Dan Goldman, and the decline and fall of liberal Jewish Democrats

Jonathan S. Tobin

Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.). Credit: Lev Radin/Shutterstock.

The end of the political career of Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.) is filled with irony. He was a child of immense privilege who may wind up best remembered for being a victim of discrimination. He was also a man whose rapid rise in public life was fueled by rabid partisanship and the weaponization of the law against political opponents.

But his career came to an abrupt end earlier this week, when he was brought down by an even more extreme faction of his party that had decided he wasn’t sufficiently ideologically pure to suit the current political fashion of delegitimizing Jewish identity on the left.

This heir to the Levi Strauss Jeans fortune, who led the first attempt to impeach President Donald Trump on flimsy politicized charges, has led a life that is hardly typical of most American Jews. Yet the arc of his political career may well illustrate the end of an era for American Jewry. He might have thought his good looks, money and impeccably partisan record assured him a bright political future, but in the end, his Jewish identity did him in.

Barista bigotry

Barring a theoretical comeback in a future when the woke and the Jew-haters no longer dominate his party, not only is his career finished. He’s also linked forever with a story in which a fashionable Brooklyn coffee-shop chain publicly refunded his purchase by declaring that he should be refused service along with “racists, fascists, homophobes, genocide-enablers or anyone in between. Too bad we didn’t recognize you right away, or we would have turned you away.”

The exchange of the very liberal Goldman for another very liberal Democrat as the representative of New York’s 10th Congressional district isn’t particularly significant. The same is true of what happened in other districts on primary day, when candidates backed by New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani also won seats. Liberal pundits can downplay the significance of these contests by saying that the divisive ideological battles that now define Gotham’s politics are not like those elsewhere. They’re not entirely wrong when they say New York City is not America.

Yet Dan Goldman’s story, both the primary defeat and the coffee-shop incident, is still important. What happened in his district is actually typical of what has become normalized in Democratic Party politics in recent years. Over the last century, Jews have been among the most dedicated and loyal supporters of the Democrats. But if they want to be accepted today, they must be willing to pay an entrance fee that requires them to disavow Israel and Jewish peoplehood, crucial elements of their identity.

This is the inevitable result of the hijacking of the Democratic Party by ideological “progressives” who have been indoctrinated in the toxic theories of critical race theory, intersectionality and settler-colonialism. They are primarily seen as the impetus for the divisive “anti-racist” movement that has done so much to exacerbate and widen racial disharmony in the United States and elsewhere.

Post-Oct. 7 surge of Jew-hatred

But as we’ve seen since the atrocities and mass murder committed during the Hamas-led Palestinian-Arab attacks on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, they are the driving force behind the surge of antisemitism that followed. And rather than being restricted to disturbing events on college campuses where Jews were targeted by mobs of activists chanting for Jewish genocide (“From the river to the sea”) and terrorism against Jews everywhere (“Globalize the intifada”), the same trend is now dominating Democratic Party politics.

Mamdani’s trio of primary victories, like the rise of the Nazi-tattooed, Israel-bashing Graham Platner in Maine and of the Islamist-supporting Abdel El-Sayyed in Michigan as credible Senate candidates, is not merely a sign of changing times. It may well be the death knell for an era of Jewish acceptance. And with loud voices touting antisemitic Israel-bashing gaining acceptance in high places, though not similar electoral success, on the right, it does raise serious questions about whether American exceptionalism with respect to Jews and much else is now in jeopardy.

Jewish acceptance

Jews have achieved inclusion in virtually every sector of American society, business, the arts and government. The United States also offered them influence and even power. And, as journalist Batya Ungar-Sargon persuasively argues in her new book, The Jews and the Left, that didn’t begin in the 20th century. From the earliest days of the republic that is now about to celebrate its 250th birthday, Jews were not merely tolerated as they have at times been elsewhere, but included as equal partners in the American experiment. And they took advantage of the opportunities offered by a country in which political liberty and economic freedom prevailed.

Dating back to the beginning of the 20th century, the vast majority of them, whether rich or poor, embraced the Democratic Party and political liberalism, rightly or wrongly, as representing the values that had enabled their acceptance and prosperity.

But Goldman’s political fate illustrates the way the sea change in the Democratic Party with respect to the demonization of Israel and Zionism is altering the landscape for Jews.

