be able to establish binding obligations more quickly and reduce obligations much more quickly in the event of breaches of duty. As a rule, those affected risk a uniform 30 percent reduction in their standard needs - depending on the level of need, this is around 152 euros (partners) to around 169 euros (single people) per month…”Contribution from Dr. Utz Anhalt from May 24th, 2026 on gegen-hartz.de 
• From July 1st, those receiving citizens' benefit will lose three protective rights at once
  "From July 1, 2026, citizens' benefit is to be replaced by the new basic security. For those affected, it is not terms that are crucial, but the restrictions on existing protective rights. Those entitled to benefits will lose three central safeguards: the arbitration procedure in the event of a dispute with the job center, the waiting period for assets and part of the previous protection in the event of high housing costs. (...)
  Anyone who receives benefits must expect severe restrictions on permitted assets and even harsher penalties for alleged breaches of duty. (…) In the future, disputes about applications, measures, further training, accessibility or health restrictions will be decided more quickly as an administrative act against those entitled to benefits. (…) Without arbitration, the pre-programmed conflicts will lead to reductions in performance even more quickly if the responsible clerks make incorrect decisions. Anyone who receives an administrative act from the job center in the future must therefore immediately check whether the specified obligations are reasonable, specific and legal. (…)
  With the citizen's money, there was a waiting period for assets. (…) Anyone who has usable assets above the new allowances can lose their entitlement to benefits more quickly. For many households, this means that reserves become a hurdle sooner again. (…) Those affected must use up their assets before government help is available. (…) Anyone who previously assumed that there would be a transition period will have to expect an earlier check in the future. (…)
  Until now, the waiting period protected many benefit recipients from coming under immediate pressure because of high rent at the start of receiving citizen's benefit. Accommodation costs should be more limited in the future. (…) Those affected must then expect that the job center will initiate a cost-cutting process. (…) [After] a deadline there is a risk that housing costs will be capped. The job center will then only cover the amount that it deems appropriate. Those affected have to pay the difference from the standard rate - even though this is not intended for this. (…) In addition to these three losses of rights, the reform also exacerbates the consequences of breaches of duty. Anyone who cancels a funding measure, fails to provide proof of applications or repeatedly misses appointments will have to expect benefits to be cut even faster and even harder. (…) Those affected should therefore carefully check whether the requested applications, measures or appointments are even reasonable. Health restrictions, caring responsibilities, caring for relatives or the lack of accessibility to measures can also be decisive. Objection and, if necessary, an urgent application to the social court may be necessary if the administrative act contains unlawful obligations. (…) Anyone who receives or applies for new basic security should check three points particularly carefully. First: What obligations does the job center set? Second: Which assets are taken into account? Third: Are the housing costs fully covered? Notifications should not just be skimmed over. Small formulations can have major financial consequences, especially when it comes to assets and accommodation costs. It is also important to collect evidence early.This includes the rental agreement, operating costs, medical documents, care situation, proof of assets and all correspondence with the job center…” Contribution from Dr. Utz Anhalt from May 20, 2026 at gegen-hartz.de (“Civil benefit recipients will lose three protective rights at once from July 1st”)
• The Federal Council has approved the SGB II tightening - the unconstitutional sanctions regime will begin soon 
  “On March 27, 2026, the Federal Council approved the 13th SGB II Amendment Act. As of July 1, 2026, citizen's money will become basic security money, see:https://t1p.de/h9rb5 
  The adopted version can be downloaded in the reading version here:https://t1p.de/1d6m5 
  The sanctions regime begins two weeks after the law comes into force. It is expected that the law will be “proclaimed” at the beginning of April, i.e. published in the legal gazette, and come into force two weeks later (Art. 82 Para. 2 GG). The new sanctions regime begins on the day it comes into force (Section 65a Para. 2 SGB II new version). From then on, the new sanction law applies to breaches of duty and failure to report; Previous breaches of duty and failure to report will be punished according to the old law.
