Anti-immigrant Alternative for Germany sues after spy agency labels it an extremist party
BERLIN — The anti-immigration Alternative for Germany party on Monday sued the domestic intelligence service for classifying it as a right-wing extremist organization in a move that subjects it to greater surveillance from authorities.
The party, known as AfD, which placed second in national elections in February, took legal action at an administrative court in the western city of Cologne where the domestic intelligence service has its headquarters, Daniel Tapp, a spokesman for party leader Alice Weidel, said.
A court spokesperson confirmed that the party filed a suit and an urgent motion, according to the DPA news agency. AfD has rejected the classification and called it unlawful.
The move by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution — the formal name of the domestic intelligence service — means its officials can now use informants and other tools such as audio and video recordings to monitor the party's activities nationwide.
The office warned of a threat to the country's democratic order, saying the anti-immigration party 'disregards human dignity,' in particular by what it called 'ongoing agitation' against refugees and migrants.
Far-right parties have been gaining ground across Europe and the AfD attracts international attention, including support from tech billionaire Elon Musk, who is a close ally of U.S. President Donald Trump.
Some top Trump administration officials have criticized the decision, prompting a retort from the German Foreign Ministry.
In a social media post on Friday, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio called on Germany to undo the classification, saying the move to give new powers to the spy agency to surveil the opposition amounted to 'tyranny in disguise.'
In its own social media post responding directly to Rubio, the Foreign Ministry wrote 'this is democracy' and said the decision was 'the result of a thorough & independent investigation to protect our Constitution & the rule of law.'
The ministry added that 'independent courts that will have the final say. We have learnt from our history that rightwing extremism needs to be stopped.'
Vice President JD Vance , who met with Weidel after the elections in February, wrote on social media that AfD was 'by far the most representative' party in formerly Communist eastern Germany, adding: 'Now the bureaucrats try to destroy it.'
AfD has long faced criticism for Russia-friendly positions , and opposes Germany's stance toward the war in Ukraine . Berlin is Ukraine's second-biggest weapons supplier after the United States.
The lawsuit comes just a day before conservative leader Friedrich Merz , whose party won the February elections, was set to be chosen as Germany's chancellor, replacing Olaf Scholz.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Judge blocks Georgia's social media age verification law, citing free speech concerns
ATLANTA (AP) — Georgia has become the latest state where a federal judge has blocked a law requiring age verification for social media accounts. Like in seven other states where such laws have been blocked, a federal judge ruled Thursday that the Georgia law infringes on free speech rights. The ruling by U.S. District Judge Amy Totenberg means that the Georgia measure, which passed in 2024, won't take effect next week as scheduled. Instead, Totenberg granted a preliminary injunction blocking the law until there's a full ruling on the issue. Georgia's law would require some social media providers to take 'commercially reasonable' steps to verify a user's age and require children younger than 16 to get parental permission for accounts. It was challenged by NetChoice, a trade group representing online businesses. 'The state seeks to erect barriers to speech that cannot withstand the rigorous scrutiny that the Constitution requires,' Totenberg wrote, finding the law restricts the rights of minors, chills the right to anonymous speech online and restricts the ability of people to receive speech from social media platforms. Georgia will appeal, a spokesperson for Attorney General Chris Carr said Thursday. 'We will continue to defend commonsense measures that empower parents and protect our children online,' spokesperson Kara Murray said in a statement. Parents — and even some teens themselves — are growing increasingly concerned about the effects of social media use on young people. Supporters of the laws have said they are needed to help curb the explosive use of social media among young people, and what researchers say is an associated increase in depression and anxiety. Totenberg said concerns about social media harming children are legitimate, but don't outweigh the constitutional violation. Totenberg wrote that NetChoice's members would be irreparably harmed by the law. She rejected arguments from the state that the group shouldn't get temporary relief because it had delayed filing its lawsuit by a year and because the state would be required to give 90 days' notice before enforcing the law. 'Free expression doesn't end where government anxiety begins," NetChoice Director of Litigation Chris Marchese said in a statement. "Parents— not politicians — should guide their children's lives online and offline— and no one should have to hand over a government ID to speak in digital spaces.' It's the ninth state where NetChoice has blocked a law over children's use of social media. In Arkansas and Ohio, federal judges have permanently overturned the laws. Besides Georgia, measures are also on hold in California, Florida, Mississippi, Texas and Utah. Louisiana agreed to not enforce its law while litigation proceeds. Only in Tennessee did a federal judge decline to temporarily block a law, finding NetChoice hadn't proved that people would be irreparably harmed if the law wasn't blocked before trial. Georgia had argued the law was meant to protect children in a dangerous place, likening it to banning them from bars serving alcohol instead of restricting their speech. Jeff Amy, The Associated Press Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Miami Herald
an hour ago
- Miami Herald
Trump suggests bringing back secretary of war. Why did the title get dropped?