Goldman—who probably thought that his money and then incumbency, once obtained, would lead to an indefinite, unchallenged hold on the seat he won in 2022—wasn’t merely defeated in the Democratic primary. His loss to former New York City comptroller Brad Lander was an epic trouncing, by the stunning margin of 65.8% to 34%.

The reason for his defeat was no secret. As the man who led the first partisan impeachment of Trump in 2019, Goldman likely believed he had earned a permanent hold on the affection of even the most left-wing members of his party. But he was, as the Jew-haters at Brooklyn’s Poetica coffee shops pointed out, a “genocide” enabler. Which is to say, he was a supporter of the State of Israel, even if he was not a particularly enthusiastic one

Bending the knee to the antisemitic left

Lander, like Goldman, is also Jewish and a veteran political liberal. But unlike the soon-to-be former congressman, he understood how the Democratic Party in New York City and much of the rest of the country now operates. While he has claimed, at times, to be a “liberal Zionist” and an opponent of antisemitism, he has adjusted his position on the war being waged by Iran and its terrorist proxies to destroy Israel to one that puts him in sync with current liberal fashion.

He has frequently repeated the key mantras of Hamas propaganda that falsely accuse the Jewish state of “genocide” in Gaza. And, like the vast majority of Senate Democrats, he is in favor of an arms embargo on Israel that would essentially force it to surrender to foes whose goal is a real genocide of the population of the one Jewish state on the planet. He has also campaigned against the supposed “corrupt” and “foreign” influence of AIPAC, the main pro-Israel lobby, which his ally, Mamdani, smeared as “monsters.”

Since the war on the Jews has, incredibly, become even more important to the base of the Democratic Party than the economic issues that once motivated most of its members, the fact that Goldman’s wife, Corrine Levy Goldman, is an enthusiastic supporter of Israel who criticized woke Jew-haters on social media meant that he was toast.

Lander is not as radical as Darializa Chevalier, who defeated another incumbent, Rep. Adriano Espaillat, in the primary in New York’s 13th district. Chevalier actually took part in a demonstration on Oct. 8, 2023, where she helped celebrate Hamas and defend the massacre of Jews. But with his willingness to repeat the blood libels about Jews committing “genocide” —when, in fact, they are the intended victims of an actual genocide planned by Palestinian Arabs and their supporters—made him acceptable to the new dominant faction within his party. Like the management of Poetica, left-wing Democrats will make an exception for Jews willing to support the slaughter of half of the world’s Jewish population that resides in the world’s only Jewish state.

Anti-Zionism is antisemitic by definition, since it seeks to deny rights to Jews that no one would think to take away from any other people and to normalize their delegitimization and victimization by bloodthirsty terrorists. The real “genocide enablers” are not those Jews who won’t endorse patently false accusations of Israeli criminality. That label is better applied to those who cheer for Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran, or who regularly regurgitate antisemitic propaganda about Israelis.

Antisemitic Jews

Some liberals point to Lander’s Jewish background and the ubiquitous presence of anti-Zionist Jews in Mamdani’s coterie, as well as sprinkled throughout the intersectional left’s efforts to purge Israel-supporters, whether or not they are Jews. But that effort to refute accusations of antisemitism rings hollow.

These Jews are the 21st-century version of past instances in which Jews joined their oppressors, either out of a misguided belief that this would earn their acceptance or a genuine conviction that Jewish identity and beliefs were evil, as was the case with Communist theorist Karl Marx. That was also true of the Jewish Bolsheviks who made up the Yevsektsiya, the bureau devoted to eradicating Jewish life in the first decades of the Soviet Union. Mamdani’s Jews and members of anti-Zionist groups like Jewish Voice for Peace and IfNotNow, who have joined the shock troops of the far left’s attempt to revive Communism, are their heirs.

The question facing Americans is whether the victories earned by these forces of intolerance for Jews are just a passing phase that will soon fade or a turning point for American society.

When considering this question, it’s possible to consider the coffee-shop incident as just another instance in which an era of hyper-partisanship has legitimized the sort of uncivil behavior that has been directed at conservative Republicans. For example, in 2018, then-White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders (now governor of Arkansas) was asked to leave a Red Hen restaurant in Lexington, Virginia, because its owner was opposed to the Trump administration.

