Freedom House Security T ransnational repression is a threat to personal safety and an infringement on the rights guaranteed by the German constitution. Germany’s Foreign Intelligence Service (BND) and Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV) are responsible for issues related to security at the national level, though the country’s federal structure requires a degree of coordination with subnational offices and law enforcement. The BfV recognizes that Germany is a “target for a wide range of political espionage.” 6 Authorities are consequently attuned to clandestine activities by foreign states. However, they overlook opportunities to address the specific threat posed by transnational repression in favor of other national security and foreign policy priorities. Acts of transnational repression are frequently folded into responses to terrorism and radicalization, which obscures their impact and distracts from creating appropriate policy responses. Iran, and Turkey, and describes the Khangoshvili assassination as an act of state-sponsored terrorism.10 A previous version of the report also identified Egyptians in Germany as potential targets of Egyptian intelligence.11 Government awareness and national security priorities Viewing tactics of transnational repression as a subset of existing national security priorities—specifically, terrorism and radicalization—rather than as a standalone threat to safety and human rights limits the German government’s ability to recognize potential victims. Germany’s current approach to transnational repression is best exemplified by a BfV 2018 brochure designed for refugees in German titled, “How can I identify extremists and members of foreign secret services within my environment?” The document notes the presence of foreign operatives within Germany who may surveil or intimidate refugees and encourages people to report suspicious activity to refugee accommodation centers, local police, or the BfV. However, because the brochure is focused on radicalization, terrorism, and activities by extremist groups, it counterproductively identifies refugees as a potential source of threats to Germany, rather than as potential victims of foreign repression. While certain German authorities demonstrate a relatively high level of awareness of the of tactics transnational repression, the government fails to recognize it as a distinct phenomenon. In a 2020 interview, BfV president Thomas Haldenwang suggested that the Russian government’s assassination of Khangoshvili and other similar attacks are intended to have a deterrent effect on diaspora. He noted that foreign governments are increasingly interested in diasporas in Germany, citing Turkey and Iran as examples.7 Similarly, Bruno Kahl, head of the BND, described extraterritorial assassinations in Germany, including the Khangoshvili murder, as part of the perpetrator states’ foreign policy.8 The Khangoshvili murder also precipitated numerous rounds of inquiry from members of parliament, including into the nature of the Russian government’s cooperation with German investigations.9 The BfV’s 2020 report on the protection of the constitution identified Russia, China, Iran, and Turkey as engaging in activities that constitute transnational repression, including surveillance of dissidents. The report does not address transnational repression as a unique phenomenon; examples are instead included in a broad section about activities by foreign powers that threaten the German state’s security, including counterintelligence, cyberattacks, intellectual property theft, and propaganda. The section only addresses traditionally adversarial governments, namely Russia, China, Acts of transnational repression are frequently folded into responses to terrorism and radicalization, which obscures their impact and distracts from creating appropriate policy responses. In 2017, the Turkish-Islamic Union for Religious Affairs (DİTİB) admitted that some of its imams had facilitated transnational repression by surveilling individuals suspected of being connected to the movement of religious leader Fethullah Gülen, at the behest of the Turkish government. These allegations precipitated an investigation by the federal prosecutor’s office and contributed to the government’s eventual decision to no longer fund projects with DİTİB.12 However, the decision was also a response to multiple DİTİBrelated controversies otherwise unrelated to transnational repression, and again reflected the government’s broader freedomhouse.org 3