A senior AfD politician has withdrawn a claim that his party maintained high-level contacts with the American and Russian administrations, as well as with intelligence services linked to them. The retreat has stopped the remark from standing as the party’s official position, but it has left the AfD facing a more awkward question: why did its deputy parliamentary-group chairman make such a consequential claim at all?
Stefan Koyter later described his words as “misleading and not true”. The AfD’s Bundestag group has also denied any contact with foreign intelligence services. That settles the party’s formal line, but not the political damage caused by the sequence of assertion, alarm and retraction.
The claim that set off the crisis
On 13 November 2026, Junge Freiheit reported on Koyter’s remarks. He was described as speaking about contacts involving the AfD and the highest levels of the American and Russian administrations, along with intelligence organisations associated with them.
That wording carried a significance well beyond an ordinary reference to overseas political relationships. Parties may have dealings with foreign politicians, diplomats or governments. A claim about intelligence contacts points to a far more sensitive category of relationship, particularly when it comes from a member of the leadership of a parliamentary group.
Koyter’s position gave the statement institutional weight. He was not speaking as an obscure backbencher but as deputy chairman of the AfD group in the Bundestag. Listeners could therefore have taken the remark as an indication of knowledge about the party’s internal relationships, even though the available reporting does not establish that the alleged contacts existed.
The episode quickly became a source of concern inside the AfD. A public assertion about direct dealings with foreign intelligence services could expose a party to severe political accusations, including claims linked to Germany’s national security or treason. Those are potential consequences of such a statement, not proof that the AfD engaged in the conduct Koyter described.
A formal retreat rather than a public explanation
Under pressure from fellow party members, Koyter formally withdrew his words. The parliamentary group issued a denial of any contacts with foreign intelligence services, while the retraction characterised the original remarks as misleading and untrue.
The method of response mattered. The controversy was contained through an official statement rather than a detailed public account from Koyter. No explanation is available in the reported material of what he had intended to describe, what information lay behind the claim or why he changed his position.
That left the AfD with two competing difficulties. If Koyter had been referring, however inaccurately, to genuine relationships, the party would face questions about their nature, authorisation and oversight. If he had spoken without a reliable factual basis, the incident would raise questions about the judgement of a senior parliamentary figure and the controls within the group.
Neither interpretation is established by the information available. The firmest fact is the contradiction itself: a leading AfD politician first spoke of contacts with governments and intelligence services, then declared that his account was not true. A denial can remove an allegation from the party’s official position without explaining how it reached the public in the first place.
Why Russia makes the episode harder to contain
The controversy has landed on an existing vulnerability for the AfD. The party has long faced criticism in Germany from political opponents who regard its stance towards the Kremlin as excessively sympathetic. That criticism concerns its political orientation; it is not, by itself, evidence of a relationship with Russian intelligence.
Koyter’s remarks nevertheless appeared to shift the argument from political affinity to alleged links with state security structures. Opponents in the Bundestag attacked the AfD, while the party leadership sought to draw a clear line between itself and the withdrawn statement.
For a party seeking recognition as a credible governing force, the problem is not only the original allegation. It is also the lack of a convincing account of the failure that produced it. Treating the episode as a simple mistake may limit the immediate reputational damage, but it places Koyter’s judgement under scrutiny. Treating it as a disclosure of something real would create a much more serious security and political crisis.
The available account cannot determine whether Koyter confused political contacts with intelligence activity, exaggerated information or spoke without a sound basis. It does show why the retraction has not made the story disappear. The AfD has rejected the claim, but the party must still contend with the contrast between its official denial and the public words of one of its most senior Bundestag representatives.
