The exploratory talks (Sondierungsgespräche) between the Christian Union parties (CDU/CSU) and the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) constituted the first and most decisive phase of the new government formation process after the early federal elections on Feb. 23, 2025. These talks took place over around two weeks, from Feb. 24 to March 7, 2025, after the final election results. Both parties aimed to lay the groundwork for a coalition government within this short timeframe. The talks concluded on March 8, 2025, with an 11-page document detailing the preliminary coalition findings. This article offers an analysis of the dynamics, main points of discussion, areas of consensus, potential tensions, and political implications of these exploratory talks, based on their specific timeline.
TIMELINE AND BACKGROUND OF THE EXPLORATORY TALKS
Germany held early general elections on Feb. 23, 2025, with preliminary official results announced the same evening. The CDU/CSU coalition placed first with 28.5% of the votes but fell short of expectations. The SPD recorded one of its lowest vote shares in history at 16.4%, while the Alternative for Germany (AfD) became the second-largest party with 20.8%.1 The day after the elections, CDU/CSU's chancellor candidate and CDU leader Friedrich Merz and SPD co-leader Lars Klingbeil quickly decided to begin exploratory talks to form a government by Easter, April 20. The talks in Berlin began with an intense schedule on Feb. 24. On March 7, the parties formalized their consensus in a document on the preliminary coalition talks. This document was presented to the public on March 8 and paved the way for formal coalition negotiations.
This two-week period was shaped by both urgency and political pressure. Geopolitical and economic challenges like the Russia-Ukraine war, the energy crisis, and NATO's defense spending expectations compelled the parties to act quickly. Merz's goal of forming a government by Easter imposed a demanding timetable on the talks. Despite its poor election performance, the SPD was under pressure to deliver tangible gains for its base. In this context, the exploratory talks from Feb. 24 to March 7 served as both a test of trust and a pragmatic search for consensus.
THE NEGOTIATION PROCESS AND KEY DISCUSSION POINTS
In the exploratory talks, the parties focused on three main topics: debt brake and financing, migration, economic and social policies. These issues were the subject of the two-week intense negotiations.2
Debt Brake and Massive Infrastructure Financing During the election campaign, the CDU/CSU had promised not to touch the debt brake (Schuldenbremse), but the SPD's insistence on fiscal flexibility for infrastructure and social spending bore fruit. In the first days of the talks (between Feb. 24 and 26), this topic led to serious friction. On Feb. 27, however, the CDU/CSU hinted that it was open to making concessions due to geopolitical pressures (NATO's target of spending over 2% of the GDP on defense) and the infrastructure crisis. On March 1, the parties agreed in principle on a 500-billion-euro special infrastructure fund (Sondervermögen) and on exempting defense spending from the debt brake. This consensus was detailed by March 7 and included in the preliminary coalition document. However, the financing model (borrowing vs. new revenue sources) remained unclear. Therefore, this issue could emerge as a source of tension in the formal coalition talks.
Migration Policy The CDU/CSU proposed tougher policies on migration and asylum, like turning back migrants at borders and restricting family reunification. The SPD, on the other hand, criticized these proposals. On the second day of the talks, Merz pushed for a strict migration policy, while the SPD resisted on the third day, emphasizing EU law and humanitarian values. On March 2, a middle ground was found: turn-backs would be coordinated with neighboring countries, and family reunification would be suspended for those with "subsidiary protection status." This consensus was finalized in the last talks between March 5 and 7 and was included in the final document. However, this situation showed that the SPD had backed down from its ideological position.
Economic and Social Policies The CDU/CSU proposed a strict basic income system instead of social welfare (Bürgergeld), while the SPD advocated for raising the per-hour minimum wage to 15 euros. This discussion, which began on Feb. 28, was intense until March 3. On March 4, a consensus was reached on reforming social welfare and increasing sanctions for those who refuse work, but the minimum wage increase was not finalized. This decision, reflected in the March 7 document, revealed an effort to balance economic growth with social justice.3
AREAS OF AGREEMENT AND STRATEGIC GOALS
The exploratory talks revealed that the CDU/CSU and SPD had converged around a joint security and future-oriented financial and social package. This consensus was formalized in an 11-page document detailing the preliminary coalition findings, completed on March 7. During these two weeks, the parties acted with the dual goals of responding to Germany's urgent needs and offering concrete solutions to their voters in the face of AfD's rise. The areas of consensus were a broad synthesis of economic, geopolitical, and societal priorities, with each topic reflecting the parties' strategic visions across three main headings: (i) infrastructure and defense, (ii) energy and tax reform, and (iii) climate policies.
