The AfD, Germany’s far-right party, is grappling with a public response to the capture of Nicolás Maduro by the Trump administration. While the party platform explicitly supports the principle of non-interference in other nations’ affairs, key figures within the AfD have offered muted criticism of the U.S. action, revealing internal divisions and a surprising intellectual lineage.
No Clear Position on the Attack on Venezuela
For a party that prioritizes national sovereignty, the capture of Maduro would seemingly demand a clear condemnation. The AfD’s 2025 election program states the party “affirms the principles of international law, in particular the Charter of the United Nations (UN). The AfD agrees in the spirit of the Treaty of Helsinki that no country should interfere in the internal affairs of another.” However, party leader Alice Weidel has remained conspicuously silent on the matter on X, focusing instead on domestic issues like a power outage in Berlin.
Markus Frohnmaier, the AfD’s foreign policy spokesman, declined to offer a definitive assessment of whether the U.S. action constituted a violation of international law, stating to ARD-Hauptstadtstudio, “It is not my job as a German foreign policy official to conduct these, shall we say, legal-theoretical discussions.” Frohnmaier has actively cultivated contacts with the Trump administration, with groups of AfD members traveling to the U.S. to build relationships.
Conversely, those within the party who maintain a more skeptical view of the United States feel vindicated. Torben Braga, an MP close to Björn Höcke, publicly questioned the need for a large delegation to visit the U.S. in December and now rejects the U.S. military action. Benedikt Kaiser, a leading figure on the New Right, criticized what he termed “devoted, undignified, and blanket uncritical Trump glorification,” specifically targeting a post by MP Rüdiger Lucassen defending Trump’s actions.
The AfD’s Admiration for Carl Schmitt
The internal debate over Venezuela highlights a broader ideological tension within the AfD. The party’s reluctance to condemn the U.S. action, coupled with references to the “Monroe Doctrine” – the U.S. policy of opposing European colonialism in the Americas – reveals a surprising intellectual current.
Carl Schmitt, a controversial jurist who provided the theoretical foundation for Adolf Hitler’s expansionist plans, is a figure of admiration for some within the AfD. Schmitt utilized the “Monroe Doctrine” in his “Grossraum” (large area) theory, which posited the existence of distinct geopolitical spheres of influence. Maximilian Krah, an AfD member, has identified Schmitt as a key intellectual influence, stating, “Anyone who wants to be right-wing and intellectual should at least know their own classics. Nothing will work without Carl Schmitt.” He celebrated Trump’s actions on X, stating that the “large area order – thinking in spheres of influence – is here,” and that the AfD is the only party in Germany prepared for this new reality.
Dimitrios Kisoudis, a key advisor to Tino Chrupalla, also appears sympathetic to Schmitt’s ideas. He recently published an interview collection with Schmitt and, on X, called for “Europe [to] need its own order principle,” echoing Schmitt’s concept of “order and location.” He elaborated that this would involve defining zones of influence following the demarcation in Ukraine and clarifying the balance of power between France and Germany.
Frohnmaier lamented that Europe lacks a “large area” and is “administered by clueless children,” but declined to distance himself from Schmitt’s theories, stating that a negative past does not necessitate “canceling” them. Peter Thiel, a tech billionaire and close advisor to Trump, has also referenced Schmitt in interviews, suggesting a shared intellectual framework between Trump’s circle and elements within the AfD.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the “Monroe Doctrine”?
The “Monroe Doctrine” is a U.S. foreign policy principle from 1823 opposing European colonialism in the Americas. It asserted U.S. dominance in the Western Hemisphere and has been historically used to justify U.S. intervention in Latin American affairs.
Who is Carl Schmitt?
Carl Schmitt was a German jurist whose theories were used to provide the intellectual justification for Adolf Hitler’s expansionist policies. He is often referred to as Hitler’s “crown jurist” due to his influence on Nazi ideology.
Why is there disagreement within the AfD regarding the U.S. action in Venezuela?
There is disagreement within the AfD between those who prioritize a strict adherence to the principle of non-interference in other countries’ affairs and those who are more sympathetic to the Trump administration and its foreign policy objectives.
Given these internal divisions and the historical references being invoked, will the AfD ultimately coalesce around a unified position on the U.S. intervention in Venezuela, or will this issue further exacerbate existing fractures within the party?
