Even though it came in second place in the 2025 German federal election, the Alternative for Germany (AfD) was subsequently classified as an extremist party by the Office for the Protection of the Constitution (Bundesverfassungsschutz, BfV). This has renewed discussions in Germany about banning the party as a threat to the democratic order. Dr. Russell Miller, an expert in German constitutional law, joins The Zeitgeist to discuss the purpose of the BfV, previous attempts to ban parties in Germany, and the procedures involved. He also discusses the transatlantic effects of a ban of the AfD, given the strong criticism the BfV’s designation drew from parts of the Trump administration.



Russ Miller’s Photo Essay from the 2017 NPD Party-Ban Proceedings



Host

Jeff Rathke, President, AGI

Guests

Eric Langenbacher, AGI Senior Fellow; Director, Society, Culture & Politics Program

Russell A. Miller, J.B. Stombock Professor of Law, Washington and Lee School of Law



Transcript

Jeff Rathke

I want to welcome all of our listeners to this episode of the Zeitgeist. Today we are talking about extremism, German law and the constitution, and the potential for banning political parties. I’m pleased to be joined by my colleague Eric Langenbacher, who is the director of our Society, Culture & Politics program, and in a moment, I’m going to hand things over to Eric to introduce our very special guest and get the conversation started.

But maybe just to set the scene a bit: in May of this year, Germany’s domestic security service, which is known as the Office for the Protection of the Constitution, categorized the far-right Alternative for Germany party as what they call, “verifiably right extremist.” That party goes by the initials AfD, and many of our listeners will have heard of it. This determination by the Office for the Protection of the Constitution had no direct legal impact on the party’s ability to operate in the German political system, but it unleashed a very harsh reaction from Washington. Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Twitter called it a called it “tyranny in disguise” and Vice President Vance said that the German establishment was “rebuilding the Berlin Wall.” Now, the German government rejected that criticism. As the Foreign Office posted, “we have learned from our history that right-wing extremism needs to be stopped.” The Foreign Office further said, “This is democracy.” It’s remarkable, this U.S. intervention in a German domestic political process. This was also about the same time that Donald Trump posted on his own social network, “FREE MARINE LEPEN!” in response to her conviction by a French court.

Since then, we have also seen a push in the German political system to start a process that could ban the AfD. This is a party that has 22 to 24 percent support in public opinion polls and has been around that level for quite some time. Naturally, the proposal to ban a political party raises all sorts of questions about the Constitution and the legal framework, about the consistency with democratic principles (especially at a time when the Trump administration is frequently accusing European countries of violating free speech and other norms). So, we wanted to get deeper into this and understand what is happening, what could happen, and how this fits into Germany’s legal framework. With that, Eric, let me hand it over to you and we can get started.

Eric Langenbacher

Thanks, Jeff. It’s my great pleasure to briefly introduce Russell A. Miller, who is the J.B.