Germany’s spy agency walks back extremist label for AfD

Politico

Germany’s domestic intelligence service, the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV), last week declared the Alternative for Germany (AfD) political party as an extremist organisation. The BfV operates as Germany’s main domestic intelligence agency, and one of its many responsibilities is to monitor and combat organisations that threaten the existence of not only the state but also democracy and the state’s democratic principles. 

This is especially important due to the country’s history with Nazism and the Second World War, and the partition of East Germany, which operated as a Soviet-backed dictatorship until 1990 when the country reunified. 

Because of this, the country’s relationship with various political movements on the far left and far right remains tense. In the past, they have monitored a number of organisations, including the Communist Party of Germany, which was banned in 1956, thanks in part to information collected by the BfV. Various factions of the left-wing party, Die Linke and the Afd have also been monitored in the past. 

The AfD was first monitored in 2019 and classified as “Prüffall” (case to examine). This was the first stage and mainly focused on two wings of the party: Der Flügel and Junge Alternative (JA). In 2020, Der Flügel was classified as a right-wing extremist, and the BfV began full surveillance of the faction’s members. 

In 2021, the BfV classified the entire AfD as a “Verdachtsfall” (suspected case) and began monitoring it. A court injunction prevented monitoring in the run-up to the 2021 elections. Afterwards, the AfD spent years fighting the label in court but was unsuccessful in getting it removed. Now, the party is officially classified as Gesichert Rechtsextremistische Bestrebung, a higher level of threat. 

The label of extreme-right is severely damaging as it would enable the office to step up surveillance, including using informants. It was the first time that a party that is currently represented in the German parliament received the whole distinction of a right-wing extremist organisation.

This was particularly controversial as the AfD is the main opposition party at the moment, coming second in the country’s parliamentary elections back in February. Additionally, with bans on far-right candidates from running for office in Romania and France following controversial legal cases, many on the right have accused this of being part of a coordinated effort to stamp out dissent by European elites. 

In Romania, Calin Georgescu won the country’s first-round Presidential elections, but after intelligence revealed Russian interference on social media through the creation of hundreds of thousands of accounts, his victory was annulled, and new elections were set up for May. 

In France, Marine Le Pen was found guilty of embezzling over 4 million euros from the European Parliament, and both she and her party were ordered to pay back the money. She was banned from running for office for five years, disqualifying her from the next Presidential Election. 

Both of these cases had legal justification for the bans, but those on the Populist Right who support these figures have cried foul. They argue that it is part of some broader conspiracy by European elites to stamp out democratic opposition. The AfD ruling has fed into this narrative. It is essential to point out that there is no evidence of any alleged conspiracy that some on the Populist Right are alleging. 

Members of President Donald Trump’s administration attacked the move. Vice President J.D. Vance said that the German establishment rebuilt the Berlin Wall, referencing the border wall in Berlin during most of the Cold War that became a symbol of East German tyranny. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, meanwhile, said that the move was not democracy but tyranny. Elon Musk, head of the Department of Government Efficiency, said banning them would be an extreme act against democracy. 

Within Germany, there were sharp responses across the spectrum. In a poll by INSA, 40% of Germans backed a ban on the AFD. In a reply to Rubio, the German Foreign Office replied, “This is democracy. This decision is the result of a thorough and independent investigation to protect our Constitution and the rule of law. Independent courts will have the final say. We have learnt from our history that right-wing extremism needs to be stopped.” 

Additionally, outgoing Interior Minister Nancy Fraser, whose ministry leads the BfV, said the government had a clear legal mandate to act against extremists and protect Germany’s democracy. 

The move was condemned by the AfD, whose co-leaders, Alice Weidel and Tino Chrupalla, called it a “severe blow to democracy in Germany.” The AfD launched a legal challenge to the ruling, which led to the BfV temporarily suspending the classification for the duration of the proceedings. 

The BfV will now monitor the party only as a “suspected case,” a lower-tier designation that still allows surveillance but under stricter judicial oversight. 

The decision to backpedal will likely further tensions over the distinction, with opponents using the backpedal as a victory. Additionally, with the distinction coming right after the AfD was once again the main opposition and took the lead in some polls, many view the timing as suspect. 

Former AfD leader Frauke Petry, who left the party after the 2017 election, teased starting a new party. Additionally, polls show that the party that benefits the most from an AfD ban is the economic left, socially right, Bündnis Sahra Wagenknecht – Vernunft und Gerechtigkeit (BSW), whom 24% of AfD voters said they would support.

BSW is a socially conservative, economically left-wing party led by Sahra Wagenknecht, a former Bundestag member from Die Linke. She and her supporters defected from Linke, saying the party was out of touch with the working class. They, among other things, opposed Linke’s open migration policy. The party is deeply populist and taps into similar anger at the system that the AfD has channeled, hence why there is significant overlap. 

Ultimately, even if the AfD is banned, it is clear that there is a populist undercurrent in Germany and across Europe that won’t go away. 

Following the ban on Le Pen in France, polls have shown that her successor, Jordan Bardella, leads the first-round election polls by a wide margin. 

In Romania, the ban on Georgescu has only emboldened another far-right candidate, George Simion, to win the first round of the recent Presidential Election and lead the second round polls.  

Whether the AfD is ultimately banned or not, the current controversy reveals a deeper dilemma for democratic states: how do you protect institutions and democratic values without undermining democracy itself? As the Populist Right continues to rise across Europe and the world, legal responses will need to be seen as both legitimate and proportionate or risk furthering distrust in the institutions they seek to protect.

