A critical commentary on the 2026 internal security budget of Hesse, Federal Republic of Germany

The 2026 budget for internal security in Hesse, one of Germany’s 16 federal states, reaches a new record high of around €2.4 billion – roughly €60 million more than the previous year. Given a security environment shaped by sabotage, espionage, drone attacks, rising extremism, social crime, and the ongoing threat to Jewish life, these investments are understandable and, in many respects, necessary. Few would seriously dispute that the police, domestic intelligence services, and fire and disaster protection authorities must be properly equipped to fulfil their duties.

Precisely for that reason, however, the budget warrants a second look – beyond the self-assured claim that it simply sets “the right priorities”.

Record spending as a sign of societal imbalance

That a federal state introduces a record budget for internal security despite austerity measures is not merely a sign of political resolve. It is, above all, an indicator of profound societal and political shifts. The Hessian state government itself lists the reasons: increasing radicalisation at the extremes, an expanded focus on left-wing extremism, more repressive measures, additional CCTV coverage, an inner-city security offensive, action days against social crime, and a growing emphasis on combating child sexual abuse.

Taken together, these measures point less to a net gain in security than to an accumulation of unresolved problems that have been allowed to deepen over many years.

Prevention remains secondary

The democracy promotion programme, funded with €8.8 million in state resources, will continue and has been expanded in scope. Yet compared with the billions allocated to policing, technology, personnel costs, rent and usage fees, preventive work remains marginal. The political message is clear: social conflict is addressed primarily through the lens of security policy, rather than through social, educational or integration policy.

The continued digitalisation of the police – mobile devices, new apps, modern analytical tools and efforts to reduce bureaucracy – is undoubtedly sensible. It improves efficiency. But it does not address the root causes of radicalisation, social exclusion or the erosion of trust in public institutions.

Technology cannot replace social cohesion

The expansion of video surveillance, continued funding for the protection of Jewish institutions, and the intensive deployment of police forces at major events – from the EURO 2024 football championship to Christmas markets and countless demonstrations – all demonstrate a state that reacts, often professionally and with commitment. That such responses are necessary speaks to the capabilities of the security services. It also speaks volumes about the condition of the broader social climate.

The same applies to fire and disaster protection, which relies on more than 80,000 volunteers in Hesse. Recognition bonuses, investment in vehicles, equipment and fire stations, and the expansion of the State Fire Service School in Kassel into a modern training centre are all justified. Yet here, too, a pattern emerges: public resilience increasingly depends on voluntary commitment, while the structural causes of crises – such as social inequality or political polarisation – receive comparatively little attention.

A contrasting reminder from historical memory

Support for the cultural heritage of expellees and ethnic German resettlers, particularly in the year marking Hesse’s 80th anniversary, offers a telling contrast. It recalls that social cohesion in the past was built through integration, solidarity and shared reconstruction – not through surveillance technology, analytical software or an ever-greater police presence.

Conclusion

The 2026 internal security budget for Hesse is technically sound, in parts necessary, and rightly recognises those who ensure public safety under often difficult conditions. At the same time, it serves as a mirror of societal shortcomings.

When security policy becomes ever more expensive, this is not only due to new threats. It also reflects a society that is increasingly failing to resolve conflicts early, politically, socially and culturally.

Security is indeed the foundation of democracy.
But a democracy that must invest ever more heavily simply to maintain its stability should ask itself why that price keeps rising.