At the end of last week, Germany officially labeled the far-right Alternative für Germany (AfD) party as a confirmed right-wing extremist group.
This unprecedented decision was announced by the country’s domestic intelligence service.
Never before has a party with federal representation in Germany’s parliament been placed under such scrutiny.
With the AfD polling near record highs and holding over 150 Bundestag seats, the news has set off a wave of legal, political, and international reactions.
The country now faces a serious test of how far democratic institutions can go to protect themselves.
Why is the AfD now considered extremist?
Germany’s Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV) spent three years investigating the AfD, and their findings were published in a confidential 1,100-page report.
The agency concluded that the AfD poses a threat to the democratic order.
According to the BfV, the party promotes an “ethnic concept of the people” that violates the principle of human dignity laid out in the German constitution.
The report cites repeated anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant, and anti-minority statements by senior officials.
The BfV had already classified regional branches in Saxony and Thuringia as extremist.
But this is the first time the national party as a whole has received this status.
The classification allows the intelligence agency to monitor the party’s activities using wiretaps, undercover agents, and digital surveillance.
Since its inception in 2013, the AfD has grown from a Eurosceptic fringe party into a major political force.
It won 20.8% of the vote in Germany’s February 2025 federal election and currently holds 152 seats in the Bundestag.
The Christian Democrats (CDU/CSU) finished first with 28.6%.
But some of the most recent polls are even showing that the AfD is closing the gap in popularity.
How are politicians and states reacting?
The classification has triggered a nationwide debate about what happens next.
Several leading figures in the CDU and SPD have suggested that AfD members working in the public sector may no longer be suitable for government service.
Officials in Hesse and Bavaria confirmed that reviews are underway to determine if civil servants affiliated with the party can remain in their roles.
North Rhine-Westphalia’s Interior Minister Herbert Reul warned against immediate dismissals.
He said individual assessments are necessary, and party membership alone may not be enough to remove someone from public service.
But others disagree.
Former Parliamentary State Secretary Marco Wanderwitz argued that anyone in a confirmed extremist party should not be in the civil service or allowed to own a firearm.
At the federal level, there is growing discussion over whether to pursue a ban on the AfD entirely.
SPD leader Lars Klingbeil acknowledged it as a possibility but emphasized that such a move would take years and should not replace political engagement.
CDU Bundestag member Roderich Kiesewetter said the conditions for a ban are improving.
However, legal experts have warned that a ban would face significant hurdles and would need to be approved by the Constitutional Court.
What does this mean for democracy?
The decision has also sparked a larger conversation about how democracies defend themselves.
Some critics of the case, including US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, described it as a form of political censorship.
Rubio said on X that “Germany just gave its spy agency new powers to surveil the opposition” and called it “tyranny in disguise.”
Elon Musk also voiced support for the AfD, describing it as a “centrist party under attack.”
Meanwhile, German officials have pushed back.
The Foreign Ministry responded directly to Rubio, saying that the move was lawful, independent, and based on years of investigation.
Overall, the classification does not ban the AfD from running in elections or forming alliances, but it gives law enforcement new tools to track its activity and monitor its communications.
This is democracy. This decision is the result of a thorough & independent investigation to protect our Constitution & the rule of law. It is independent courts that will have the final say. We have learnt from our history that rightwing extremism needs to be stopped.
The decision has highlighted a deeper challenge facing many liberal democracies.
How do open societies handle political movements that reject key constitutional values?
Germany’s response suggests that it sees legal tolerance limits, especially when basic rights like equal protection and human dignity are at risk.
Who is standing behind the AfD?
While domestic support has become more fragmented, the AfD is finding allies abroad.
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán quickly came to the party’s defense, asking, “What the hell is going on in Germany?” and pledging support to AfD leader Alice Weidel.
In Russia, former President Dmitry Medvedev criticized the decision as politically motivated.
The AfD has previously taken pro-Russian positions, including questioning sanctions and opposing military aid to Ukraine.
The party also enjoys support from parts of the US conservative movement.
In addition to Rubio, AfD leaders have cultivated relationships with President Trump and his circle.
Alice Weidel attended Trump’s inauguration, and Elon Musk spoke at an AfD event earlier this year.
These international endorsements have helped the AfD position itself as part of a right-wing movement that challenges global institutions, immigration policy, and the post-war liberal order.
What’s really at stake here?
This is not just a domestic story about a controversial party.
It’s a larger test of how a post-war democracy reacts when one of its major parties stops playing by the rules.
The AfD didn’t just attract protest voters. It built its base by attacking the very foundations of Germany’s constitutional system.
Its protections for minorities, the historical consensus on the Nazi era, and the belief in equality before the law.
This makes the BfV’s decision something more than a bureaucratic label.
It’s a line in the sand. Germany is saying: you can’t campaign against the constitution and still expect its protection.
There is a risk, of course. If democratic institutions overreach, they may reinforce the AfD’s message that the system is rigged.
But doing nothing would carry a bigger risk: that a party openly hostile to democracy could grow unchecked within it.
The post Germany designates AfD as extremist: What does it mean for democracy? appeared first on Invezz
