
Calls are mounting to ban Germany's far-right AfD party – despite it being more popular than ever
At the same time, the AfD is facing growing calls for an outright ban, most recently from another major political party.
In May, the country's domestic intelligence agency formally classified the AfD as an extremist entity that threatens democracy. In a 1,100-page report, the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, or BfV, also laid out its findings that the party was racist, anti-Muslim, and devaluing of 'entire segments' of Germany's population.
That move, which enables the BfV to better monitor the group , has reignited attempts to impose a ban, despite the party claiming a significant 20.8% of the vote in February's national election – the best performance by a far-right party in the country since World War II.
The AfD has also enjoyed very vocal support from the Trump administration, with Tesla billionaire Elon Musk – who has since left his position in the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) – urging Germans to vote for the party in the run-up to the election. More recently, both US Vice President, JD Vance, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio have criticized Germany's decision to classify the AfD as extremist.
On Monday, the center-left Social Democratic Party (SPD), which is currently serving as the junior coalition partner in Berlin's conservative-led government, voted unanimously to begin efforts to outlaw it.
Yet the legal path to banning the AfD is lengthy – and largely unprecedented.
Set up to avoid a repeat of Nazi rule, Germany's political system operates on the basis of streitbare Demokratie, or 'militant democracy,' meaning it is a democracy 'determined and able to defend itself.'
In other words, the German state can actively defend itself against internal threats to its democratic principles and constitutional order, including through the banning of political parties.
However, two criteria must be met by Germany's Federal Constitutional Court to form a legal basis for a ban.
Firstly, the party in question must be found to work against the country's free democratic order, demonstrating an 'actively belligerent, aggressive stance.' Secondly, the party must be popular enough to pose a tangible threat to democracy, a provision created in 2017 and called 'potentiality.'
Parties found to meet the first criterion, but not the second, can be prohibited from accessing public campaign financing, but are allowed to continue with other activities.
'It is a widespread misconception in Germany that the AfD cannot be banned because… it is too large,' Till Holterhus, professor of Constitutional Law at the Leuphana University of Lüneberg, told CNN.
'The opposite is true: its size demonstrates that it fulfills the criterion of 'potentiality.''
To begin the process of banning a party, a formal request must be made to the federal court. This request can only be made by either the government itself, the Bundestag, Germany's lower house of parliament, or the Bundesrat, the legislative body that represents the country's 16 regional states.
The court then decides whether to begin proceedings or throw out the application as unsubstantiated.
It must hold a full trial, examining thousands of pages of evidence and hearing witnesses, and considers whether the party violates the constitution in practice, Holterhus explained.
The court can then declare a party unconstitutional. The party would then be dissolved and banned from all political activity. It would also be prohibited from creating any substitute organizations.
At least two-thirds of the court's justices must be in agreement in order to make the declaration.
In practical terms, if the AfD were to be banned, its sitting lawmakers would receive an automatic loss of mandate at the regional and federal level as well as in the European parliament.
Of the 152 seats the AfD currently has in the Bundestag , 42 are direct seats, where the respective candidates individually won the districts by majority. These 42 districts would need to vote again to fill the seats with new candidates from other parties. The other 110 AfD seats, which are allocated using a party list system, would remain vacant until the next election cycle. Similarly, the AfD's seats in the European Parliament would remain vacant.
In either case, this would result in a shifting of the majority ratio, meaning that the seats of all other parties would gain a higher significance.
The German Federal Constitutional Court has only banned two parties in the country's history – and both were in the early postwar years. The Socialist Reich Party (SRP), a successor to the Nazi Party, was outlawed in 1952. Four years later, in 1956, the far-left Communist Party of Germany (KPD) was also banned.
Repeated attempts – in 2003, 2016 and 2021 – to ban the neo-Nazi National Democratic Party of Germany (NPD) have failed. Although the court in 2017 openly acknowledged the party was unconstitutional, it found that it didn't pose a significant threat to the constitutional order. In January 2024, the court approved the freezing of the NPD's state funding for six years.
Overall, Holterhus believes that it is difficult to impose a ban on a political party in Germany. 'A party ban is considered a measure of last resort against the enemies of a democracy,' he said.
The rise of the AfD has triggered widespread unease, with protesters calling for it to be outlawed – most notably in early 2024, when tens of thousands of demonstrators descended on cities across Germany after it emerged that senior AfD party members had discussed a plan to deport migrants en masse.
