Germany has not reached a formal agreement on creating a National Security Council. Multiple internal hurdles and questions about operation and leadership stalled the process. Der Spiegel reports that talks slowed over structure, roles, and how authority would be shared, making a quick consensus unlikely. Over months of negotiation, Chancellor Olaf Scholz and Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock, representing the Social Democratic Party and the Greens, found themselves stuck and unable to finalize a decision. As a result, plans for the council were put on hold with no clear timetable for resuming talks. Der Spiegel notes that the central point of disagreement is whether the chancellor would concede certain prerogatives to the new body. Such a shift could alter how decisions are made at the top levels of government. The chancellery is already seen as heavily tasked, and officials worry a supraministerial forum might complicate leadership structures rather than simplify them.
Observers close to the situation suggest that junior coalition partners oppose concentrating too much power within a single administration office. One Green Party faction has proposed a rotating leadership model for the council. The idea is that rotating chair could prevent a single office from dominating influence and maintain checks and balances. In theory, this approach would ensure broad visibility for the council’s decisions while the executive branch pursues urgent national security priorities without centralizing control in one office. Other coalition voices warn that rotation could weaken accountability and hinder strategic continuity during fast moving security situations. The tension between preserving Interior Ministry autonomy and limiting the chancellery’s reach remains a sticking point in discussions that are already highly political.
Earlier in January, Der Spiegel highlighted a delay in adopting a German national security strategy, attributing the postponement to the same frictions between Scholz and Baerbock. The media account framed the issue as less about political will and more about differing visions for the security architecture of the 2020s. Proponents of a strong centralized policy argued that a formal council could harmonize foreign policy, defense, and internal security at the national level. Opponents feared that a board might erode established responsibility lines and create friction with other ministries, including interior, foreign affairs, and defense. As talks proceed or stall, analysts emphasize that the configuration of this potential body would signal Germany’s direction for coordinating security policy in a dynamic European and transatlantic landscape. The coalition’s internal debates reflect broader questions about governance, executive power, and how to balance rapid decision-making with democratic accountability in matters of national safety.