President Donald Trump said he wants to bring back a long-retired title: secretary of war. Why was it dropped in the first place? Trump brought up the idea of a name change while introducing Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth at a June 25 press conference in the Netherlands, which hosted this year's NATO summit. 'You know, it used to be called secretary of war,' the president said. 'Maybe for a couple of weeks we'll call it that because we feel like warriors.' 'In fact, if you look at the old building next to the White House, you can see where it used to be secretary of war,' Trump added. 'Then we became politically correct and they called it secretary of defense. Maybe we'll have to start thinking about changing it.' Here's why the secretary of war came to be known as the secretary of defense. Secretary of war The title of secretary of war dates back to the founding of the United States. In 1789, shortly after the U.S. Constitution was ratified, President George Washington signed legislation establishing the War Department, according to the Department of Defense. The new department was tasked with overseeing and maintaining the Army, Navy and Marine Corps, all of which were set up three years earlier. Washington chose Henry Knox, one of his aides during the Revolutionary War — and the namesake of Fort Knox — to serve as its first secretary. Then, less than a decade later, in 1798, the scope of the department shrank, when management of the Navy was handed over to the newly formed Navy Department. And, in 1834, the Marine Corps was moved under the Navy Department, leaving just the Army under the War Department. In 1879, following the Civil War, the War Department took up headquarters in the newly built Eisenhower Executive Office Building. It was then referred to as the State-War-Navy Building — as Trump referenced in his recent press conference. In 1947, during the aftermath of World War II, President Harry Truman signed the National Security Act, which combined the War and Navy Departments, as well as the newly formed Air Force, into one organization known as the National Military Establishment. This new organization was renamed the Department of Defense in 1949, according to Dartmouth University records. James Forrestal, who had previously served as the secretary of the Navy, then became the nation's first secretary of defense. This title has remained in use ever since then, with Hegseth being the country's 29th secretary of defense.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Analysis-Following NATO summit, Trump and Europe still at odds over Putin's ambitions
By Gram Slattery THE HAGUE (Reuters) -For U.S. President Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin is a man looking for an off-ramp to his bloody three-year assault on Ukraine. But according to NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, the Russian leader may be just getting started. If the alliance does not invest in its defense capabilities, Rutte warned the annual NATO summit on Tuesday, Russia could attack an alliance country within three years. By most measures, this year's NATO summit in The Hague was a success. Member states largely agreed to a U.S. demand to boost defense spending to 5% of gross domestic product. Trump, who once derided the alliance as a "rip-off," said his view had changed, while a budding bromance blossomed between him and Rutte, who compared the U.S. president to a stern "daddy" managing his geopolitical underlings. But the summit, which ended on Wednesday, also highlighted the widening gap between how the U.S. and Europe see the military ambitions of Russia, the bloc's main foil. That is despite some lawmakers in Trump's own Republican Party hardening their rhetoric in recent weeks, arguing that while the president's ambition to negotiate an end to Russia's war in Ukraine is laudable, it is now clear that Putin is not serious about coming to the table. In a Wednesday press conference, Trump conceded that it was "possible" Putin had territorial ambitions beyond Ukraine. But he insisted that the Russian leader - buffeted by manpower and materiel losses - wanted the war to end quickly. "I know one thing: He'd like to settle," Trump said. "He'd like to get out of this thing. It's a mess for him." Secretary of State Marco Rubio echoed Trump's view in a sideline interview with Politico, saying the U.S. was holding off on expanding its sanctions against Moscow, in part to keep talks going. "If we did what everybody here wants us to do - and that is come in and crush them with more sanctions - we probably lose our ability to talk to them about the ceasefire," he said. The message from others at the summit was starkly different. A senior NATO official told reporters in a Tuesday briefing that Putin was not in fact interested in a ceasefire - or in engaging in good-faith talks at all. "Regardless of battlefield dynamics, we continue to doubt that Russia has any interest in meaningful negotiations," the official said. Russia's ambitions, the senior official said, go beyond control of "certain territories at their administrative lines," as Rubio put it. Putin is instead bent on imposing his "political will" on neighboring states. Rutte put the Russian threat in existential terms. "If we do not invest now," he said on Tuesday, "we are really at risk that the Russians might try something against NATO territory in three, five or seven years." RUSSIA STRATEGY REMAINS ELUSIVE The U.S. is not the only NATO member with a more optimistic view of Russia. Speaking to reporters on Wednesday, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, a longtime Trump ally and critic of European institutions, said Russia was "not strong enough to represent a real threat to NATO." Still, as the alliance's largest contributor and most powerful member, Washington's position is a central preoccupation in most NATO capitals. The White House, asked for comment, referred to Trump's comments at the Wednesday press conference. In response to a request for comment, a separate NATO official, also speaking on condition of anonymity, disputed that there were differing assessments within the alliance, pointing to a NATO declaration on Wednesday which referenced the "long-term threat posed by Russia." The Russian embassy in Washington referred to Thursday comments by Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, who criticized NATO for wasting money on defense. "It seems that only by invoking the fabricated 'Russian threat' will it be possible to explain to ordinary people why their pockets are being emptied once again," she said. The U.S. State Department and the Ukrainian embassy in Washington did not respond to requests for comment. The lack of a common understanding about Putin's goals will complicate future diplomatic plans to wind down the war, said Philippe Dickinson, the deputy director of the Transatlantic Security Initiative at the Atlantic Council and a former British diplomat. "To reach a peace agreement, it's not just something that Trump and Putin can agree themselves," Dickinson said. "There does need to be European involvement. That needs to mean that there is some sort of sharing of views among allies on what Putin is trying to achieve." European leaders likely have not given up on trying to change Trump's views on Russia, Dickinson said. But they were always unlikely bring up thorny conversations at the NATO summit. The alliance's main goal was to simply get through it without major blowups, he said, an aim that was accomplished. Still, peace came at a cost - the lack of substantive discussion around Ukraine and Russia, he argued, was conspicuous. "The lack of a Russia strategy is a real glaring omission from what the summit could have produced," Dickinson said.