  In plain language: As soon as the law comes into force, the counting of three consecutive failures to report to trigger the fiction of unavailability begins.
  For classification:
  The legal changes adopted give rise to significant legal and social policy concerns. The Federal Minister of Labor and Social Affairs, Bärbel Bas, herself formulated the benchmark for the reform: “We are tightening the sanctions up to the limit of what is constitutionally permissible.”In legal and socio-political circles there are considerable constitutional doubts about central elements of the reform.(…)
  What is shocking is that this tightening of the law is supported by the SPD. Nothing else could actually be expected from this party, which is increasingly disappearing into insignificance. What is even more frightening is that there is no noticeable counter-positioning from the Left Party.
  Both parties are making it clear that the fight for social justice is no longer a high priority for them. This will have fatal consequences. Left behind and marginalized groups will turn to the AfD because they believe they will at least be heard and represented there. This is a fallacy, but the AfD always manages to deceive people.
  Now we have the mess and have to live with this law, which many believe is openly unconstitutional. In the interests of those affected, we must find ways to deal with it and continue to fight against it!" From theThomé Newsletter 12/2026 from March 29, 2026 . See also:
  • Loss of housing instead of social security: Federal Council approves the 13th SGB II amendment law
    "Despite fundamental and well-founded objections in the legislative process, which showed that the planned changes to the law could increase the risk of homelessness, the Federal Council approved the 13th SGB II amending law on Friday, March 27, 2026. Two central new regulations in particular raise the fundamental question: Where does the protection of the individual against existential hardship end? Exclusion of benefits in the case of "fictitious unavailability" establishes a legal right to livelihood security Question.(…)
    In these cases, the intended protective mechanisms are unlikely to take effect in a timely manner, which could result in an existential emergency, particularly homelessness. Employees in job centers cannot be expected to correctly assess every individual situation or to recognize mental illnesses.
    "Such an approach calls into question the legal right to secure a living. The regulation ignores structural hurdles and threatens to drive people into extreme poverty and homelessness without giving them a fair chance," emphasizes Udo Geiger, a retired social judge.
    Immediate rent caps increase the risk of losing your home
    Another controversial innovation in Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 6 SGB II stipulates that rental costs are reduced to a flat-rate maximum amount without a transition period. The reason given is that benefit recipients have to provide “self-help”. In practice, however, this regulation primarily affects people in tight housing markets who have neither savings nor alternative housing options…”Press release from March 30, 2026 from BAG W – Federal Working Group for Homeless Assistance e.V
  • Doubts about incapacity to work in the SGB II amendment law: Statutory general suspicion against those receiving civil benefit
• Citizen's benefit vs. basic security benefit: The 5 most important differences from 2026
  “With the reform of basic security for job seekers, citizens' benefit in its previous form will end. The Bundestag decided on the redesign at the beginning of March 2026. According to the Federal Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs, the new rules will almost fully come into force on July 1, 2026. This is already important for the classification: Anyone who asks about the “differences from 2026” must differentiate between the calendar year 2026 and the actual start of the reform. The new order will be noticeable in everyday life, especially from July onwards. It is also noticeable that the reform does not primarily focus on the amount of the standard monthly requirement for new basic security benefits. For single people, the standard requirement remains at 563 euros in 2026 because the legal protection of property takes effect. The legal realignment primarily affects mediation, cooperation, sanctions, asset verification and housing costs…”Contribution by Carolin-Jana Klose from March 25th, 2026 in gegen-hartz.de 
• Poverty bashing: Where does the gloating about the basic security sanctions come from? There is still a remedy against total sanctions