But the manager of Poetica, who took to social media to denounce Goldman (who had only purchased a cup of coffee as a thank you for its staff allowing his 7-year-old daughter to use the restroom) and actually posted a screenshot of him at their cash register, wasn’t acting as a partisan. The point of his action was the conviction that discriminating against the overwhelming majority of Jews who won’t join attacks on the besieged Jewish state is what righteous liberals are obligated to do.

This nasty behavior is significant because it was the reason that Goldman was defeated in a district where people who share this hateful belief predominate. And as Democratic primaries around the country show, such results are no longer outliers.

The mainstream liberal media has normalized antisemitism since Oct. 7. With blood libels like The New York Times’ absurd claim that Israelis trained dogs to rape Palestinian prisoners accepted as truth rather than fiction, we can’t be surprised that rank-and-file liberal Democrats, who make up more than 90% of its readership, should draw conclusions from such screeds. Anyone who won’t parrot these lies is someone whom they think deserves to be targeted for discrimination. And once you go there, it isn’t much of a leap to decide that such persons don’t merely deserve to be voted out of office, but to be targeted for humiliation and, ultimately, violence.

Will decency prevail?

All of Goldman’s wealth, his attempt to use the law to target Trump and his perfect liberal voting record didn’t save him from this kind of treatment. And the same will be true of every other liberal Jew who won’t bend the knee to the left on Israel as did Lander.

It is possible to argue that such extremism is a prescription of political doom for the left. Antisemitism has always been a political loser in American politics. Most Americans never voted for the woke catechism of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) that is inextricably linked to Jew-hatred. Trump’s 2024 victory was largely the result of a sense that Democrats had tipped too far to the left on a host of social and cultural issues that most citizens regarded as bizarre and wrongheaded.

But in 2026, Democrats appear to be doubling down on the very same laundry list of woke beliefs with hatred for Israel at the very top. And, though antisemites have been repeatedly defeated in Republican primaries this year, the willingness of Vice President JD Vance to continue to legitimize the far-right’s Jew-hating podcasters like Tucker Carlson and their enablers like Megyn Kelly illustrates that similar ideas are also having an impact on the GOP and the political right.

Turning these trends around will require genuine leadership by America’s political, cultural and religious thought leaders in the coming months and years, as well as punishment at the polls for Mamdani and his fellow extremists outside of deep urban enclaves. Trusting in the common sense and decency of the American people has been a formula for Jewish acceptance and success for the last 250 years.

Contrary to the prevailing narrative that Jewish liberals have long accepted about this country, Jews are not victims in America, but fellow stakeholders in a republic where Jewish life was cherished. But the demise of Dan Goldman forces even the most sanguine observers to ponder whether that faith in the exceptional nature of the American experiment in constitutional democracy will continue to be justified.

Jonathan S. Tobin is editor-in-chief of the Jewish News Syndicate, a senior contributor for The Federalist, a columnist for Newsweek and a contributor to many other publications. He covers the American political scene, foreign policy, the U.S.-Israel relationship, Middle East diplomacy, the Jewish world and the arts. He hosts the JNS “Think Twice” podcast, both the weekly video program and the “Jonathan Tobin Daily” program, which are available on all major audio platforms and YouTube. Previously, he was executive editor, then senior online editor and chief political blogger, for Commentary magazine. Before that, he was editor-in-chief of The Jewish Exponent in Philadelphia and editor of the Connecticut Jewish Ledger. He has won more than 60 awards for commentary, art criticism and other writing. He appears regularly on television, commenting on politics and foreign policy. Born in New York City, he studied history at Columbia University.

Hezbollah (zdj. ilustracyjne) (Fot. REUTERS/Khalil Ashawi)

Przywódca Hezbollahu odrzucił wynegocjowane przez USA porozumienie między Libanem a Izraelem

Artur Siekaczyński

Od Zatoki Perskiej po Izrael: Kampania regionalnej agresji irańskiego reżimu

Sharon Levy

Najważniejsze wnioski:

• W ciągu ostatnich kilku dni irański reżim wystrzeliwał pociski i drony przeciwko państwom Zatoki Perskiej.
• Po tym, jak Hezbollah złamał zawieszenie broni z Izraelem, Siły Obronne Izraela (IDF) zaatakowały cele w Bejrucie. Następnie irański reżim wystrzelił pociski w kierunku Izraela, twierdząc, że działał w „obronie” Libanu.
• Irański reżim kieruje się wyłącznie własnymi interesami. Nie wystrzelił pocisków, aby bronić Libanu, lecz aby chronić Hezbollah i kontynuować realizację własnych celów, niezależnie od tego, jaki kraj na tym ucierpi.

