Skip to content

Spending Citizens' Funds: Is It Right to Cut Aid to Ukraine?

Rising security expenses are sparking debates over cost-cutting measures, with a plan from Bavaria seemingly lacking support.

Spending billions on citizens: is it fair to cut funds for Ukrainians?
Spending billions on citizens: is it fair to cut funds for Ukrainians?

Spending Citizens' Funds: Is It Right to Cut Aid to Ukraine?

Germany's coalition government has drafted a law to reduce state benefits for newly arrived Ukrainian refugees, effective from April 1, 2025. Under this reform, Ukrainians arriving after that date would no longer receive the Citizen’s Allowance but instead benefits under the lower Asylum Seekers’ Benefits Act [1][3][4].

This move is part of the government's efforts to reduce welfare spending on refugees, amid ongoing debates. The proposed change requires approval from the cabinet and the upper house of parliament and is expected to take effect by the end of 2025 [1].

The reform affects new arrivals only; there is no indication that benefits already received must be returned, and legal clarifications suggest existing recipients are protected from retroactive cuts [2]. For singles, the Citizen’s Allowance is currently at 563 euros per month, while singles receiving asylum seeker benefits receive 441 euros. Accommodation costs may be added in both cases [5].

The Ministry of Social Affairs is confident that the planned innovations will bring overall savings from 2026, and a decrease in the number of benefit recipients is already noticeable in the Citizen's Income [6]. However, economist Enzo Weber from the Institute for Employment Research IAB emphasizes the importance of the Citizen's Income system for job placement, advice, and qualification for refugees. He stresses that the integration of refugees into the labor market takes time [7].

Bavarian Minister-President Markus Söder (CSU) proposed to withdraw the Citizen's Allowance from all refugees from Ukraine and only grant them the lower asylum seeker benefits [4]. Sahra Wagenknecht, founder of the BSW, is the only politician initially to clearly support Söder's proposal [8].

The employee wing of the union strongly opposes Söder's proposal, with SPD politician Dirk Wiese stating that the savings are overestimated and the administrative burden on municipalities would be enormous [9]. Municipalities cannot bear the costs for Ukrainian refugees themselves and would require full coverage from the federal government and the states [10].

Thorsten Frei, Chief of Staff, shows himself open to Söder's proposal but criticizes that only one in three employable Ukrainians is working in Germany and acknowledges that the coalition agreement can only be changed in agreement [11]. A reform of the Citizen's Income is pending, as agreed in the coalition agreement, with a focus on preventing abuse and criminal activities [12].

More people are being integrated into the labor market through the restructuring of basic security, according to the Ministry of Social Affairs spokeswoman [13]. The Ministry of Economics, led by Katherina Reiche, states that it must be that working is more worthwhile than staying at home [5].

In summary: - Reform applies to Ukrainians arriving in Germany from April 1, 2025. - Citizen’s Allowance will be replaced by lower benefits under asylum law. - Monthly benefits will drop by about 100 euros per refugee. - Related legislation requires parliamentary approval later in 2025. - The change aligns with coalition goals to save welfare costs and is part of ongoing policy discussions [1][2][3][4].

  1. The proposed change in Germany's refugee benefits, set to take effect in 2025, is part of a broader discussion on politics, business, and general-news, as the government aims to reduce welfare spending.
  2. Among the ongoing policy debates, the reduction of state benefits for newly arrived Ukrainian refugees includes a shift from the Citizen’s Allowance to the lower Asylum Seekers’ Benefits Act, which could impact both the finance and business sectors through increased administrative burden on municipalities and potential labor market implications.

Read also:

    Latest