  "On March 5th, the Bundestag passed the new basic security. As a person affected, this scares me. (...) It shocks me that there is such broad support for the reform. People who are seriously happy about it don't even begin to know what long-term life in Hartz IV, citizen's benefit - and now in basic security means. (...) The reason for this attitude is probably prejudices about the unemployed, which have been stoked by the media and politicians since Agenda 2010 and have now been internalized by many fellow citizens It's easier to believe the myth of a lazy, luxurious life than to see the reality: a life of poverty that is structurally determined and politically intended to make the unemployed docile with a system of punishment and pressure. This thinking comes from people who still think that a slap here and there doesn't do any harm. But those who work with these means build their power on fear Paralyzes. Anyone who lives with it over the long term becomes sick. Added to this are feelings of frustration, anger and aggression. Anyone who forces an employment relationship on such foundations will not achieve much - neither for the economy, nor for the working person, nor for democracy (…) Growing poverty and growing fear create the breeding ground on which right-wing extremists celebrate success. The regulations of the new basic security accelerate this process, especially with the reduction of the so-called protective assets - the money that you are allowed to have in your account as a recipient.(…) I would have liked more protest. What we are facing is a long-term deterioration in our lives. In this situation, I hope for more networking between those affected. I hope for more support from associations and advice centers in enforcing our rights. And I hope for many waves of lawsuits. Sanctions Free and Freedom Fund are two organizations that do important work. Ultimately, I hope that civil society will fight back. That we defend ourselves.” Comment by Janina Lütt in Friday online on March 11, 2026 
• Basic security: New unreasonable demands can affect almost everyone
  “On the occasion of the upcoming adoption of the 13th SGB II amendment law in the Bundestag, with which the citizens' benefit is to be replaced by the new basic security, Katja Kipping, managing director of the Paritätischer Gesamtverband, comments as follows: "The CDU/CSU and SPD have decided to tighten the social thumbscrews. With the abolition of the citizens' benefit, the rules for job seekers will be massively tightened: the waiting period for assets will no longer apply, and the allowances for protective assets will be eliminated are reduced. Housing costs will be capped from the first day of need. In the future, sanctions can go as far as complete withdrawal, including the complete elimination of housing costs. And a stubborn interpretation of placement priority will be at the expense of qualifications and further training.The new rules don't put anyone into work. They only exacerbate existential fears and social distress. They harm without helping.  A separation, a sick child, a sports accident, a dismissal for operational reasons - many are only one stroke of fate away from basic security. The new demands can affect almost anyone. And for many there will be a rude awakening…”Press release from Katja Kipping from March 4, 2026 at the Paritätischen 
• New basic security: “A morally bankrupt system.” Citizens' money is disappearing, but unemployment remains, says activist Wasilewski in the Bundestag
  "It's a shame that we're talking about something like this these days," said Thomas Wasilewski in the Bundestag on Monday. At the hearing in the Labor and Social Affairs Committee, parties, associations and experts discussed the government's draft bill for new basic security. Wasilewski himself is a recipient of citizens' benefit and is fighting in public for a "humane minimum subsistence level." In his statement, he calls the planned reform "a declaration of war" against the unemployed. (...) According to Wasilewski, the debate does not only concern Benefit recipients, but also "millions of people who live every day in fear of losing their jobs." Employers could systematically exploit this - the "existential fear" becomes their "weapon." The result: "a morally bankrupt system in which employees mutate into weak-willed puppets of the employers." The draft is associated with many new bureaucratic hurdles through which unemployment remains has not been working since 2013 due to heart problems. He also has to support his five children on these benefits. (...) Wasilewski calls for the total withdrawal of all funds, violating human dignity and the constitution. The measure particularly affects those "who are unable to meet the job center's requirements in times of crisis, illness or excessive demands." "Beings without dignity" are treated.Sanctions would particularly affect particularly