Germany’s Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV) has formally reclassified the Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) as a “proven right-wing extremist” party.
The decision marks a significant escalation in the state’s approach to monitoring the political group, which has seen growing support in parts of the country and now counts over 50,000 members.
Until now, the AfD had been treated as a Verdachtsfall—a suspected case of extremism—since 2021. That status allowed the BfV to conduct surveillance under specific legal conditions. However, the new designation lifts the requirement for suspicion and confirms that the agency considers the party as demonstrably pursuing aims contrary to Germany’s liberal democratic order.
The updated assessment is based on a comprehensive report compiled by the BfV and was referenced in earlier legal proceedings brought by the AfD at the Higher Administrative Court in North Rhine-Westphalia. At that time, the party had contested its classification as a suspect case, arguing that the agency relied on isolated statements made by a small number of individuals, which it claimed did not represent the party as a whole.
However, the latest report suggests otherwise. It draws from a large volume of material and documents public statements from more than 350 AfD functionaries, including Bundestag and European Parliament members, regional leaders, and officials from the now-disbanded youth wing, Junge Alternative. The BfV concludes that the frequency, consistency and hierarchical breadth of these statements indicate a widespread and entrenched ideological posture incompatible with Germany’s constitutional framework.
The agency sets out clear criteria for this new classification. It asserts that anti-constitutional aims must not only be present but must be majority-supported within the party. It must be possible to observe a general tendency within the organisation to pursue such aims, either through calls for systemic change, elevation of extremists to influential roles, or a pattern of hostile rhetoric that remains unchallenged internally.
Among those cited in the report are party leaders Alice Weidel and Tino Chrupalla. The report highlights statements by Weidel suggesting a cultural incompatibility between German society and migrants, claiming in an interview that “knife crime” was alien to German culture and that clashes between migrants and German values were inevitable. The BfV describes such assertions as examples of collective denigration and exclusion of migrant communities.
The analysis also references regional and federal party officials who refer to migrants as “invasive species” or “Passdeutsche” (passport Germans), suggesting that German citizenship does not confer genuine German identity. Such comments, according to the agency, challenge the constitutional principle of equality and human dignity.
The BfV further notes a lack of significant resistance to such rhetoric within the party. It states that no current member of the AfD’s federal executive board has demonstrably acted to counter these tendencies. On the contrary, many are themselves recorded making similar remarks. The agency concludes that there is no indication that moderate forces within the AfD are likely to reverse this trend.
According to the report, what distinguishes the current assessment from previous evaluations is not only the content of the statements but their structural entrenchment. The BfV contends that the use of ethnically defined notions of the German people, often linked to political goals, has become frequent and standardised across all party levels.
Statements by figures such as Björn Höcke, Maximilian Krah, and other prominent members amplify themes such as “replacement migration,” “ethnic redefinition,” and the alleged “disempowerment” of the German people through immigration and naturalisation. Some members have even claimed that current demographic policies amount to a “cold coup” against the native population.
The agency argues that such positions represent not mere lapses or isolated instances of inflammatory rhetoric, but rather a coherent and sustained ideological line. It contends that these narratives mirror core elements of historical nationalist ideologies and breach Germany’s constitutional protections for individual rights, democracy, and the rule of law.
The findings come at a politically sensitive time, as the AfD continues to make gains in regional elections, particularly in the eastern federal states. While the party leadership maintains that it is being unfairly targeted for political reasons, the new classification empowers the state to intensify its surveillance and potential restrictions.
The classification does not entail an outright ban, which would require a ruling by the Federal Constitutional Court. However, the reclassification as a proven extremist body marks the most serious step yet by the state against a party represented in the Bundestag.
Observers note that the decision may have implications for civil service employment, as individuals affiliated with the AfD may now be regarded as security risks. It may also affect the party’s access to public facilities, funding, and participation in democratic forums.
The BfV’s report concludes with the view that the AfD, in its current form, is no longer a party within the democratic spectrum but one that actively undermines the principles of the Basic Law. The agency warns that further inaction could permit the consolidation of anti-democratic forces within the political system.
The AfD leadership has announced its intention to challenge the classification in court. A legal battle over the implications of the ruling is expected to follow in the coming months.
Read also:
Germany and the United States Clash over AfD Extremism Ruling
