At the Federal Office for the Safety of Nuclear Waste Management (BASE), there are increasing signs that the agency is losing sight of its core task. It is supposed to drive the search for a final repository for nuclear waste, but it is increasingly communicating like a player in energy policy. This is problematic, because a specialized agency must not be preaching, but rather working objectively. Precisely for this reason, the latest conflict doesn’t seem like a peripheral issue, but rather a warning sign for the entire repository process. (welt: 24.01.26)
Internal open letter: Accusations of partisan politicization
Apollo News reports on an anonymous open letter from the Federal Office for the Safety of Public Works (BASE) addressed to the responsible minister, making serious accusations. According to the letter, the office is “in the hands of the Greens,” and experts have “always had difficulties with the office’s partisan orientation.” Furthermore, the letter states that professional work is “only possible to a limited extent” because large parts of the work are “determined by Green party politics.” These statements are not just a typical bureaucratic squabble, but an attack on the fundamental principle of a neutral administration.
What’s explosive here isn’t just the tone, but the direction. If internal voices describe the agency as effectively controlled by party politics, then every decision suffers from a legitimacy problem. And the search for a final repository depends on public acceptance because it will have an impact for decades and directly affects regions. Therefore, this accusation hits BASE harder than any external criticism.
Bloody Bureaucracy and Political Leadership
The significant expansion of personnel fits this picture. The debate centers on increasing the number of positions from 40 (2016) to 523 (2025), a massive enlargement of the agency. More staff can be beneficial, but it seems like an end in itself when internal documents simultaneously lament a lack of expertise. Moreover, the political leanings of the leadership are clearly identifiable, as BASE President Christian Kühn is a well-known Green Party politician.
This is precisely why the agency’s mandate is crucial. BASE’s role is not to downplay nuclear energy or orchestrate debates. Its task is to solve disposal issues transparently, reliably, and without partisan bias. When employees speak of “self-serving practices” and “party politics,” this must be treated as an organizational risk. Otherwise, trust will crumble before technical issues are even properly resolved.
WNISR as an official line: Activist source, official amplifier
Added to this is the external communication, which comes across as a campaign. BASE promotes the “World Nuclear Industry Status Report” and states: “BASE, together with other institutions, therefore supports the WNISR 2025 project.” In doing so, the agency is making a report the official reference, even though the WNISR is clearly perceived in the public debate as a project critical of nuclear power. The list of partners in the German presentation also reveals a political embedding, as the Heinrich Böll Foundation is among those involved.
The problem is not that an agency reads studies. The problem is that it takes sides in its communication and thereby forfeits its neutral status. Those responsible for nuclear waste disposal policy must not engage in PR for an interpretive agenda. And anyone who wants to convince citizens needs a plurality of sources, not a single line of reasoning. This is precisely where BASE acts like an authority expanding its mandate, even though it lacks democratic legitimacy to do so.
Consequences: Technical Supervision, Audit, and Reduction of Political Communication
If the open letter is even partially accurate, a formal review is necessary, conducted by technical supervisory authorities and the Court of Auditors. Furthermore, BASE’s communication should be strictly limited to disposal and safety issues to prevent any secondary political agenda. The expansion of personnel also needs to be scrutinized, as growth without clear output can appear like mere bureaucratic oversight. Finally, BASE must explain why it supports a report instead of offering a detached perspective and disclosing conflicting data.
The core issue remains simple, yet unsatisfactory: An agency responsible for nuclear waste disposal must not act like an anti-nuclear power organization. Otherwise, the search for a repository will become a political battleground, even though it must be a long-term technical project. Therefore, the bar is set higher than in typical departmental debates. Anyone who dilutes this mandate risks stagnation, increased costs, and a loss of trust.