vulnerable groups such as people with disabilities or people who do not speak German. In practical terms, the cuts meant: “no food, no drink, no electricity, no telephone, no internet.” In any case, they meant that you couldn't take up work. Instead, there is a risk of homelessness. In addition, Wasilewski refers to a ruling by the Federal Constitutional Court from 2019, according to which the steering effect of sanctions cannot be clearly proven scientifically. The sanctions also affect “innocent children”. Minors live in almost every third community of need. Just last week, dozens of social associations denounced this in an open letter. They are calling on the government to withdraw the planned tightening measures - families are at risk. (…) In his statement, [Wasilewski] summarizes: “People sleep on the front door of the Bundestag without a roof over their heads. They look at us - and their look asks us how long we will keep looking away." Article by Ruta Dreyer from February 23, 2026 in New Germany online , see also:
  • The “new basic security” was the subject of a public hearing in the Committee for Labor and Social Affairs of the German Bundestag
    “From “mostly positive” to “that doesn’t belong in the 21st century” everything was there. The German Bundestag's eager press staff are certainly not to be envied, as they have to quickly condense many of the topics and activities that are being discussed in parliament into reports that are then made available to the public. This also includes summaries of the public hearings from invited experts on individual legislative activities. And a socio-politically highly relevant legislative activity is under the – as usual very dry – title “13th SGB II Amendment Act”. (…) »The new basic security planned by the federal government, which is intended to abolish many regulations on citizens' money, was largely positively received by experts in a hearing of the Committee for Labor and Social Affairs. Nevertheless, almost all of the experts invited by the various factions called for corrections.« (…) Now one could immediately comment critically on individual points of the summary or even correct the content. But even the oral statements of the invited experts (which were suggested by the individual parties and whose question and answer time is strictly limited according to the size of the parliamentary groups) are usually not really informative or profitable (…) With regard to voices that come more from institutional practice, reference should be made here to the statement by Jens Hildebrandt from the Department of Labor and Social Affairs of the City of Mannheim for the municipal perspective.And on the statement of Stefan Graaf, who is the managing director of the Aachen City Region Job Center and at the same time the spokesman for the federal network of job centers (…) For Graaf, the following criteria are guiding when assessing the planned changes: "Firstly, the effect on rapid and sustainable integration into work, secondly, the maintenance of the humane minimum subsistence level and reliable protection in special life situations, and thirdly, the suitability for enforcement." And he adds: "Only standards that are understandable, legally secure and in the can be administered in our daily work, have the desired control effect - anything else produces frictional losses, additional legal disputes and ties up resources that we actually need for advice, mediation and support. That's why every new regulation should be consistently measured by whether it simplifies procedures for citizens and administration or whether it increases the existing over-complexity. True words. And if the “practice” should be emphasized here, then please refer to the statement by Thomas Andreas Wasilewski. (…) Wasilewski no longer sees himself (only) as a person affected, but also as an activist (…) The rule with regard to the hearings of experts is that the respective caravan of legislators can no longer be irritated or stopped. It is to be feared that this pattern will also be repeated with the 13th SGB II Amendment Act, although some statements contain important and urgent indications of the need for changes.” Post by Stefan Sell from February 23rd on his homepage with quotes from the experts and links to all important materials for the hearing
• Hearing in the Bundestag on the SGB II changes on February 23rd, 2026 and protest on February 28th. in Berlin
  “On Monday, February 23, 2026, the Committee for Labor and Social Affairs will hold a public hearing. The statements from Thomas Wasilewski, the Paritätisches and also from the Jobcenter StädteRegion Aachen should be highlighted. The latter tear up the planned changes in many respects as ineffective measures. They also dealt intensively with our statement.
