The MDR State Treaty, the broadcasting contribution and other media-law state treaties are at the centre of the AfD’s plans in Saxony-Anhalt. If the party takes over the government, it wants to terminate treaties, abolish the broadcasting contribution and significantly reduce public-service broadcasting. Some of this is legally possible. But it would happen neither immediately nor through a single treaty. Terminating the MDR State Treaty would not automatically dissolve the MDR, and the broadcasting contribution would not automatically disappear either.
The Jüdische Allgemeine addressed the question on 3 September 2026 of what options an AfD-led state government in Saxony-Anhalt would have. The basic finding is correct: The state has considerable scope for action regarding the broadcasting system, but is bound by state treaties, termination periods, the state parliament and the Basic Law. One point, however, warrants a more precise legal distinction. Political pressure for reform through a termination is not automatically an abuse of rights. A ruling by the Federal Administrative Court from 1980 already demonstrates this.
What the AfD has actually announced
In its programme for the 2026 state election, the AfD in Saxony-Anhalt is calling for the termination of broadcasting-related state treaties and for public-service broadcasting to be reduced to a so-called basic service. The Federal Agency for Civic Education also summarises the programme accordingly. The MDR also reports on the announced 100-day programme, under which the terminations are to be used as an early measure by a new government to create pressure for reform.
The term “broadcasting state treaties” sounds simpler than the legal situation is. There is no single treaty whose termination would simultaneously bring public-service broadcasting, the MDR and the broadcasting contribution to an end.
Passende X-Beiträge
Aus dem SCHLAGSEITE X-ArchivOne treaty is not the entire broadcasting system
Several separate sets of rules are relevant to Saxony-Anhalt. The Interstate Media Treaty regulates substantial parts of the broadcasting and media framework in all Länder. The Interstate Broadcasting Contribution Treaty regulates the collection of the broadcasting contribution. The Interstate Broadcasting Financing Treaty concerns funding. The MDR State Treaty, in turn, governs the joint broadcaster of Saxony, Saxony-Anhalt and Thuringia.
Terminating just one of these treaties therefore does not automatically trigger the legal consequences of the others. This is the first decisive point of the fact check.
Fact check 1: Can a minister-president terminate a treaty alone?
No. Since 12 May 2026, Saxony-Anhalt has had an amended constitution. Article 69 paragraph 2 now expressly stipulates that both the conclusion and the termination of state treaties require the consent of the state parliament.
The State Parliament of Saxony-Anhalt adopted the amendment on 23 April 2026 with the two-thirds majority required for a constitutional amendment. Previously, only the conclusion of state treaties had expressly been subject to parliamentary approval.
A minister-president could therefore not effectively enforce an exit alone. A government needs a consenting state parliament. If the AfD itself held an absolute majority of the seats after the state election, it could in principle overcome this parliamentary hurdle on its own.
Fact check 2: Does terminating the MDR State Treaty lead to the abolition of the MDR?
No, at least not on its own.
The relevant provision is found in Section 42 of the MDR State Treaty. Each of the three participating Länder may terminate the treaty at the end of a calendar year, subject to a notice period of two years. If no second Land joins within three months, the state treaty remains in force between the other two Länder.
Only if two Länder terminate does the MDR State Treaty cease to apply and the MDR dissolve as a public broadcaster.
Saxony-Anhalt’s termination alone would therefore not eliminate the MDR. The broadcaster could continue as a joint institution of Saxony and Thuringia. After the notice period expired, Saxony-Anhalt would withdraw from the treaty association.
The timing is also important. If a new state government after the election in September 2026 obtained the necessary consent of the state parliament and terminated the treaty by 31 December 2026, the withdrawal could take effect no earlier than 31 December 2028 because of the two-year notice period. In practice, Saxony-Anhalt would no longer belong to the MDR State Treaty as of 1 January 2029.
Fact check 3: Would the broadcasting contribution then disappear?
No. Terminating the MDR State Treaty would not end the broadcasting contribution.
The obligation to pay is based on the Interstate Broadcasting Contribution Treaty. This treaty has its own termination clause. A Land may terminate it with one year’s notice as of certain year-end dates. Since 2020, the possible dates have been two years apart in each case.
For a government formed after the state election in September 2026, the date of 31 December 2026 would already no longer be attainable, because the one-year notice period for that date expired at the end of 2025. The next regular termination date would be 31 December 2028.
The situation is similar with the Interstate Media Treaty. It, too, provides for a one-year notice period with termination dates occurring every two years. Section 116 also allows a Land, when terminating the Interstate Media Treaty, to terminate the Interstate Broadcasting Contribution Treaty and the Interstate Broadcasting Financing Treaty at the same time and with effect from the same date.