7 czerwca 2026 r. Iran po raz kolejny wystrzelił pociski balistyczne w kierunku Izraela, twierdząc, że atak został przeprowadzony „w obronie” Libanu po izraelskich nalotach na Bejrut.

Niemal natychmiast po wystrzeleniu pierwszych pocisków irański minister spraw zagranicznych Seyed Abbas Araghchi opublikował w mediach społecznościowych grafikę przedstawiającą flagi Iranu i Libanu, sygnalizując, że Teheran przedstawia atak jako akt solidarności z Libanem.

Ostatnie działania irańskiego reżimu w regionie Zatoki Perskiej

Jeszcze przed wystrzeleniem pocisków w kierunku Izraela Iran już eskalował swoją aktywność militarną w innych częściach Bliskiego Wschodu.

Od początku czerwca reżim nasilił ataki w całym regionie Zatoki Perskiej. 3 czerwca Międzynarodowy Port Lotniczy w Kuwejcie został trafiony przez irańskie pociski, w wyniku czego jedna osoba zginęła, a kilka zostało rannych. Kilka dni później Iran przeprowadził kolejną serię ataków rakietowych wymierzonych zarówno w Kuwejt, jak i Bahrajn.

Według stanu na 6 czerwca 2026 r. Gulf Research Center odnotowało ponad 7000 irańskich ataków rakietowych i dronowych na państwa Zatoki Perskiej od momentu wejścia w życie zawieszenia broni. Z danych wynika, że blisko 3000 ataków było wymierzonych w Zjednoczone Emiraty Arabskie, ponad 1000 odpowiednio w Arabię Saudyjską i Kuwejt, natomiast Bahrajn padł celem ponad 700 ataków.

Od czasu wprowadzenia zawieszenia broni w kwietniu Iran wielokrotnie testował granice swojej swobody działania, jednocześnie przedstawiając się jako strona poszkodowana za każdym razem, gdy Stany Zjednoczone odpowiadały na naruszenia rozejmu zagrażające amerykańskiemu personelowi i interesom w regionie.

Teheran wygodnie pomija fakt, że wystrzeliwanie pocisków i dronów przeciwko suwerennym państwom, a także atakowanie amerykańskich sił i zasobów, samo w sobie stanowi wyraźne naruszenie zawieszenia broni.

Irański reżim atakuje Izrael we własnym interesie

Jeszcze przed izraelskimi atakami na cele Hezbollahu w Bejrucie, IDF jasno zapowiedziały, że podejmą takie działania, jeśli Hezbollah będzie nadal naruszał porozumienie o zawieszeniu broni. Dopiero po tym, jak Hezbollah wystrzelił rakiety w kierunku północnego Izraela, Izrael odpowiedział nalotami na stolicę Libanu.

Reakcja Teheranu była natychmiastowa. Irańscy urzędnicy zagrozili Izraelowi „bolesną i zdecydowaną odpowiedzią” za ataki wymierzone w Hezbollah – najważniejszego regionalnego pełnomocnika Iranu, choć obecnie znacznie osłabionego.

Biorąc pod uwagę schemat irańskich ataków rakietowych i dronowych w całym regionie Bliskiego Wschodu, powinno być oczywiste, że wystrzelenie przez Iran ponad 20 pocisków w kierunku Izraela nie było motywowane chęcią „obrony” Libanu. Nie istniało żadne zagrożenie dla libańskiej suwerenności ani dla libańskich cywilów, które wymagałoby irańskiej interwencji.

Był to raczej kolejny przejaw wieloletniej kampanii Iranu przeciwko Izraelowi oraz element szerszej strategii mającej na celu projekcję siły, utrzymanie wpływów regionalnych i niestabilności oraz zachowanie sieci swoich pełnomocników.

Nie powstrzymało to jednak części międzynarodowych mediów przed przyjęciem narracji Iranu.