  Information about the hearing and the statements can be found here:https://t1p.de/sxavi 
  In addition: Welfare and social associations are calling for corrections to the draft law:https://t1p.de/tkdqt and an open letter against tightening measures to the detriment of families and children:https://t1p.de/owcb8 
  On the schedule of the SGB II reform: The 2nd/3rd. Reading was planned for the first week of March. But it is still unclear whether this will work and whether the coalition will reach an agreement by then…” Source:Thomé Newsletter 08/2026 from February 22, 2026 and also:
  • The meeting on Monday, February 23, 2026, 2 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. is public and will be broadcast on www.bundestag.de, seeall information 
    
  • Declaration of war on citizens' money: Wasilewski's merciless reckoning in the Bundestag
    “When the Committee for Labor and Social Affairs in the German Bundestag meets for a public hearing on February 23, 2026, there will be a man who has experienced the ice-cold logic of the system firsthand. It is the day of the hearing on the 13th SGB II Amendment Act, which is intended to pave the way for the change from citizen's benefit to basic security benefit - a day that is about much more than paragraphs: it is about sheer survival. Thomas Wasilewski, nominated as an expert by the left-wing faction, is not a “paper tiger” or a theorist who compresses the misery into tables from a distance. He is a practitioner who breathes the bitter reality. The Mönchengladbach family man knows both worlds. He used to work for a long time as a training advisor for a large corporation and, according to his own statements, helped long-term unemployed and learning-disabled young people enter the job market - until a serious stroke of fate catapulted him to the other side. Today he experiences the bureaucratic harshness of the system he once knew from the other side as a daily threat to his own existence. He does not speak for himself alone, but gives a voice to many people who are in constant communication with him and whose dignity is often treated like a calculation due to political decisions.
    In his guest article for buergergeld.org, Wasilewski says what many people don't dare say…”Contribution by Peter Piekarz from February 22, 2026 on buergergeld.org and in it:
    • Guest article by Thomas Wasilewski: Plain language instead of licorice
      “…I have recorded my criticism of the planned new regulations in my statement, which is submitted to the Bundestag. Here is the link:https://www.bundestag.de/resource/blob/1146128/21-11-74-Thomas-Andreas-Wasilewski.pdf..:"
    • Afterward: "…In order to understand why Wasilewski's appearance in the Bundestag is so important, we have analyzed his official statement (committee document 21(11)74) of February 16, 2026 in detail here…”
  • “Citizen’s money reform”: Government stirs up climate of fear
    “Hearing on the “new basic security” in the Bundestag Committee on Labor and Social Affairs. Clear words about tightening and mood-mongering are expected…”Overview by Gudrun Giese in the young world from February 23rd, 2026 
  • Rally: Solidarity instead of punishment on February 28th, 2026 in Berlin
    “The federal government's current plans fill us with great concern, as the tightening of citizens' benefits will push people into poverty, precarious employment and homelessness. There is a fundamental right to a humane minimum subsistence level. 100% sanctions, as currently planned, do not do justice to this. Placement priority will push people into precarious jobs. The abolition of the waiting period for protective assets and the reduction of protective assets makes it more difficult for people to make provisions for their old age. And these are just some of the planned changes. We believe that the discourse of exclusion, in which it is assumed that unemployed people are themselves to blame for their unemployment, is wrong.
    He uses right-wing and neoliberal narratives that we aggressively oppose. Unemployment has a variety of causes that can be found in the economy. People who become unemployed should find support from society, not control and distrust.That's why we're calling for a demonstration on Saturday, February 28th, at 2 p.m. at Elisabeth-Schwarzhaupt-Platz in front of the Nordbahnhof with a final rally on Habersaathstrasse.”Call at VDJ 
• A broad alliance of 38 organizations and associations demands in an open letter: Reform of SGB II must not come at the expense of families and children
  “…The associations criticize the reform as failing to achieve its goal of strengthening trust and promoting employment integration. Instead, it increases the pressure where it can only have a limited effect and worsens the situation of people with care responsibilities. Particularly problematic are sanctions that put a strain on entire households, as well as the tightening of housing costs and unrealistic regulations on reasonableness for parents of small children to take up employment. "A reform of the citizen's allowance must never be carried out on the backs of children who are already under pressure. But that is exactly what is to be feared if the new basic security allowance tightens possible sanctions for families with children as well as reasonableness rules for taking up employment and the regulations on accommodation costs. Any reduction in the standard rates, which are already too tight, even if they only formally affect adults, brings with it an unjustified, extraordinary hardship for the children and violates the right to do so enshrined in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child social security and appropriate living conditions. Since money in families is becoming even more scarce due to sanctions, for example, children are indirectly punished for the behavior of their parents. And if, in addition to the standard rate reduction, it is also possible to immediately cap rent costs, the children and their families are threatened with rent arrears and, in the worst case, homelessness. “This cannot be allowed.”