Yet German lawmakers remain divided over the issue, with some fearing the move could backfire and fuel far-right sympathies.
Pointing to its classification as a right-wing extremist organisation, SPD co-leader Lars Klingbeil told party members at a conference Monday that efforts to ban the AfD should begin.
'The moment the domestic intelligence agency says this is a confirmed right-wing extremist party, there can be no more tactics,' he said.
Yet Merz's Christian Democratic Union (CDU) – which leads Germany's coalition government – is hesitant.
German Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt, a member of the Christian Social Union (CSU) – the CDU's Bavarian sister party – poured cold water on the SPD's motion. Speaking to German news podcast 'Table. Today,' he said that 'decisions made at the SPD party conference are not yet a mandate for the interior minister.'
Merz has himself expressed caution over the move, telling newspaper Die Zeit in May that he is 'skeptical' of procedures to ban political parties.
The AfD's unparalleled public approval, not to mention support from the Trump administration, a powerful transatlantic ally, means its prohibition could have significant reverberations.
Some opinion polls found that, in the weeks after the Germany's election , support for the AfD had crept up even higher than its 20.8% official result, briefly making it the most popular party in the country.
National polling agency Forsa in April found that the AfD was polling at a record 26% – putting it two percentage points higher than the CDU, on 24%. Currently, Forsa shows the AfD at 24% – four points behind the CDU.
With the AfD's support reaching such heights, Holterhus sees a risk of creating a 'martyr effect' in the case of a ban, with the AfD 'staging itself as a victim of political opponents.' This, he said, could result in further radicalization of some of its supporters and even politically motivated violence.
Lengthy legal proceedings, he said, could further heighten the AfD's platform while the move also risks the 'wrath' of the Trump administration and could play into the populist narrative of an 'undemocratic Europe.'

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Gizmodo
24 minutes ago
- Gizmodo
Elon Musk Deflects Bill Gates' Foreign Aid Alarm With Personal Swipe
The tech world's most consequential feud has flared up again. Elon Musk and Bill Gates, two men who have shaped the modern world, are locked in a bitter public dispute, this time over foreign aid cuts with life or death stakes. The conflict pits Musk, in his role spearheading a government efficiency initiative, against Gates, the world's most prominent philanthropist. A little over a month after Musk's departure from his role in the Trump administration, where he led efforts to slash federal spending, Gates took to X, Musk's own social network, to condemn the devastating impact of those cuts on global health. Drawing on new reports, Gates presented a grim tally of the human cost. 'A study in the Lancet recently looked at the cumulative impact of reductions in American aid. It found that, by 2040, 8 million more children will die before their fifth birthday,' Gates posted on July 3, linking to the medical journal's study. He followed up by highlighting the threat to HIV treatment programs. 'According to a @UNAIDS analysis, ending PEPFAR-supported programs for people living with HIV could result in an additional 4.2 million deaths by 2029,' Gates stated, providing a link to the report. Driving the point home, he warned that pulling vaccine funding would have catastrophic results. Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, has helped immunize over 1.1 billion children since 2000. 'The U.S. announced that, after this year, it's pulling out all its money,' Gates wrote. 'If that happens, Gavi estimates that 75 million children will miss vaccinations over the next five years—and of those, 1.2 million children will die.' His conclusion was blunt: 'The facts are simple and devastating: Aid cuts have already cost lives, and the number of deaths will continue to rise.' Gates argued for a reversal, noting that global health is a tiny fraction of the federal budget. 'In 2023, the US spent less than one percent of the federal budget on lifesaving global health programs.' While Gates never mentioned Musk by name, the world's richest man felt targeted and seized on another user's post to launch a counterattack. The user blasted Gates, writing, 'Bro, you are worth $117 billion. If you really think aid cuts are costing lives, feel free to make up the difference.' Musk's reply was a single, cutting word: 'Exactly.' He then added a personal jab, dismissing Gates's philanthropic motives. 'The real reason Gates is unhappy is that HIS organization isn't getting billions in US taxpayer money anymore.' Exactly. The real reason Gates is unhappy is that HIS organization isn't getting billions in US taxpayer money anymore. — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 6, 2025As of July 5, Musk's net worth is estimated at $361 billion by the Bloomberg Billionaires Index, while Gates's fortune sits at $124 billion. The animosity between Musk and Gates is not new. It stems from a deep grudge Musk holds over Gates for shorting Tesla stock. Think of short selling as betting on failure. A short seller borrows shares of a stock, immediately sells them, and waits for the price to crash. If it does, they buy the shares back at the new, lower price, return them to the lender, and pocket the difference. It's a high risk move that infuriates founders like Musk, who see it as a direct attack on their company. Shorting is not illegal, but it's one of the most aggressive moves you can make in the market. Musk has never forgotten Gates's bet against his electric car company and brings it up frequently. 'Gates placed a massive bet on Tesla dying when our company was at one of its weakest moments several years ago,' Musk posted in September 2023. 'Such a big short position also drives the stock down for everyday investors.' He then added, 'To the best of my knowledge, Gates still has that massive bet against Tesla on the table. Someone should ask him if he does.' Just so that the public understands: Taking out a short position against Tesla, as Gates did, results in the highest return only if a company goes bankrupt! Gates placed a massive bet on Tesla dying when our company was at one of its weakest moments several years ago. Such a… — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 11, 2023While Gates has acknowledged placing a short position on Tesla in the past, he has never publicly confirmed if the position is still active, leaving the door open for Musk to continue fueling the feud.