Trump says U.S. to lift Syria sanctions, secures $600 billion Saudi deal

Reuters

United States President Donald Trump is touring the Middle East, visiting U.S. allies in the Gulf States and the new President of Syria. As of Wednesday evening the tour has been quite eventful already. 

Saudi Arabia has agreed to invest $600 billion into the U.S., a significant boost amid recent economic hits thanks to Trump’s global tariffs. In exchange, the U.S. decided to sell the Saudis an arms package worth $142 billion. The White House has called this the largest defence cooperation agreement the U.S. has ever made. Trump’s first term was noted for deepening ties with Saudi Arabia, and his second term continues that.

U.S.-Saudi relations have gone back to the end of the Second World War, with Saudi Arabia being seen as the U.S.’ most reliable ally in the Arab World in the eyes of many in Washington. 

In Trump’s first term, he established very friendly relations with Crown Prince Muhammad Bin Salman, who de-facto ruled the country in place of his father, the king. Bin Salman remains in power. In recent years, U.S.-Saudi relations soured as he had a negative relationship with the previous Biden administration. 

While the Saudi relationship was honoured by the U.S. Presidents of both parties, there was increasing scrutiny in the 21st century due to allegations of Saudi involvement in terrorism, human rights violations, and its actions in the war against the Houthis in Yemen. 

Following the 2018 murder of Saudi citizen and U.S. green card holder Jamal Khashoggi, the U.S. Congress voted to suspend arms sales to Saudi Arabia amidst its war in Yemen. However, this was vetoed by Trump. 

Under Joe Biden’s presidency, the Saudis actively snubbed Biden, attempted to raise oil prices in the run-up to the 2022 midterms, likely to favour Republicans, and moved closer to China. 

Trump seems to be working to court them back under American influence. By using trade and investment to strengthen economic ties, he is pushing for a return to positive relations, separating human rights concerns from economic opportunities for the U.S. On the same trip, Trump promised Middle East leaders no more “lectures” on how to live. This statement divorces Trump’s foreign policy from human rights concerns. It makes it clear that it is only about opportunities for the U.S., not notions of human rights or liberal values. 

Trump also met Syrian President Abu Mohammad al-Julani, who took over the country following the end of the 25-year dictatorship of Bashar al-Assad back in December. Al-Julani is seeking to modernise the country, though some critics accuse his government of failing to protect minority Christians, Kurds, Druze, and Alawites, as Sunni sectarians, repressed under Assad (who was an Alawite himself) have launched retributive attacks on minority villages. In addition to sectarian violence, Syria has struggled to rebuild following a 13-year-long civil war that left the country and its infrastructure in ruins. 

One barrier to rebuilding has been pre-existing sanctions imposed by the U.S. (and its allies) when Assad was in power. Now, Trump has agreed to lift the sanctions, at the behest of Bin Salman, as Saudi Arabia seeks to invest in Syria to help it rebuild and counter the influence of other powers.

Trump went to Qatar on Wednesday. Qatar recently made headlines after the Qatari government gave Trump a luxury jet to replace Air Force One, the President’s personal jet. The jet would become the property of Trump’s Presidential Library when his term ends. This has been called by the opposition and even some of his own supporters, such as right-wing political commentators, Ben Shapiro and Laura Loomer, an open bribe and a corrupt deal. During Trump’s Qatar visit, he negotiated the sale of 160 Boeing jets to Qatar, which provided hundreds of billions of dollars to the U.S.

On Friday, Trump ended the tour, signing off on a $1.4 trillion AI deal with the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The deal has them purchasing cutting-edge technology in the form of AI chips from the U.S. 

Trump’s trip has primarily been about strengthening economic ties and investment with the Gulf States rather than broader security concerns. However his decision on who to visit has prompted questions on the U.S.’ security policy in the Middle East generally. He urged the Saudis and the Syrian President to normalise relations with Israel (who have launched strikes in Syria in recent months, arguing it is necessary for their own security). 

Israel’s war in Gaza and refusal to recognise a Palestinian State has made progress with the Saudis difficult. In Trump’s first term, he secured the normalisation of relations with Israel for the UAE, Sudan, Morocco, and Bahrain. He hoped to get Saudi Arabia to join as well, but was unable to. 

His refusal to visit Israel itself, however, left questions as rumours of Trump getting increasingly frustrated with Netanyahu have led to speculation that Trump may take a more aggressive line against Israel in the coming months. 

Finally, Trump issued a warning to Iran, saying that he wished to make a deal. However, he will be forced to exert maximum pressure if they reject this olive branch. Trump notably called Iran “the most destructive force” in the Middle East. His first term was known for an aggressive stance against Iran, killing top Iranian General Qasem Soleimani, pulling the U.S. out of the Iran Nuclear Deal (JCPOA) negotiated by his predecessor Barack Obama, and a series of other aggressive actions. 

Iran today is much weaker than before, losing control of Syria following the collapse of the Assad regime, one of Iran’s closest proxies. Meanwhile, Israel’s war in Gaza and strikes on Lebanon have deeply weakened other Iranian proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah, with the assassination of many of their top leaders. 

Trump’s Middle East visit underscores a shift from values-based diplomacy to a transactional relationship focused on investment and strategic deals. While economically beneficial,  questions remain about long-term regional stability, human rights, and America’s role in the Middle East and the world at large.