First, the German government pushed out an unvetted report to brand the largest opposition party as ‘right-wing extremist.’ Then, they claimed it had to stay secret to protect sensitive sources. Now it turns out they lied: The entire report is based on public information.
The Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz, BfV), Germany’s domestic intelligence agency, placed the political party Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) at the center of national political debate after it, on May 2nd, officially classified the party as a “proven right-wing extremist organization” (gesichert rechtsextrem). This designation, announced with the backing of outgoing Interior Minister Nancy Faeser (SPD), is based on a report exceeding 1,100 pages, which was initially kept classified. The institutional rationale was clear: to protect sensitive sources and preserve the agency’s operational methods. However, the official narrative began to unravel when media outlets accessed the full content of the document and published it. Their conclusions are unequivocal: the report contains no classified sources, nor does it include any information that would compromise state security. Rather, the document is an extensive compilation of public statements, social media posts, policy papers, and speeches by party representatives.
The BfV itself states in the report that the analysis is based on “Statements and activities of representatives, officeholders, and organizational units of the AfD,” and that the sources used were “Programmatic writings, publications, statements on internet platforms and social networks, as well as statements in public settings, such as speeches at campaign events.” In other words, the analysis relies entirely on publicly available material. This directly contradicts the justification for keeping the report secret, drawing significant criticism from the media and legal scholars. According to Cicero, the classification was not intended to protect the Verfassungsschutz from external threats, but to conceal the report’s weak foundation from public scrutiny.
The report includes a broad array of quotes that the BfV interprets as indicators of extremist ideology. One of the most frequently cited is a statement by regional parliamentarian Lena Kotré, who said: “With the AfD in power, the murders, terrorist attacks, rapes, and replacement migration that now terrify Germany would never have happened”. The BfV interprets this as undermining human dignity and democratic coexistence. However, as experts quoted by Junge Freiheit note, criticism of migration policy or linking criminal phenomena to immigration does not in itself constitute proof of unconstitutionality. According to German jurisprudence, in cases of ambiguous or interpretable statements, the interpretation most favorable to freedom of expression must be chosen.
Another example cited is a social media comment by AfD member Fabian Küble: “Anyone who is not German should not become a citizen,” made in the context of debates on nationality. The report interprets this as an expression of ethnic nationalism that contradicts Article 1 of the Basic Law. Similarly, it cites a post by the Saxony state chairman of the AfD, Jörg Urban, who wrote: “The government relies … on intimidation—on totalitarian methods, like those we knew in the GDR.” This comparison between the current state apparatus and the repressive regime of East Germany is recorded in the report as a sign of contempt for democratic institutions.
One of the most controversial aspects of the report is the evaluation of policy proposals contained in regional AfD platforms. Notably, a proposal in the Saxony AfD manifesto suggests limiting the number of non-German-speaking children in daycare groups to a maximum of 10% to ensure every child learns the German language. The BfV concludes that such a measure introduces discrimination based on language and, indirectly, ethnicity, thus violating human dignity. The report further argues that, due to the nationwide shortage of childcare facilities, this policy would effectively exclude a large number of migrant-background children from early education opportunities.
The report also includes statements on immigration and crime that refer directly to official data from the Federal Criminal Police Office (BKA). Klaus Esser, a regional parliamentarian, wrote on Telegram: “Asylum immigrants commit far more violent crimes against Germans than vice versa,” citing BKA statistics. Even though the data are verifiable, the BfV maintains that such statements perpetuate negative stereotypes and portray migrants as inherently dangerous. In the agency’s interpretation, this type of rhetoric violates the principle of equality and human dignity.
A key legal issue is whether these expressions reflect the party’s official stance or are merely the views of individual members. The BfV report does not provide an evaluation to differentiate between institutional positions and isolated opinions. As constitutional law experts frequently point out, the Federal Constitutional Court requires that unconstitutional aims be characteristic and dominant within the organization—not marginal or incidental—for a classification of extremism to be legally valid.
Beyond its content, the potential use of the report as a basis for banning the party has raised further concerns. A party ban, as outlined in Article 21 of the Basic Law, is an extraordinary measure that demands unequivocal proof that the party seeks to eliminate the free democratic order. Given the lack of intelligence sources, the prevalence of ideological interpretations, and the ambiguity of many cited statements, it is unclear whether the legal threshold has been met.
The full publication of the report by independent media now enables the public to directly examine the foundations upon which the state has made one of its most consequential decisions in recent years. As Junge Freiheit put it: “The sovereign in this country is not Friedrich Merz or Nancy Faeser, but the citizens of this country.” With the document now accessible, the discussion is no longer limited to leaks or official interpretations but can proceed based on direct analysis of the facts.