This means that a new government could initiate the political and parliamentary steps for an exit very quickly. However, the legal effect could not be brought forward to the first day in office.
Four treaties, four different functions
| Treaty | What is it about? | Deadline for a new government from autumn 2026 | Consequences of Saxony-Anhalt’s termination |
|---|---|---|---|
| MDR State Treaty | Organisation of the MDR in Saxony, Saxony-Anhalt and Thuringia | Two years at the end of a year. If terminated by the end of 2026, no earlier than 31 December 2028. | Saxony-Anhalt withdraws. The MDR can continue between Saxony and Thuringia. |
| Interstate Media Treaty | Basic framework for broadcasting, telemedia, platforms and other media services | One year to the scheduled termination date. After the 2026 election, the next regular attainable date is 31 December 2028. | The treaty remains in force between the other Länder. |
| Interstate Broadcasting Contribution Treaty | Collection of the broadcasting contribution | One year to the scheduled termination date. After the 2026 election, the next regular attainable date is 31 December 2028. | The contribution does not lapse nationwide. The other Länder remain bound. |
| Interstate Broadcasting Financing Treaty | Funding rules for public-service broadcasting | Its own termination rules with a one-year notice period and a two-year cycle. | The funding framework of the other Länder remains in force. |
The table shows why the political formula “terminate state treaties” is catchy but legally imprecise. Depending on which treaty is meant, the deadline, addressee and legal consequence change.
Fact check 4: Could Saxony-Anhalt simply have no public-service broadcasting at all afterwards?
It is not that simple.
The Basic Law stipulates neither the name MDR nor its current organisational form or the current number of programmes. However, the freedom of broadcasting under Article 5 paragraph 1 sentence 2 of the Basic Law requires a broadcasting system that guarantees free and diverse formation of opinion.
The Federal Constitutional Court ruled in 2021 that, for the existing dual broadcasting system, the Länder must ensure adequate funding for public-service broadcasting. The Court also speaks of a guarantee of continued existence and development intended to enable public-service broadcasting to fulfil its public-service mandate.
This does not mean that every current programme, every structure and every state broadcaster would be unchangeable. The legislature has room for manoeuvre. A Land can change its broadcasting system and create a different institutional structure. However, a legal vacuum in which the requirements of broadcasting freedom were simply ignored would scarcely be compatible with the existing constitutional case law.
An older ruling by the Federal Administrative Court concerning the NDR of that time also points in the same direction. If a Land withdraws from a multi-Land state treaty, the existing broadcaster loses its state-treaty legal basis there. The Land concerned must then create a viable new system itself.
Fact check 5: Is a smaller “basic service” automatically unconstitutional?
No, that statement would be too sweeping.
The Federal Constitutional Court protects the ability of public-service broadcasting to function, not every individual organisational decision made today. How far a Land may reduce services, alter structures or reorganise funding channels therefore depends on the specific statutory design.
A significantly smaller service would not be unconstitutional merely because it is smaller. It would become problematic if public-service broadcasting could no longer fulfil its constitutionally protected mandate, were financially starved or placed under political control.
The Constitution does not guarantee the MDR in its current form. But it does set limits on how a state government may restructure the broadcasting system. What matters is not a broadcaster’s size alone, but whether diversity, functionality, funding and independence from the state continue to be guaranteed.
Fact check 6: Is creating “pressure for reform” through a termination automatically an abuse of rights?
No. This is precisely where the legal situation is more nuanced than some current accounts suggest.
The Jüdische Allgemeine refers to the case law of the Federal Administrative Court and writes that a termination may not be used abusively. It could become problematic if it impaired broadcasting freedom or deliberately weakened public-service broadcasting. As a general constitutional warning, this is understandable. But it does not follow that the political intention alone of creating pressure for reform through a termination would make the termination ineffective.
The Federal Administrative Court ruled on 28 May 1980 about the termination of the NDR State Treaty at the time by Schleswig-Holstein. The state government had expressly justified the termination by stating that it wanted to bring about a reform of the NDR. Among other things, the issue concerned program diversity, balance, consideration of social groups, and more economical use of license fees.
The court did not declare the termination invalid merely because of this intention to reform. On the contrary: It determined that Schleswig-Holstein could effectively withdraw from the treaty arrangement and that the treaty between Hamburg and Lower Saxony remained in force.
This is relevant to today’s debate. Termination can be a political instrument for renegotiating a state treaty. It does not become unlawful merely because it creates pressure.