INFRASTRUCTURE AND DEFENSE
The 500-billion-euro special fund, agreed upon in principle on March 1, was designed as a comprehensive solution for Germany's long-neglected infrastructure problems. This fund aims to invest in areas such as dilapidated bridges (e.g., structures over the Rhine River), inadequate railway networks, and a lack of digital infrastructure. According to Federation of German Industries (BDI) data, at least 400 billion euros is needed to close the country's infrastructure gap, and this fund was seen as a significant step toward meeting that need.4
The decision on the same day to exempt defense spending from the debt brake was a commitment to meeting NATO's target of spending over 2% of GDP on defense. The Russia-Ukraine war and the U.S.'s tendency to reduce its military presence in Europe forced Germany to allocate an additional 45 billion euros for the modernization of the German Armed Forces (Bundeswehr). The CDU/CSU defended this step as an assertion of leadership in security policy, while the SPD saw it as a factor supporting economic revitalization.
ENERGY AND TAX REFORM
The increase in energy prices was one of the public's biggest complaints, and this issue was put on the table on March 3. The parties agreed to reduce the additional costs – which are a continuation of the electricity tax – to lighten the burden on households and small businesses. This decision was made at a time when dependence on energy imports had decreased, but the costs of the transition to renewable energy were still high. Furthermore, a consensus was reached on a corporate tax rate reduction and research and development (R&D) incentives for companies as part of a tax reform. This agreement reflected the CDU/CSU's effort to fulfill its promises to the business world while aligning with the SPD's goal of creating jobs. For instance, the German Economic Institute (IW) predicted that such a reform could provide an additional 0.5% in annual growth.5 With this consensus, the aim was to both reduce the economic pressure on the public and strengthen Germany's international competitiveness.
CLIMATE POLICIES
Climate goals were addressed toward the end of the exploratory talks (on March 5). The parties agreed to maintain Germany's 2045 carbon neutrality target, but concrete steps in this area remained vague. Critical details, such as the timeline for phasing out coal or the financing of renewable energy investments, were not clarified. The CDU/CSU was concerned with making this goal compatible with economic growth, while the SPD argued that the energy transition should support low-income groups from a social justice perspective. While this consensus indicated that climate policy could take a backseat in a coalition that excludes the Greens, a symbolic common ground on the issue can be said to have been maintained.
Strategically, these agreements represent a synthesis of the CDU/CSU's vision, focused on security and economic growth, with the SPD's demands for infrastructure investment and social security. In the talks that began on Feb. 24, the parties first tried to identify areas of gain that would appeal to their own voter bases: defense and tax reform stood out for the CDU/CSU, while infrastructure and reducing energy prices stood out for the SPD. By March 7, these goals had evolved into an effort to form a united front to prevent the AfD from exploiting economic and security concerns. The document on the exploratory talks aimed to present a concrete vision to the public by framing these strategic goals with the slogan "Preparing Germany for the future." However, the uncertainty of the financing models and the superficiality of the climate policies cast doubt on the feasibility of these agreements.
CHALLENGES AND CRITICAL PERSPECTIVE
The period from Feb. 24 to March 7 created a pragmatic basis for consensus but also highlighted a series of tensions that could affect both the future of the coalition talks and the political legitimacy of the parties. These challenges stem from multi-dimensional factors such as ideological differences, backlash from the voter base, and external pressures.
The Risk of Inconsistency for the CDU/CSU The decision to abandon the debt brake, which was finalized in the talks on March 1, cast a shadow over one of the CDU/CSU's main promises during the election campaign: a commitment to fiscal discipline. This decision could cause serious dissatisfaction, especially within the conservative base. The party had been supported for its shift to the right after the Angela Merkel era, while the expectation of fiscal consistency had also been maintained. The possibility of parties that defend the debt brake harshly criticizing this deviation could lead to CDU leader Merz facing both internal and external pressure in the coalition talks. Merz's leadership authority could be questioned due to this inconsistency.
