What Alice Weidel is currently selling as a triumph is, upon closer examination, the opposite. The ruling of December 18, 2025, by the Administrative Court of Weimar, Case No. 8 K 1271/23 We, is clear, sober, and unambiguous – and it contradicts the picture Weidel publicly presents. The AfD lost its lawsuit on almost all points. The court neither delegitimized the Thuringian Office for the Protection of the Constitution nor criticized its work. It found no political persecution, no abuse of power, no unlawful targeting of an opposition party. The observation of the AfD remains lawful.
Why do you not simply ask yourselves one question: if a party always wants to be right, claims to have it all figured out, why does it have to lie about every minor detail?
One single formal point was criticized. The president of the Thuringian Office for the Protection of the Constitution, Stephan Kramer, should have refrained from making a value judgment about the AfD program in an interview. Nothing more appears in the ruling. Personal opinions are not permissible, an insignificant point. In addition, the decision is not legally final. So the AfD can still file an appeal, oh sorry, I forgot again, according to election Swiss Alice Weidel it was a total victory anyway.
From this narrow marginal aspect, Weidel publicly constructs something entirely different. She speaks of a defeat for the Office for the Protection of the Constitution, declares its work a danger, and portrays the state as the perpetrator. This is not supported by the ruling. Anyone who reads the decision immediately recognizes that this portrayal is false. It omits central passages, reverses the weighting, and creates an impression that has nothing to do with the court’s findings. This marks another step – the deception of one’s own voters. They are led to believe that a court essentially ruled in favor of the AfD. In reality, the court rejected the lawsuit almost entirely. This discrepancy is not a misunderstanding. It is calculated. An insignificant side issue is inflated, the rest concealed. That is fake news as a precise description.
Describing a ruling like that of the Administrative Court of Weimar (Case No. 8 K 1271/23 We) publicly as a “slapdown” creates an impression the decision does not support. In legal terms, what matters is not the headline but the holding: the AfD prevailed on only one narrowly defined point, while two further claims were rejected. The court neither fundamentally criticized the work of the Office for the Protection of the Constitution, nor questioned the surveillance of the AfD, nor found any structural violation of the law. The objection concerned a single evaluative statement made in public communication, a formal neutrality issue without the consequences suggested by the AfD. As political rhetoric, the term “slapdown” is protected by free speech, but as a description of the substance of the ruling it is misleading, because it suggests a comprehensive defeat that the court explicitly did not find.
This approach follows a pattern. Legal defeats are relabeled, facts are selectively trimmed, and responsibility is shifted elsewhere. The result is a persistently false picture in which courts, authorities, and the media are broadly portrayed as adversaries. That fuels distrust, stokes tensions, and blurs the line between verifiable information and mere assertion. The outcome is not clarification, but the obscuring of the debate.
From a legal perspective, portraying the ruling publicly as a “slapdown” can be assessed not merely as exaggerated, but as misleading. Fake news does not arise only when content is entirely fabricated, but already when true individual elements are distorted in such a way that they create an objectively false overall impression for the audience. That is precisely the case here. The Administrative Court of Weimar largely dismissed the AfD’s lawsuit and objected only to a narrowly defined formal point, without any material consequences for the work of the Office for the Protection of the Constitution. Presenting this outcome as a comprehensive defeat for the authority reverses the court’s actual weighting. In legal terms, this constitutes a factual suggestion that is not supported by the ruling itself. While the statement falls within the scope of freedom of expression as an opinion, it loses that protection where it falsely presents the content of a judicial decision as fact. By journalistic and legal standards, this form of representation can therefore be classified as fake news, because it is capable of deliberately misleading the public about the meaning and significance of the ruling.
From a factual standpoint, it must be noted that the ruling confirms the operational capacity of the Office for the Protection of the Constitution. It draws a clear line for the public restraint of a government official – and nothing more. Everything claimed beyond that does not appear in the ruling. Anyone who nonetheless speaks of a victory is deliberately deceiving. For the sake of transparency: the ruling is accessible via the press information of the Administrative Court of Weimar. In the end, a simple balance remains. The AfD lost in court. Alice Weidel knows that.
Updates – Kaizen News Brief
All current curated daily updates can be found in the Kaizen News Brief.
To the Kaizen News Brief In English
English 
German 
Interessanter Artikel.
Schade, dass es dazu in den Medien fast nichts zu lesen gab.
Populisten lügen und lügen.
Sie glauben je lauter und öfter man die Lüge verbreitet, dass sie dann zur Wahrheit wird.
Bzw es reicht ja schon, wenn die dumpfbackigen Blaunen es glauben.
Hauptsache man bedient seine Bubble.
Genau wie in der Trump Sekte zählen keine Fakten, nur wer am lautesten lügt und seine Lüge am häufigsten wiederholt.