The Greens are accusing Health Minister Nina Warken (CDU) of obfuscating the true financial burden stemming from the controversial mask procurement practices of her predecessor, Jens Spahn. Paula Piechotta, parliamentary spokesperson for health for the Green Party, leveled the criticism in a recent interview with the “Tagesspiegel”, highlighting a stark disconnect between the ministry’s publicly presented budget and the escalating costs associated with the lingering fallout of the “mask affair.
Piechotta questioned Warken during ongoing budget negotiations for 2026 regarding the projected expenses for storing, transporting and ultimately destroying the excess masks ordered under Spahn’s leadership. Under the blanket term “ancillary costs” the ministry now estimates these expenses will reach up to €44.5 million. Further costs are projected, including €18.5 million for logistical services and a substantial €26 million for legal fees. Crucially, the ministry anticipates needing up to €480 million in 2026 to settle payments to mask suppliers after the conclusion of ongoing legal proceedings.
However, Minister Warken has allocated a mere €5.4 million within the health budget to cover these aggregate liabilities. The remaining sum, representing a significant shortfall, is reportedly intended to be absorbed through leftover funds, a practice Piechotta views as deliberately misleading.
“Democracy functions effectively only when governmental actions are transparent and open to scrutiny” Piechotta stated. She argues that presenting a superficially “clean” budget while simultaneously acknowledging a looming liability of nearly half a billion euros for the next year is a calculated attempt to conceal the scale of the debacle surrounding Spahn’s mask deals.
The criticism underscores a growing political tension regarding accountability and transparency within the Health Ministry. Opposition parties are likely to seize upon this issue to challenge the CDU’s handling of the affair and demand a more comprehensive and honest accounting of the financial consequences of past procurement decisions. The maneuver to cover costs with leftover funds suggests a prioritization of political optics over fiscal responsibility, potentially undermining public trust in the government’s ability to manage crisis-related expenditures effectively.