Germany’s Jewish Spy Chief Stephan Kramer Urges Nationwide Ban on AfD

Stephan Kramer, the president of Thuringia’s office of the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV), has emerged as a prominent and outspoken advocate for banning the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD). Recognisable for his long beard and public profile, Kramer has driven intensified surveillance of the party and argues that its rise poses a genuine threat to Germany’s democratic order.

How Kramer Escalated Scrutiny

In 2021 Kramer’s Thuringia BfV became the first state branch to classify its local AfD organisation as “extremist.” That decision prompted other eastern states to follow, and in May the BfV’s federal leadership escalated the matter by declaring the entire AfD nationwide a Right-Wing Extremist organisation.

Calls For A Ban

Having pushed monitoring and legal scrutiny this far, Kramer has publicly said a ban on the AfD could now be warranted under Germany’s post-war constitutional framework — the most severe sanction available to protect democratic institutions from parties judged to endanger them.

“We have now reached a level of threat to our democracy where, in my view, a ban is warranted,” Kramer has said, adding he and his family would consider emigrating to Israel if the AfD were to enter government because of what he describes as the party’s "covert anti-Semitism."

Party Rise and Controversies

Founded in 2013 as an anti-migrant formation, the AfD has grown into one of Germany’s most polarising post‑war political movements. Supporters praise its criticism of migration policy, cultural liberalism and aspects of Western policy on Ukraine; critics accuse it of flirting with extremist ideas and repeatedly point to neo‑Nazi controversies among its ranks.

Last year the AfD dissolved its youth wing after activists in the organisation made appalling statements calling for Jews to be rounded up and killed — remarks that provoked national outrage. Senior party figures have also faced repeated scrutiny: in Thuringia, regional leader Björn Höcke used the slogan “Alles für Deutschland” (a phrase historically associated with SA symbolism) and was later fined €13,000 under Germany’s strict laws on Nazi-era symbols and slogans.

Political And Legal Context

Germany’s constitution permits banning political parties that seek to undermine the “free democratic order” or the state’s existence. Bans are rare and legally complex: in the post-war era, the Socialist Reich Party (1952) and the Communist Party of Germany (1956) were outlawed. A formal ban requires a judicial decision and carries high evidentiary and procedural standards.

The AfD leadership rejects the extremist label as political theatre. International and domestic critics of the BfV decision have warned about free‑speech implications, while many legal scholars argue the available evidence merits serious consideration; an open letter from about 200 German legal experts described the body of evidence as substantial.

Public Back-and-Forth

Alice Weidel, co‑chair of the AfD, has launched forceful attacks on Kramer and the BfV, likening the agency to the East German Stasi and mocking Kramer’s appearance in public remarks. Kramer has dismissed such personal attacks as signs that opponents lack political arguments, while stressing that the BfV operates under legal oversight far removed from the Stasi’s record of repression.

Kramer’s Background And Role

Born in 1968 in Siegen, Kramer served in the German navy and later worked with the Central Council of Jews in Germany before joining the intelligence services. His tenure at the BfV has been marked by an assertive stance toward the AfD, combining surveillance, legal classification and public warnings about the party’s rhetoric and alliances.

Where Things Stand

Whether Germany will move to outlaw the AfD remains uncertain. Policymakers face a fraught choice between confronting the party through political contestation and pursuing the extraordinary step of a legal ban. For now, Kramer and his office continue to closely monitor the party — and the debate over how to respond to the AfD’s rise shows no sign of abating.

Reporting note: This article synthesises statements by Stephan Kramer, public court rulings and widely reported developments surrounding the AfD and the BfV. It aims to summarise the key facts and the legal and political context of the debate.