„The New York Times” poinformował na przykład, że izraelskie naloty na Bejrut „sprowokowały” Iran do „odwetu”.

„The Guardian” podobnie opisał irański ostrzał rakietowy jako przeprowadzony „w odpowiedzi” na izraelskie ataki w Bejrucie.

Jeśli jednak irański ostrzał rakietowy był jedynie reakcją na izraelskie działania wojskowe w Bejrucie, to jak czytelnicy mają interpretować równoczesne ataki na Kuwejt, Bahrajn i inne państwa Zatoki Perskiej?

Odpowiedź brzmi: nie mogą.

Twierdzenie, że Iran działał w celu „obrony” Libanu, załamuje się w konfrontacji z szerszym obrazem regionalnych działań reżimu. Państwo rzeczywiście troszczące się o suwerenność Libanu nie wykorzystywałoby tego kraju jako bazy dla zbrojnej organizacji pełnomocniczej ani nie groziłoby jednocześnie sąsiednim państwom na całym Bliskim Wschodzie.

Działania Iranu są podyktowane jego własnymi interesami strategicznymi. Hezbollah pozostaje jednym z najcenniejszych narzędzi reżimu służących realizacji tych interesów, niezależnie od konsekwencji dla samego Libanu.

Teheran może próbować przedstawiać się jako ofiara występująca w obronie sąsiedniego państwa. Jednak jego dotychczasowe działania opowiadają inną historię.

To nie jest historia o obronie.

To historia reżimu gotowego zdestabilizować cały region w pogoni za swoimi ambicjami ideologicznymi.

Link do oryginału: https://honestreporting.com/from-the-gulf-to-israel-the-iranian-regimes-campaign-of-regional-aggression/?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

Honest Reporting: 7 czerwca 2026

After a decade building acceptance for LGBTQ Orthodox Jews, it’s now unraveling – opinion

SAUNDRA STERLING EPSTEIN/JTA

Rainbow unwelcome mat / (photo credit: JTA)

For years, we were moving the needle steadily and finding more and more synagogues, rabbis, and communities ranging from those completely happy to have our LGBTQ+   Orthodox Jews in their community to those who were guarded and a bit reluctant, willing to learn and join in our work.

Did Angela Merkel Work for the Stasi? The Protected Secrets of Germany’s Recent Chancellor

Drieu Godefridi

• Did Angela Merkel Work for the Stasi? Officially, no…. She has repeatedly stated that she refused recruitment attempts, notably in the late 1970s when applying for an academic position.
• Unofficially, however, the extreme and ongoing protection of her Stasi-related files raises legitimate and troubling questions. In March 2026, the Berlin Administrative Court upheld the Federal Archives’ refusal to grant access to any documents concerning her, even to researchers. This decision shields one of modern Europe’s most consequential leaders from full historical scrutiny — decades after the fall of the Berlin Wall.
• Both of Merkel’s political mentors in 1989-1990 were thus long-term Stasi collaborators…. Merkel’s ascent from relative obscurity to Bundestag member in December 1990, then to Cabinet minister under Kohl, remains one of the most meteoric and least scrutinized in German history.
• Yet no full file has ever been released publicly — and the 2026 court ruling ensured it stays that way.
• The Stasi Records Act (Stasi-Unterlagen-Gesetz) prioritizes personal data protection over research interests…
• The court did not even require the archives to confirm the existence of files or review them in camera.
• This is the same legal framework that allows victims and researchers wide access to files on ordinary citizens and confirmed IMs — but apparently not for Germany’s former chancellor.
• The court’s decision is not merely cautious — it is an intellectual and moral outrage that undermines the very purpose of the Stasi archives: confronting the past to safeguard democracy.
• [T]he ruling creates a two-tier system: ordinary former East Germans must live with full exposure of their Stasi files, while the elite — especially the long-serving chancellor whose policies shaped modern Germany’s migration crisis, energy dependence on Russia, and EU direction — receive extraordinary protection.
• By shielding Merkel’s files, German institutions send a dangerous message: some pasts are too sensitive for the public. In an age of declining trust in elites, this breeds legitimate suspicion. If there is “nothing to hide,” why the extraordinary legal fortress?

