On May 2, 2025, Germany’s Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz, BfV), the domestic intelligence agency, officially designated the entire political party Alternative for Germany (AfD) as a confirmed far-right extremist organization. This unprecedented classification follows a three-year investigation and a comprehensive 1,100-page report. It grants the BfV expanded surveillance powers over the party, including wiretapping and the use of undercover informants. The agency cited the AfD’s xenophobic, anti-immigrant, and anti-Muslim rhetoric, as well as its systematic exclusion of people with a migrant background from full participation in society, as fundamentally incompatible with Germany’s democratic constitutional order.
The BfV’s decision to label the AfD an extremist threat may become a defining moment in Germany’s democratic trajectory.
On the one hand, it has the potential to energize pro-democratic civil society, building on the massive public demonstrations that already erupted earlier in 2024 in response to revelations about AfD-linked “remigration” schemes.
It reinforces the idea that democratic institutions are taking concrete steps to counter far-right ideologies.
However, this move also risks intensifying political polarization. AfD supporters may frame the designation as a government-led assault on free speech, potentially fueling a narrative of victimization that could further mobilize their base.
The decision may also solidify the political firewall that prevents other parties from cooperating with the AfD, while possibly setting the stage for legal proceedings to ban the party altogether.
In early 2021, the German domestic intelligence agency—the Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz (BfV)—completed a thorough investigation into the political party Alternative for Germany (AfD). Based on the evidence gathered, it officially designated the party as a “suspected case of right-wing extremism”. This label, far from rhetorical, permits sustained surveillance and public notification, based on thousands of pieces of public evidence. What emerges is the portrait of a party that, in both rhetoric and practice, challenges the core democratic and constitutional values of the Federal Republic.
The report finds that across all levels of the AfD—federal, regional, and local—ethno-nationalist views are openly promoted. The idea of “Germanness” is redefined in ethnic and racial terms, systematically excluding those without “German ancestry,” including naturalized citizens. This völkisch worldview, according to the BfV, fundamentally violates the principle of human dignity enshrined in Article 1 of the German Basic Law.
The AfD’s public communication is saturated with xenophobic, anti-Muslim, and anti-immigrant content. Migrants are routinely portrayed as inferior, criminal, or unfit for German society. Muslims, in particular, are demonized and marginalized, not just through cultural critique, but through calls to restrict their constitutional rights, including freedom of religion. These attitudes, argues the report, aim to relegate minorities to second-class status, undermining the legal equality that defines a constitutional democracy.
The AfD is also charged with delegitimizing the post-war democratic order of the Federal Republic. Its rhetoric goes beyond political opposition: it seeks to shake public confidence in democratic institutions and the rule of law, portraying the system as corrupt and illegitimate. Certain factions within the party even question the separation of powers and the state’s monopoly on force, invoking a pseudo-“right of resistance.”
One of the most serious concerns lies in the party’s ambiguous relationship with Germany’s National Socialist past. The report documents numerous instances where party officials minimize, relativize, or indirectly glorify Nazi ideology, which the BfV sees as a critical indicator of anti-democratic intent.
Much attention is devoted to the “Flügel” faction, an internal group officially labeled as an extremist entity in 2020. Despite a formal disbanding, its leaders were neither expelled nor disavowed by the party. The report shows that the Flügel continues to wield considerable structural influence, forming part of a larger web of connections to New Right networks, far-right publishers, the Identitarian Movement, and other extremist groups, both domestic and foreign.
Importantly, the BfV emphasizes that it relied solely on publicly available sources—no secret surveillance, wiretaps, or informants. The agency reviewed over 4,600 pieces of evidence, including social media content, public speeches, videos, and internal publications. This rigorous methodology was key to ensuring legal defensibility, especially as the AfD contested the designation in court—and lost.
While some within the party attempted to distance themselves from the most radical elements, the report concludes that these gestures were largely tactical or symbolic. A significant portion of the party not only tolerates, but actively supports and cooperates with its extremist factions.
The report is thus not merely a warning—it is a legal and constitutional argument that a major political force in Germany is operating in fundamental contradiction to the country’s democratic order. It raises the question of whether the AfD should eventually be banned altogether, a question now at the heart of Germany’s constitutional and political debate.
Legal and operational consequences
1. Intensified surveillance: The BfV can now use more invasive surveillance measures, such as wiretapping and infiltration of informants, to monitor the AfD’s activities.
2. Exclusion from public funding: The new classification could lead to the AfD being excluded from public funding for political parties, subject to a decision by the Federal Constitutional Court.
3. Possible ban: Although not automatic, this classification paves the way for a possible procedure to ban the AfD, which would have to be initiated by the Bundestag, the Bundesrat or the federal government.