The German Bundestag has significantly restricted access for a larger number of Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) staff than previously acknowledged, raising concerns about security protocols and the separation of political affiliation from parliamentary operations. According to a report by “Der Spiegel”, the parliamentary administration has denied seven individuals house passes to the Bundestag in the current legislative period, with two additional cases involving denial of access to parliamentary IT systems.
All individuals affected by these restrictions are reportedly affiliated with the AfD. While the Bundestag administration has declined to provide specific details regarding the reasons for the denials, the “Spiegel” report suggests the individuals are suspected of links to far-right extremist groups, possess prior criminal convictions, or have demonstrated concerning connections to Russia. The AfD parliamentary group confirmed the incidents to “Der Spiegel” but refrained from commenting on the allegations against the affected personnel.
Critically, current regulations allow individuals deemed security risks and barred from parliamentary access to continue receiving salaries funded by taxpayer money. These employees, despite being unable to physically enter the Bundestag, remain on staff of individual parliamentarians. This anomaly has drawn sharp criticism, prompting Bundestag President Julia Klöckner of the CDU to announce plans to amend the Abgeordnetengesetz (Parliamentary Law).
In a letter to parliamentary factions, Klöckner highlighted a “regulatory loophole” that necessitates closure. She explicitly stated the incongruity of denying access due to “grave security concerns” while simultaneously maintaining a funded employment contract within the Bundestag represents an “incomprehensible contradiction”. The proposed legislative changes aim to sever the financial ties with individuals deemed security threats, signaling a concerted effort to tighten parliamentary security and distance it from potentially compromising affiliations while simultaneously raising questions about the extent of vetting currently applied and the potential for political motivations influencing these decisions.
