Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution leak: Who gave the report on the AfD to the media?

On one's last days at work, one usually clears one's desk, says goodbye to colleagues, and maybe goes for a coffee. Not so for Nancy Faeser ( SPD ). On the last Friday of her term as Federal Minister of the Interior, she held a press conference whose content still resonates.

Faeser presented the results of the 1,100-page report by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV), which declared the AfD a "confirmed right-wing extremist" party, thus upgrading it from a mere "suspected case." While the BfV has issued a "commitment to standstill" until the Cologne Administrative Court decides on an urgent application by the AfD, it has not designated the AfD as confirmed right-wing extremist until then. However, the report remains confidential, albeit under wraps.

Since then, observers have puzzled over the timing of the report's release. Why exactly that Friday? Why didn't Faeser leave it to her successor , Alexander Dobrindt ( CSU ), to publicly present the report, which the BfV had been working on for years? And all this despite the fact that her ministry, by its own admission, hadn't reviewed the document?

AfD report: Was the announcement agreed upon with Dobrindt?

In any case, it is unusual for a minister to announce such a far-reaching decision just days before handing over office. Constitutional lawyer Volker Boehme-Neßler agrees , emphasizing: "The decision to publish is purely political. It will be made by the Ministry of the Interior." Meanwhile, the fact that an expert opinion was coming had been known for some time. At the end of last year, it was reported that the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution might upgrade the AfD's status. Then the "traffic light" coalition collapsed, and new elections were imminent. Against this backdrop, the Ministry of the Interior and the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution refrained from making the announcement. The classification of the AfD as "certainly right-wing extremist" was not intended to become an election campaign issue.

“The announcement of this audit result (sic!) this year was obsolete with the early election – that would have been too close to the election date,” said former head of the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, Thomas Haldenwang, to the Taz newspaper in November – shortly before he had announced that he would run for the CDU in the federal election .

There are several possible reasons for Faeser's announcement that Friday. Perhaps the outgoing minister wanted to complete her project out of a sense of duty—after all, the report had been initiated during her term in office.

It's also possible that Faeser feared Dobrindt might not show the same zeal as she did. After all, the new leadership of the ministry might have had reservations. Former Interior Minister Horst Seehofer is said to have once had a report on the AfD revised because some of the quotes in it could have come from his party, the CSU. The Süddeutsche Zeitung reported on this at the time. It's certainly not impossible that a minister might reject a report because of individual passages.

Now that the upgrade is public, Dobrindt is faced with a real reality. He can hardly reverse the decision, as doing so would ultimately expose his own agency. The only thing being considered now is the possible publication of the report.

But it is also conceivable that the procedure was agreed upon with Alexander Dobrindt – perhaps a deal from the coalition talks between the CDU/CSU and the SPD. The decision to upgrade the AfD's status is now linked to Faeser's name, while Dobrindt can always point to his predecessor in the future if legal problems arise. After all, the AfD is legally defending itself against the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution. And the fact that the decision was announced while the party's classification as a "suspected case" has not even become final seems politically sensitive to say the least. After the Higher Administrative Court of North Rhine-Westphalia ruled in favor of the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution in the "suspected case" procedure and rejected an appeal, the Federal Administrative Court is now examining an "appeal against non-admission" by the AfD .

"This simultaneity is very interesting," says constitutional lawyer Boehme-Neßler. "If the Federal Administrative Court approves the appeal against non-admission, the AfD could appeal. It certainly would." This would then involve possible legal errors in the proceedings so far. "It could therefore happen that the court reverses the classification as a suspected case. Then the findings obtained through intelligence means – such as informants or wiretapping – would be illegal." The basis for the classification as "confirmed right-wing extremist" would collapse. "A prudent Minister of the Interior would have acted differently," says Boehme-Neßler.

When an expert report to the AfD was leaked in 2021, it was said to have caused “enormous damage”

Despite the ongoing legal proceedings, the party is considered "certainly right-wing extremist." And although the contents of the report were supposed to remain secret, several media outlets were able to view it shortly after Faeser's announcement – ​​initially, Der Spiegel quoted extensively from the document. Soon after, it was also available to Bild newspaper. This raises questions: How could the report have been passed on to the media? Who had access to the final version? And has a criminal offense been committed?

A similar case occurred in Berlin in 2021 – however, a classified interim report on the AfD state association reached the party itself at the time. The then Interior Senator Andreas Geisel (SPD) spoke of the "enormous damage" caused to the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution. The Tagesspiegel reported on this. The fact that something was leaked from an agency that relies on secrecy strikes at its core. The senator filed a complaint against an unknown person on suspicion of breach of confidentiality. "We will do everything in our power to identify the perpetrator and bring him to justice," Geisel said.

There are currently no such announcements from the Federal Ministry of the Interior. Isn't it detrimental to the Office for the Protection of the Constitution in this case, too, if an expert opinion is leaked to the media? In response to an inquiry from the Berliner Zeitung, the ministry stated that it would not comment on the expert opinion or the AfD's upgrade "in view of the ongoing proceedings and out of respect for the court."

This raises the possibility of possible leaks of secrets by employees of the Office for the Protection of the Constitution or the Interior Ministry. And the circle of those who worked on the report is likely quite large. At least, that's the suspicion of people with inside knowledge of the Office for the Protection of the Constitution. Numerous intelligence officers were likely involved in the paper, and individual state offices of the Office for the Protection of the Constitution may also have contributed. However, it's unlikely that many of those involved were aware of the final version. It's primarily the top levels of the ministry and the intelligence service that are in contact with the media.

In any case, it's striking that the report wasn't leaked before the Interior Minister's announcement. If someone had wanted to pass the document on their own initiative, they could have done so earlier. It finally reached Der Spiegel a few days after the press conference of then-Interior Minister Faeser. It's not unlikely that this was politically motivated.