The extreme and ongoing protection of former German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Stasi-related files raises legitimate and troubling questions. A democracy that protects its powerful against the truth ceases to be a democracy and returns to the era of suspicion — exactly the trademark of the Stasi. Pictured: Merkel in 2018

The Ministry for State Security (Stasi), the infamous secret police of the communist German Democratic Republic (GDR), was one of the most ruthless and pervasive instruments of repression ever created in Europe. Operating as the iron fist of the communist dictatorship, the Socialist Unity Party of Germany (SED), the Stasi maintained a suffocating web of surveillance over its own population. Nearly 91,000 full-time officers and up to 189,000 unofficial collaborators (Inoffizielle Mitarbeiter, IM) — meaning roughly one in every six or seven East Germans — was spying on family, colleagues, or friends.

Through systematic psychological destruction known as Zersetzung (subversion), the Stasi ruined lives without leaving visible traces. They destroyed careers, marriages and mental health through targeted disinformation, anonymous letters, workplace sabotage and relentless harassment. Political prisoners were tortured in notorious facilities such as Hohenschönhausen, the Stasi prison outside Berlin, where thousands were broken or murdered.

The Stasi kidnapped dissidents abroad, collaborated with international terrorists (including the Red Army Faction (Baader-Meinhof Group) and Palestinian groups), trafficked weapons, and ran a vast network of forced labor and industrial espionage that stole Western technology on a massive scale. By 1989, it had amassed more than six million files on individuals — a monstrous archive of betrayal and fear that turned an entire society into a prison of mutual suspicion. Even today, the full horror of this perfected totalitarian machine remains only partially exposed, its surviving architects and beneficiaries often shielded by post-reunification silence.

Did Angela Merkel Work for the Stasi?

Did Angela Merkel Work for the Stasi? Officially, no. There is no publicly confirmed evidence that Merkel was a Stasi employee or one of the formal Inoffizielle Mitarbeiter (IMs). She has repeatedly stated that she refused recruitment attempts, notably in the late 1970s when applying for an academic position.

Unofficially, however, the extreme and ongoing protection of her Stasi-related files raises legitimate and troubling questions. In March 2026, the Berlin Administrative Court upheld the Federal Archives’ refusal to grant access to any documents concerning her, even to researchers. This decision shields one of modern Europe’s most consequential leaders from full historical scrutiny — decades after the fall of the Berlin Wall.

The Facts on Record: Merkel’s Rapid Rise Amid Stasi Networks

Angela Merkel (née Kasner), born in 1954 in Hamburg, West Germany and raised in Templin, East Germany, is the daughter of Protestant pastor Horst Kasner (known as “the Red Pastor”), who moved his family to the GDR because he embraced the “idea” of communism. Kasner was an advocate for the separation from the West German church and Christian-socialist reconciliation. His Evangelical Church was actively collaborating with communist authorities. Merkel studied physics, earned a doctorate in quantum chemistry, and worked at the Academy of Sciences in Berlin-Adlershof until 1990.

Key documented elements that fuel suspicion:

Free German Youth (FDJ) Involvement: Merkel served as Secretary for Agitation and Propaganda (Agitations- und Propaganda-Sekretärin) in the FDJ at the Academy of Sciences in Berlin-Adlershof, where she worked from 1978 onward — a role that typically required close alignment with the communist regime and cooperation with the Stasi. The position required promoting the state’s communist ideology, organizing political training, and monitoring the political loyalty of colleagues. Holders of such roles were always recruited by or worked closely with the Stasi. Merkel has downplayed this as “cultural affairs,” but contemporaries dispute her account. Her former colleagues asserted she indeed propagated Marxist-Leninist ideology among students and colleagues.

In East Germany, an IM (Inoffizielle Mitarbeiter) was an unofficial collaborator — an informant — who delivered private information to the Ministry for State Security.

Wolfgang Schnur: In late 1989/early 1990, during the Wende (the peaceful revolution), Schnur — a long-time Stasi informant since the mid-1960s who reported on church and opposition figures — founded the Democratic Awakening (Demokratischer Aufbruch) party. He personally recruited the then-unknown 35-year-old Merkel as press spokeswoman in February 1990. Schnur was exposed as a Stasi IM just days before the March 18, 1990 elections, leading to the party’s collapse. Merkel distanced herself but benefited directly from his patronage.