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Which European countries have a wealth tax - and does it work?
As Sir Keir Starmer marks a year in Downing Street, a former Labour leader has suggested the prime minister should consider "asset taxes" for the wealthy as a way to regain support. Lord Neil Kinnock said that while the government is working towards "a series of really commendable and absolutely essential policies", they are "barely noticed" amid fury over cuts to the winter fuel payment, controversial welfare reforms and continuing with the two-child benefit cap. He said that a "cloud hangs over the accomplishments of the government... and people are not getting the message", with Labour trailing in the polls to Nigel Farage and Reform UK. Kinnock told Sky News' Sunday Morning With Trevor Phillips programme that there are things the party could do that "would commend themselves to the great majority of the general public", including "asset taxes". "By going for an imposition of 2% on asset values above £10 million, say, which is a very big fortune, the government would be in a position to collect £10 billion or £11 billion," he said. Conservative shadow chancellor Sir Mel Stride said he thought a wealth tax would be "the worst thing to do" and opposed the idea of "piling further taxes on the wealth creators". One common argument against wealth taxes is that they drive wealthy people to other countries, meaning less tax collected, but how true is this? Here, Yahoo News takes a look at other countries in Europe with forms of a wealth tax to see what the impact has been. Norway has a net wealth tax, which is defined by American non-profit the Tax Foundation as "taxes on an individual's or family's net assets levied on an annual basis". In 2023, the Guardian reported that a record number of super-rich Norwegians were leaving the country after the maximum wealth tax was increased to 1.1%. Ole Gjems-Onstad, a professor emeritus at the Norwegian Business School, told the newspaper he estimated that those who left the country had a combined fortune of at least NOK 600bn (£43.6bn). In 2025, Alex Recouso, co-founder and chief executive of CitizenX, a private platform helping people find and fund places that will accept them as citizens, put the number at around £39.5bn. He told Australia's Daily Telegraph that this had resulted in a lost £435 million in yearly wealth tax revenue. Norway's municipal wealth tax rate is 0.525% and is calculated based on global assets exceeding a net threshold of NOK 1,760,000 (around £128,000) for single/not married taxpayers and NOK 3,520,000 (around £256,000) for spouses, according to PwC. The state wealth tax rate is 0.475% and is calculated based on assets exceeding a net capital tax basis of NOK 1,760,000 (around £128,035) for single/not married taxpayers and NOK 3,520,000 (around £256,000) for spouses. For net wealth in excess of NOK 20,700,000 (around £1.5 million), the rate is 0.575%. These levies combined brings the maximum wealth tax rate to 1.1%. While many rich Norwegians were reported to have moved to Switzerland, the Alpine country has a wealth tax system of its own. Its tax is levied annually at a regional level and accounts for around 3.8% of the state's annual income, according to the Financial Times. However, the newspaper points out that on the whole, tax in Switzerland is low, varying from canton-to-canton, with the top federal rate at just 11.5%. There is also no inheritance tax at a federal level, although some cantons have their own. This could explain why Switzerland has not had the same exodus of the super-rich as Norway. Spain taxes its residents on its worldwide assets valued at over €700,000 (around £604,000), according to Sublime Spain, a company that helps support people's work and life in the Mediterranean country. However, some autonomous regions including Catalonia have a lower level of €500,000, while some don't have any wealth tax. Percentages vary depending on how much you have in assets, but generally, the wealth tax in Spain is between 0.2% and 2.5%. Spain's central government also introduced a nationwide "solidarity wealth tax" in recent years, ranging from 1.7% to 3.5% on people with net assets exceeding €3 million (around £2.6 million). The Tax Justice Network, a British advocacy group, holds up Spain as a shining example of how wealth taxes can work. It suggests that other countries can raise $2.1 trillion a year by following the example of Spain's "featherlight" wealth