The SPD's Weak Position The SPD's 16.4% vote share is a historical low, and this has severely limited its bargaining power in the talks. The concessions made to the CDU/CSU on migration policy and social welfare reform risk creating a perception within the party base that social democratic principles have been abandoned. Especially, trade unions and the left wing could see the dilution of social welfare with sanctions as a betrayal. The SPD's tradition of submitting the coalition agreement to a member vote could make this dissatisfaction even more visible. If the base rejects the agreement, the government formation process could come to a complete standstill.
Procedural and Legitimacy Issues The attempt to vote on the packages agreed upon on March 7 in the current parliament formation (i.e., bypassing the newly elected parliament) has created controversy because it brings enormous financial and political commitments without reflecting the will of the new voters. The fact that the new parliament has not yet convened after the February 2025 elections makes this move problematic from the perspective of democratic legitimacy. Opposition parties such as the left-populist Left Party and the right-populist AfD could use this situation for propaganda, framing it as a disregard for the will of the voters. Moreover, the possibility of a lawsuit being filed with the Constitutional Court on the grounds of procedural errors or a violation of the debt brake could lead the process into legal uncertainty and disrupt the legislative calendar.
AfD Pressure AfD's rise to the position of the second-largest party with 20.8% of the vote has indirectly but strongly influenced the exploratory talks. The relaxation of the debt brake and the consensus reached on migration policy could provide material for the AfD's criticisms of "fiscal irresponsibility" and "inadequacy in immigration policies." The AfD, which is especially strong in the eastern states, could use these decisions to expand its base by claiming that the mainstream parties are "elitist" and "detached from the people." This pressure could force the CDU/CSU and the SPD to adopt tougher policies, thus disrupting the coalition's internal balance.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the exploratory talks between Feb. 24 and March 7 were shaped by the CDU/CSU's and the SPD's desire to quickly form a government. The agreements on the debt brake, migration, and the economy provided a foundation for the coalition talks. However, the uncertainty of financing, backlash from the parties' bases, and procedural disputes make this foundation fragile. Academically, this two-week period shows that urgent governance concerns took precedence over ideological consistency. The CDU/CSU's deviation from the debt brake is a display of pragmatic flexibility, while the SPD's concessions are a result of its weaker position. Critically, while the process was a defensive reflex against the AfD, a lack of long-term vision is noteworthy. The planned coalition talks will determine how deep these agreements will go and their feasibility. The current situation points to a risky process for the Grand Coalition negotiations, which are scheduled to begin on March 13.
1“Ergebnisse der Bundestagswahlen” (Results of the Bundestag Elections), wahlrecht.de, (2025), https://www.wahlrecht.de/ergebnisse/bundestag.htm, (Accessed: March 10, 2025).
2“Überblick: Sondierungen abgeschlossen: Was Union und SPD vereinbart haben” (Overview: Exploratory Talks Concluded: What the Union and SPD Agreed On), tagesschau.de, March 8, 2025, https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/innenpolitik/abschluss-sondierungen-hintergrund-100.html, (Accessed: March 10, 2025).
3“Sondierungspapier: Migration bis Bürgergeld: Das haben Union und SPD vereinbart” (Exploratory Document: Migration to Bürgergeld: What the Union and SPD Have Agreed On), mdr.de, March 8, 2025, https://www.mdr.de/nachrichten/deutschland/politik/union-spd-sondierungspapier-buergergeld-migration-familiennachzug-100.html, (Accessed: March 10, 2025).
4“BDI zur Einigung von Union und SPD über Sondervermögen” (BDI on the agreement between the Union and the SPD on the special fund), bdi.eu, March 5, 2025, https://bdi.eu/artikel/news/bdi-zur-einigung-von-union-und-spd-ueber-sondervermoegen, (Accessed: March 10, 2025).
5“Michael Hüther zur Sondierungs-Einigung: ‘Historisch herausragende Zeiten erfordern mutige Entscheidungen’” (Michael Hüther on the exploratory agreement: 'Historically outstanding times require courageous decisions'), iwkoeln.de, March 5, 2025, https://www.iwkoeln.de/presse/iw-nachrichten/michael-huether-historisch-herausragende-zeiten-erfordern-mutige-entscheidungen.html, (Accessed: March 10, 2025).