  The signatories emphasize that every third community of need is a family with underage children. Sanctions are therefore not limited to individual people, but also directly affect those under protection and partners. The open letter calls, among other things, for the waiver of sanctions that also punish children, the maintenance of the waiting period for housing costs and a realistic calculation of standard needs…”Report from February 19, 2026 from the German Children's Fund (“Associations demand: Reform of SGB II must not come at the expense of families and children”)Open letter “Reduce tightening at the expense of families and children”
• Prepare for an emergency. Planned cuts in the subsistence minimum: Tacheles social welfare association advocates setting up offers of help for people at risk now
  “"It's going to be scary," says Harald Thomé from the Tacheles unemployment and social welfare association about the black-red coalition's basic security plans. “People who are mentally ill and suffer from depression in particular will fall under the wheels.” The nationally known Wuppertal association advises people affected by poverty and advocates for their rights. It also offers extensive information on the Internet, particularly on basic security. Like many other organizations, Tacheles rejects the planned sanctions. At the same time, association board member Thomé presented a proposal on how people whose subsistence level is threatened can be specifically supported. (…) Diakonie, like Tacheles, criticizes the fact that these cuts primarily affect people who are already having a hard time and actually need help. “We see who misses appointments and doesn’t go to the office,” says Tacheles board member Thomé “nd.DieWoche.” "It's people who don't know the German language, who can't read or write, or who are mentally ill." (...) And many people have reading difficulties: A study from 2019 came to the conclusion that around 6.2 million German-speaking adults can only read and write individual sentences, but cannot understand coherent texts. What makes matters worse is that because of digitalization, people can often no longer simply go to the job center, explains Zimmermann. Instead, they should communicate digitally, which many cannot do because they lack the language skills or the technical means. “Digitalization depends on many people,” says the social expert.According to Zimmermann, people with psychological stress or illnesses do not always have a diagnosis because they have not yet had a doctor's appointment or have no insight into their illness. You cannot therefore prove to the job center that you were unable to come to the job center for health reasons. Others find it difficult to disclose their illness to a stranger in an office and say, for example: I have bipolar disorder and had a depressive phase. That's why I couldn't show up. (…) The Tacheles board expects that the Bundestag will essentially pass the bill, despite all the protests (…) That is why Thomé advocates that advice centers adapt to the new legal situation now and begin to set up “supporting structures based on solidarity”. He wants to ensure that no one has to go to the job center alone and that people who have no friends or acquaintances who can support them are supported. This is particularly important for the groups mentioned who are particularly threatened by the sanctions. Charitable associations, for example, could set up such support structures together with other local initiatives that are active in the social sector. “It’s about forming alliances at the local level,” says Thomé. He hopes that a discussion about his proposal will take place in the next few weeks. (…) “I can understand the suggestion,” says Ina Zimmermann about Thomé’s idea. “When a social worker is present at an appointment, the conversations often go differently.” Many of her colleagues from general social counseling would therefore like to accompany people more often, but they couldn’t manage that.The capacities and resources are too limited for this. (…) It is easier if family members, friends or acquaintances can support the person in need of help. For Harald Thomé, it would be a form of lived solidarity with people in need if such support structures could be established. According to current planning, the Bundestag will decide at the beginning of March whether the tightening measures will be implemented. The law will then come into force on July 1st. Some of the sanctions should apply earlier, as soon as the reform is published in the Federal Law Gazette. According to the current schedule, the tightening could take effect as early as April.”Article by Eva Roth from February 5, 2026 in New Germany online 
• From “Florida” to “Rolf the total refuser” and the influence of individual and fictional characters on socio-political legislation