Lothar de Maizière: After Schnur’s fall, Merkel moved seamlessly to the East German branch of West Germany’s Christian Democratic Union (CDU) under Lothar de Maizière, the last Prime Minister of East Germany (April-October 1990). De Maizière, who negotiated German reunification with West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, was himself exposed in December 1990 as a Stasi informant (registered since at least 1981, with files linking him to surveillance of the church and West German contacts). Merkel served as his deputy government spokeswoman. He resigned from the Germany’s federal government shortly after unification when the allegations surfaced.

Both of Merkel’s political mentors in 1989-1990 were thus long-term Stasi collaborators. Both had close ties to her father’s church network, itself deeply engaged in collaboration with the totalitarian regime. Merkel’s ascent from relative obscurity to Bundestag member in December 1990, then to Cabinet minister under Kohl, remains one of the most meteoric and least scrutinized in German history.

Yet no full file has ever been released publicly — and the 2026 court ruling ensured it stays that way.

The Court’s Reasoning: Privacy Above Historical Truth

In March 2026, the Berlin Administrative Court dismissed a lawsuit brought by Marcel Luthe (a researcher and former politician) seeking access to Merkel’s Stasi files. The court ruled that:

1. Merkel was not proven to be a Stasi collaborator, so she does not fall under the categories allowing broader disclosure. The reasoning is quite ironic, given that the investigation is specifically aimed at determining whether or not Merkel did actually collaborate with the Stasi.

2. Merkel was not a sufficiently significant “person of contemporary history” (Person der Zeitgeschichte) before 1990 to justify overriding privacy protections.

3. The Stasi Records Act (Stasi-Unterlagen-Gesetz) prioritizes personal data protection over research interests when no clear collaboration exists.

4. Releasing files could harm Merkel’s privacy rights, although as Chancellor (2005-2021), she was one of the most powerful figures in Europe for 16 years.

The court did not even require the archives to confirm the existence of files or review them in camera. Luthe was ordered to pay around €20,000 in costs.

This is the same legal framework that allows victims and researchers wide access to files on ordinary citizens and confirmed IMs — but apparently not for Germany’s former chancellor.

Why This Ruling Is a Legal and Democratic Aberration

The court’s decision is not merely cautious — it is an intellectual and moral outrage that undermines the very purpose of the Stasi archives: confronting the past to safeguard democracy.

First, Merkel was politically active before 1990. She held a leadership position in the FDJ at a major research institute, joined the DA party during the revolution, and served as its spokeswoman. By early 1990, she was already transitioning into high politics. Her claim that she was a “private person” with no public relevance until after unification strains credulity.

Second, the two men who launched Merkel’s career were both exposed Stasi informants and she had been a staunch Marxist, following in the footsteps of a father whose entire church was possibly a Stasi front. In any transparent democracy, this network would demand full disclosure, not a blanket of secrecy. The public has a legitimate interest in understanding whether Merkel benefited from, navigated, or was protected by these compromised circles.

Third, the ruling creates a two-tier system: ordinary former East Germans must live with full exposure of their Stasi files, while the elite — especially the long-serving chancellor whose policies shaped modern Germany’s migration crisis, energy dependence on Russia, and EU direction — receive extraordinary protection.

Vergangenheitsbewältigung? (Coming to Terms with the Past)

This concealment is the opposite of Vergangenheitsbewältigung (coming to terms with the past), the principle Germany claims to uphold since the Nazi era. By shielding Merkel’s files, German institutions send a dangerous message: some pasts are too sensitive for the public. In an age of declining trust in elites, this breeds legitimate suspicion. If there is “nothing to hide,” why the extraordinary legal fortress?

Germany’s democracy deserves better than selective amnesia. If there is really “nothing to hide,” why such an impenetrable legal shield around a former chancellor? The full opening of Merkel’s Stasi-related documents is not a matter of harassment — it is a matter of historical justice and public accountability.

A democracy that protects its powerful against the truth ceases to be a democracy and returns to the era of suspicion — exactly the trademark of the Stasi. 

Drieu Godefridi is a jurist (University Saint-Louis, University of Louvain), philosopher (University Saint-Louis, University of Louvain) and PhD in legal theory (Paris IV-Sorbonne). He is an entrepreneur, CEO of a European private education group and director of PAN Medias Group. He is the author of The Green Reich (2020).