German federal and state officials have alleged that Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) lawmakers have systematically used parliamentary inquiries to elicit sensitive information on the Bundeswehr and critical infrastructure, amid concerns that such material could be of value to Moscow.
The claims point to a pattern of detailed questions on military capabilities, counter-drone measures, cyber defence and infrastructure vulnerabilities. Senior figures in the defence establishment are said to be alarmed by what they view as coordinated requests designed to map gaps in Germany’s security posture.
Thomas Röwekamp (CDU/CSU), the chair of the Bundestag’s Defence Committee since May 2025, warned that AfD submissions appear “systematically interconnected and very detailed”, suggesting an attempt to obtain militarily sensitive information that could benefit foreign powers, “not least Russia”.
Thuringia’s interior minister, Georg Maier (SPD), has been among the most outspoken critics. He accused AfD deputies of abusing questioning rights to “scope out” critical infrastructure, arguing the pattern resembles “a Kremlin task list”. According to Maier, at least 47 such requests were lodged in Thuringia over the past year, covering transport, water, digital networks, energy, police IT (including drone detection), civil protection and aspects of Bundeswehr equipment. AfD rejects the charge.
The defence ministry is reported to share concerns. Officials in the Bendlerblock believe some AfD inquiries look coordinated and aimed at spotlighting capability gaps; the impression is that “question catalogues from Moscow” are being worked through.
Documented examples indicate that AfD has asked multiple ministries for precise technical details. Bundestag bulletins show AfD inquiries seeking the number of ministerial data centres, how many meet IT-security standards, which facilities have proven emergency power, and what contingency plans exist for cyber incidents. While parliamentary scrutiny is routine, officials warn that granular answers about infrastructure resilience could be operationally sensitive.
Political reaction in Berlin has sharpened. Jens Spahn, leader of the CDU/CSU group, called the suspicion that MPs might be acting in the interests of a hostile state “grave” and demanded that AfD co-leader Alice Weidel give a full account of her party’s practices.
AfD denies wrongdoing. First parliamentary managing director Bernd Baumann has characterised the allegations as “absurd suspicions” and said the party’s questions expose shortcomings in the public interest. Co-leader Tino Chrupalla rejected the suggestion of spying as a “brazen insolence”.
The debate reached the Bundestag floor on 5 November, when parties held an Aktuelle Stunde on “the impact of AfD’s relationship with Russia on Germany’s security interests”. Coalition and Green speakers accused AfD of acting as a “Trojan horse” for the Kremlin; Die Linke also criticised AfD’s Russia links.
Separate developments have reinforced scrutiny of AfD’s contacts with Russian actors. Two AfD Bundestag members, Steffen Kotré and Rainer Rothfuß, are scheduled to travel to Sochi from 13 to 16 November, followed by participation in a “BRICS-Europe” symposium; an internal note cited by media puts the trip under the party’s foreign-policy working group. In October, three AfD members of the Saxony-Anhalt state parliament attended a birthday event for Vladimir Putin at the Russian embassy in Berlin, drawing cross-party criticism.
AfD figures have also discussed further travel to Russia. In October, deputy parliamentary leader Markus Frohnmaier said he planned a trip in the spring to keep “channels of communication” open, prompting warnings from governing-party politicians about security risks. He has since said there are no concrete plans at present.
Not all authorities have identified concrete evidence of espionage. A late-October survey of interior ministries by Handelsblatt reported that other federal states had not found indications beyond Thuringia to substantiate the suspicion of coordinated intelligence gathering through parliamentary questions.
The legal and procedural context is relevant. Parliamentary inquiries—large and small—are a core instrument of opposition oversight, and responses are usually public. Security agencies and ministries can, however, restrict or classify answers where disclosure would harm national security. The present debate turns on whether a high volume of highly specified questions, taken together across departments, crosses a threshold into the systematic harvesting of sensitive data. As of today, the allegations rest on patterns described by ministers and committee leaders, with AfD denying any intent to aid a foreign power.