  “At the beginning of 2026, the parliamentary mills are working on the draft of a Thirteenth Act to amend the Second Book of the Social Code and other laws (as of: Cabinet decision of December 17, 2025), with which the “citizens' money” that was only introduced in 2023 is to be replaced by a “new basic security”. This was preceded by months of a sometimes hysterical debate about “the” citizens’ benefit recipients. During the highly emotional discussion that accompanied this, many people were literally driven to their feet in view of the cases of blatant and widespread abuse of welfare state benefits that were repeatedly claimed and often seemingly proven with the help of anecdotal evidence. (…) This may remind some of the older students that this pattern of “legitimatory abuse” has also left its mark on social policy legislative history in the past. (…) “Florida-Rolf” was the nickname used in the media for a German social welfare recipient (real name Rolf J.) who had lived in the USA in the state of Florida since the 1980s and was receiving social welfare from the German state there after a serious illness. (…) In the summer of 2003, the BILD newspaper made the case big with the headline that a German welfare recipient was paying for his beach apartment in Miami “at the expense of the German taxpayer.” The case was presented in a very populist manner and used as an example of “welfare under palm trees”. The similarities with the special role of the BILD newspaper today in the context of the citizens' money debate is more than obvious.(…) In the Federal Republic, the discourse about alleged or actual abuse of social benefits gained prominence with the return of unemployment in the mid-1970s and subsequently had ups and downs, which were mostly accompanied by the development of unemployment figures. (…) In 1983, for example, it was complained that high social standards were enticing young and healthy German citizens to “sunbathe in the hammock under the palm trees of Bali and alternatively live away” instead of worrying about their professional future. (…) Against this background, it is not surprising when Rieger (2022: 381) takes stock of the time with a quote that can also be used today: “The German social system supposedly created a constellation that enabled energetic, imaginative women and men to enjoy a comfortable lifestyle at the expense of the general public instead of striving for financial independence. The message goes that the welfare state undermines work morale across the board and at the same time increases the burden on the hard-working population. According to this interpretation, material overload phenomena were attributable to the social system itself and not to unfavorable underlying conditions...." Post by Stefan Sell from January 22, 2026 on his homepage 
  • See the section in the archive:“Idlers” debate the umpteenth time – the unemployed are lazy and the earth is flat
• Alliance “Insist on Right” against “New Basic Security”: Those affected are threatened with homelessness, excessive indebtedness and a closed housing market
  “The “new basic security” makes access to the housing market significantly more difficult for unemployed and precariously employed people and increases homelessness. They are also threatened with further impoverishment through new debt traps. This is especially true due to the significant tightening of the sanction regulations. The “On Law Exist” alliance therefore rejects the draft law from the CDU/CSU and SPD to reform SGB II, which is intended to replace citizens' money with basic security money. (…) “According to the “On Law Exist” alliance, the planned changes will significantly worsen the situation of those entitled to benefits and their families on the housing market and ultimately endanger their supply of suitable housing.” The alliance calls on the federal government to withdraw the current draft bill in its entirety.”Press release from January 15, 2026 from the “Insist on Right” alliance , a nationwide association of unemployed groups and organizations, of which Tacheles e.V. is also a member (which we would like to thank for the file)
  • If at the same time those who are still employed feel daily how quickly they too could become victims of the sanctions and at the same time are insulted as lazy by members of the government almost every day... it would be a day of refusalas scheduled on January 23rd in Minneapolismore than obvious...
• Who's on who's dime here? Enough with the citizen's money fetish. Storm the palaces!
  “Citizens' money is history. In its place is a basic security that relies on calculated breaches of the constitution. Total sanctions, mediation priority, square meter caps, every move means more comprehensive state surveillance. In Hamburg, the payment card will initially be used for social assistance‑and youth welfare recipients should be expanded. Are citizens’ benefit recipients next?