tax on the richest 0.5% of households. Using the Spanish structure as a model for its study, the group suggests a tax rate of 1.7% is applied on wealth above the 0.5% threshold; a rate of 2.1% is applied wealth above the 0.1% threshold; and a rate of 3.5% is applied to wealth above the 0.05% threshold. But how well has Spain's wealth tax worked? A review by the Tax Foundation found that in 2022, wealth taxes represented 0.19% of GDP in Spain, compared to 1.19% of Switzerland's. They accounted for 0.51% of the former's total tax revenues and 4.35% of the latter's. In 2023, the new solidarity tax was reported to have raised €632 million in the year, the Budget Ministry said, compared to €1.8 billion raised from all taxes on large fortunes. While these figures are not to be sniffed at, they are a small proportion of the £280.5 billion in total tax revenue raised by Spain that year, according to Ceic Data. Raise taxes or this government will fail, Rachel Reeves's former top adviser warns (The Independent) Another tantrum from the Labour backbenches is inevitable (Sky News) Starmer endorses UN's high-tax manifesto (The Telegraph)
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Panel Of 2024 Labour Voters Name The 1 Turning Point They Began To Like Farage
A panel of 2024 Labour voters said they started to like Reform UK after watching its leader Nigel Farage on I'm A Celebrity... Get Me Out Of Here!. Back in late 2023 before he was elected to parliament, Farage caused a huge stir by appearing in the hit reality TV show. Even the programme's hosts Ant and Dec urged producers to take a break from having politicians as contestants. But, Farage still won over voters and ended up in third place. More than 18 months later, a panel of voters who backed Labour last July told pollsters that his appearance on the show marked the moment they started warming up to the MP for Clacton. In footage aired by the BBC's Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg, one voter told pollsters More in Common: 'I really like Reform. 'I didn't [like him], but it was I'm A Celeb... which turned my head for Nigel. 'I really saw a different side to him and I think he's very misunderstood.' 'He's more relatable to people, to the average person,' another woman said. 'Whereas some politicians at the present seem far removed, they're so in another world, because they are public school educated, they can't relate to the average person.' However, a different person did jump in at this point, saying: 'Nigel Farage was publicly educated, while Keir Starmer is working class but he does present that. 'So Nigel Farage puts on this image of being one of the people, but actually he went to private school.' Even so, some voters suggested they would fire Starmer for his 'disappointing' performance over the last year unless he starts to 'try harder'. Good Morning Britain host Susanna Reid also told the BBC that this conversation demonstrated how voters 'need to feel a material difference in their lives'. She noted that they are still struggling with food inflation and cost of living, so the 'government are getting this wrong'. 'Perhaps Sir Keir Starmer needs to go on I'm A Celebrity... or Strictly, in order for voters to know who he is,' Reid suggested. 'The words that kept coming out of their mouths were: I don't know who he is.' "I'm A Celebrity turned my head for Nigel [Farage]"Some focus group members think Reform UK's leader is different from "public school-educated" politicians, but another points out Nigel Farage was privately educated and Keir Starmer was not#BBCLauraKhttps:// — BBC Politics (@BBCPolitics) July 6, 2025 The focus group's findings were published to mark the anniversary of Labour's landslide victory in the general election as political pundits look at how Starmer has fallen down in the polls ever since. Sky News had its own devastating way of portraying Labour's first year in office with some brutal word clouds, again from More in Common. The pollsters asked the public: 'In a word or two, what would you say has been Labour's biggest achievement in government?' The largest word by a healthy margin was 'nothing', although – in much smaller fonts – NHS, welfare, winter, election and Ukraine were all visible too. Minister Warns Labour Rebels That Watering Down Welfare Cuts Came 'At A Cost' Former Labour Leader Comes Up With Brutal Farage Nickname For New Corbyn-Led Party Labour MP Accuses Government Of Behaving Like Flat-Earthers Over Waspi Women