The controversy surrounding the Alternative for Germany (AfD) has moved from street protests to the very chambers of legislative oversight. In early 2024, Roland Feucht, a principal in Bavaria, called on students and parents to join a rally championing democracy and social diversity. The invitation triggered a series of formal written questions – known as *Kleine Anfragen* – filed by several AfD deputies in the Bavarian state parliament. The questions alleged that Feucht and other school leaders had breached the political neutrality required of civil servants and asked whether the state government would consider disciplinary measures. While the Bavarian administration declined to censure Feucht, the episode has become emblematic of a broader pattern identified by teachers’ unions, NGOs and opposition politicians.
Simone Fleischmann, chair of the Bavarian teachers’ association, told the political programme *Kontraste* that the mere existence of such inquiries creates a chilling effect. “Every one of those questions makes you, as a teacher, pause,” she said, adding that educators now wonder whether civic engagement could expose them to denunciation. Similar anxieties have been voiced by refugee‑support workers, who told public broadcaster NDR that they feel the AfD “breathing down their necks.”
The practice is not limited to Bavaria. *Kleine Anfragen* are a cornerstone of German parliamentary oversight: any member of a state or federal legislature may submit a written request for information, and the response must be published. Historically, the instrument has been used by opposition parties to hold the executive accountable and to spark public debate on policy matters. According to data compiled by the Bundestag, the AfD submitted 525 written questions between March and October 2025 – more than two per day – accounting for roughly two‑thirds of all inquiries in that period. The volume of questions at the state level shows a comparable upward trajectory.
Thuringia, a stronghold for the AfD, illustrates how the party may be leveraging the tool to pressure civil society. The state’s parliamentary group is led by Björn Höcke, a figure repeatedly convicted for using slogans linked to the Nazi SA and classified by German security services as part of a “confirmed right‑wing extremist” tendency. Katharina König‑Preuss, a Left‑party member of the Thuringian Landtag, described a systematic campaign in which AfD deputies flood the record with requests targeting NGOs, minority groups and even personal data. “Anyone who has ever spoken out against the AfD becomes the subject of a flood of questions,” she told Deutsche Welle, recalling her own family’s legacy of resistance against authoritarianism in the former German Democratic Republic.
Among the most contentious inquiries are those that seek demographic data on sexual orientation. König‑Preuss warned that asking how many residents identify as gay or lesbian evokes the data‑driven persecution of the Nazi era, when the regime catalogued Jews, Sinti, Roma and homosexuals for systematic oppression. The AfD’s focus on such statistics has been interpreted by civil‑rights observers as an attempt to stigmatise and isolate vulnerable communities.
Non‑governmental organisations that receive state funding have also found themselves under scrutiny. The Amadeu Antonio Foundation, based in Berlin and dedicated to combating racism and antisemitism, reported that the AfD has lodged numerous questions about its public subsidies. Lorenz Blumenthaler, the foundation’s spokesperson, said the party’s line portrays a “deep‑state conspiracy” in which government agencies and NGOs allegedly collaborate on a hidden agenda. He argued that the barrage of questions is designed to sow public doubt about the legitimacy of civil‑society actors that criticize the AfD.
Beyond domestic politics, the pattern has raised alarms about potential foreign exploitation. In an October 2025 interview with *Handelsblatt*, Georg Maier, Thuringia’s interior minister from the Social Democratic Party, suggested that the AfD’s probing of critical infrastructure – ranging from transport networks to water, energy and digital systems – could be furnishing useful intelligence to Russia. The claim is bolstered by statements from Thomas Röwekamp, chair of the Bundestag’s Defence Committee, who accused the AfD of obtaining sensitive data on Germany’s defence capabilities through its inquiries. While no concrete evidence of espionage has been publicly disclosed, the suspicion aligns with broader concerns about the party’s ties to Moscow. Two AfD legislators – one in the German Bundestag and another in the European Parliament – are currently under investigation for alleged bribery involving Russian and Chinese actors.
The AfD has rejected the espionage allegations, insisting that its use of parliamentary questions is a legitimate exercise of democratic oversight. When Deutsche Welle sought comment from the party’s Bundestag group, the press office did not respond.
For observers outside Germany, the episode underscores how democratic mechanisms can be repurposed for political intimidation. The surge in AfD‑driven *Kleine Anfragen* reflects a strategy that blends procedural legitimacy with an agenda to monitor, discredit and potentially expose opponents. While the immediate impact is felt by teachers, NGOs and minority groups, the broader implication is a strain on the trust that underpins parliamentary accountability. If a sizeable faction of a legislature can flood the system with requests that serve more to harass than to inform, the balance between transparency and abuse may tilt unfavourably.
European partners have long warned that the erosion of democratic norms in any member state can reverberate across the Union, affecting everything from migration policy to security cooperation. Germany’s internal debate over the AfD’s tactics therefore carries weight for the continent’s collective resilience against authoritarian influence, particularly in a context where Russia continues to seek leverage through disinformation and covert operations. The unfolding situation will likely prompt renewed scrutiny of parliamentary procedures, the protection of civil‑society actors and the safeguards against the misuse of legislative tools for geopolitical ends.