  The new basic security trumps Hartz IV in its cruelty and is a sword of Damocles over the unemployed and everyone who does wage work. At the same time, the number of billionaires and multi-millionaires is constantly increasing. Financial fraud by the extremely rich is more or less watched idly, while the phantom of the total refuser of citizens' money has been pushed through the media for years.
  This talk is about how the attack on the welfare state affects those affected in practice and what we as civil society can do to avoid just standing by and doing nothing.”Audio of the lecture by Helena Steinhaus on December 29th, 2025 at 39c3
• Basic security benefit undermines the rights of millions of people who rely on social benefits - time to rebuild “supporting structures of solidarity”.
  • From citizen's money to basic security money. Pure Union: Sanctions from the moment the law is promulgated
    “Citizens' money is being abolished by Merz, Linnemann and Spahn with the support of the SPD and replaced by an authoritarian system of pressure, control and sanctions. A number of people - especially those with mental illnesses - will be affected. This policy will push many people into poverty, precarious employment and even homelessness. Anyone who would like to deal with the coming changes can first find a reading version of the planned law here. It shows in color what is old law, what comes from the first version after the coalition committee and what changes were made after the cabinet meeting.
    The law is scheduled to take effect on July 1, 2026; However, the significantly tightened sanctions were already announced (see Article 12 Para. 2). The federal government is proceeding extremely quickly in this regard. (…)
    The law undermines the rights of millions of people who rely on social benefits and ignores the realities of their lives. Contrary to all assurances, it will particularly affect mentally ill and other sick people.
    The law contributes significantly to social division and endangers trust in the state and government. The planned new regulations mark a dangerous step towards the gradual dismantling of the welfare state and democracy.
    With a view to the coming legal situation, all advice centers should prepare for this now and begin to set up “supporting structures based on solidarity” so that people who are afraid of the office do not have to go to the authorities alone. This is a piece of organized and lived solidarity.
    In addition, the SPD membership request could make a difference, so that the SPD still shows some backbone and says clearly: unconstitutional sanctions are not with us. Hence the call to all SPD comrades: Vote against this law in the members' petition.” From theThomé Newsletter 43/2025 from December 21, 2025 (Emphasis ours, see belowwith the basic informationthe revised draft law) and the 1st approach in Berlin:
  • 8.1.26: First meeting of the BASTA support working group!
    “We are the BASTA support working group! Berlin, the unemployed initiative. We would like to warmly invite you to our regular accompanying meetings in order to accompany affected people to offices such as job centers or employment agencies in an organized and solidarity-based manner. This direct support seems more important to us than ever before, especially in view of the impending tightening of social law.
    We want to counter the social coldness with solidarity. At our four counseling locations in Berlin, we learn how important it is for those affected not to have to go to the office alone. You receive moral support and have (at least) one witness with you.
    At the accompanying meetings we can exchange experiences with accompanying people, pass on tips and tricks and talk together about what basic knowledge and skills we need for accompanying people…”Call from Basta Berlin from December 19, 2025 to the meeting on Thursday, January 8th, 2026 at 6-8 p.m. in the Regenbogenfabrik, Lausitzer Straße 21a in Kreuzberg.
    • We remind you of the section in the LabourNet archive:With support to office!
  • Systematic precarization. Interview with Harald Thomé, co-founder of the self-help organization Tacheles
    “TenantEcho: According to current plans, the citizens' benefit reform should come into force in July next year. What are the most serious changes compared to the current regulations? (…)
    I consider the regulations regarding the complete cancellation of standard benefits to be unconstitutional. And I assume that this does not in any way correspond to the requirements that the Constitutional Court formulated in its 2019 ruling. The Federal Constitutional Court also made it clear in the above-mentioned judgment that sanctions are only permissible with the aim of changing behavior. In the planned law, however, sanctions are used as a punishment to punish misconduct, and here too there are considerable doubts about their admissibility. Furthermore, in the past there were benefits in kind even with 100% sanctions, but these are no longer provided for. There are a number of points where significant