The decisive boundary lies elsewhere: A government may not use the broadcasting system to politically control reporting, sanction unwelcome journalistic content, or place a broadcaster under state control.
Independence from the state is the clearer constitutional boundary
Here, the case law of the Federal Constitutional Court is clear.
In the ZDF judgment of March 25, 2014 the court described preventing political instrumentalization as the core of broadcasting freedom. State and state-affiliated actors may not dominate supervisory bodies to such an extent that they can influence reporting in order to pursue their own political or party-political interests.
This applies regardless of which party is in government.
A state government may criticize public-service broadcasting. It may demand reforms, change structures, and, within the framework of the treaties, also terminate them. But it may not turn this into a government broadcaster.
The fact-check in one sentence
ℹ️ Fact-check
In principle, Saxony-Anhalt can terminate state treaties relating to broadcasting. Since May 2026, the state government has required the consent of the state parliament to do so. A termination by Saxony-Anhalt alone would not dissolve the MDR. The broadcasting contribution would likewise not automatically end as a result. Several treaties would have to be terminated separately, their deadlines observed, and a new broadcasting system compliant with the constitution subsequently established.
What an absolute majority would actually change
An absolute AfD majority in the state parliament would not override the legal situation, but it would considerably increase the party’s political power to implement its agenda. It could secure the parliamentary approval required since May for terminating state treaties on its own and then initiate renegotiations or a state-level restructuring of the broadcasting system.
Saxony-Anhalt could not use this to force other states to withdraw. Saxony and Thuringia could continue the MDR. Nationwide, the Interstate Media Treaty and the broadcasting contribution would also remain in force in the other states.
Nor could a state parliamentary majority abolish broadcasting freedom or the case law of the Federal Constitutional Court through a simple parliamentary resolution. Any new broadcasting system would be subject to judicial review. The MDR has already announced that it would take legal action against a possible termination of the MDR State Treaty by a new state government.
The correct answer therefore lies between the political extremes: An AfD government with its own majority in the state parliament could substantially change Saxony-Anhalt’s broadcasting system and terminate existing state treaties. However, it could neither abolish the MDR nor the broadcasting contribution immediately with a single resolution. And “pressure for reform” is not automatically unconstitutional. What matters is what is created after the termination and whether broadcasting freedom, financing, and independence from the state are preserved.
ℹ️ Factual basis and primary sources for the article 📑
▶️ State Parliament of Saxony-Anhalt:
Amended rules for parliamentary operations, April 23, 2026
Documents the 2026 parliamentary reform and the new parliamentary reservation concerning the termination of state treaties.
▶️ Saxon State Chancellery / REVOSax:
State Treaty on the Central German Broadcasting Corporation, Section 42
Regulates the notice period, associated termination, and continued validity of the MDR State Treaty between the remaining states.
▶️ Interstate Media Treaty:
Section 116 MStV, Termination
Regulates termination of the Interstate Media Treaty and the possibility of terminating the Interstate Treaty on Broadcasting Contributions and the Interstate Treaty on Broadcasting Financing at the same time.
▶️ Interstate Treaty on Broadcasting Contributions:
Section 15, Duration and Termination of the Treaty
Regulates the notice period and termination dates of the Interstate Treaty on Broadcasting Contributions.
▶️ Interstate Treaty on Broadcasting Financing:
Section 17, Duration and Termination of the Treaty
Regulates termination of the Interstate Treaty on Broadcasting Financing.
▶️ Federal Constitutional Court:
Decision of July 20, 2021, broadcasting financing
Concerning functionally appropriate financing, the guarantee of existence and development, and the states’ shared responsibility.
▶️ Federal Constitutional Court:
Judgment of March 25, 2014, ZDF State Treaty
Landmark decision on independence from the state and preventing the political instrumentalization of public-service broadcasting.
▶️ Federal Administrative Court:
Judgment of May 28, 1980, BVerwG 7 A 2.79
Historic landmark decision on terminating the NDR State Treaty and a state’s withdrawal from a multi-state broadcasting corporation.
▶️ Federal Agency for Civic Education:
AfD for the 2026 Saxony-Anhalt state election
Summary of key policy points, including the demand for a reduced basic broadcasting service.
▶️ Jüdische Allgemeine:
Can the AfD terminate state treaties on media issues?
Starting point of the research and current overview from September 3, 2026.
🔎 Found an error, criticism, or addition?
SCHLAGSEITE.eu stands for careful research and transparent corrections. Have you discovered a factual error, unclear wording, or a broken link? Then send me your note. If possible, please provide a verifiable source.
