Alternative for Germany Member of Parliament (MEP) Christine Anderson
This interview conducted by Alexander Junger and was originally published by Eagle Eye Explore on May 12, 2025. It was edited for clarity and is published here at The Gateway Pundit with very kind permission.
Christine Anderson is a Member of the European Parliament representing the right-wing, anti-globalist Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, known for her outspoken criticism of EU bureaucracy, globalism, and what she views as creeping authoritarianism in Western democracies. Since entering the European Parliament in 2019, she has become a prominent voice within the AfD, frequently challenging mainstream narratives on immigration, civil liberties, and pandemic policy.
In this wide-ranging interview, Alternative for Germany (AfD) Member of the European Parliament Christine Anderson offers a searing indictment of Germany’s political direction, warning of an ominous drift toward authoritarianism. True to form, the outspoken AfD firebrand takes aim at outgoing Interior Minister Nancy Faeser, accusing her of systematically eroding civil liberties while misleading the public about the scale of illegal migration. Anderson tackles a broad array of pressing issues—including unchecked government overreach, censorship, pandemic-era authoritarianism, and mounting threats to press freedom and free expression. She further condemns the CDU’s collaboration with the radical left-wing globalist Social Democrats, defends the AfD’s rising popular support amid efforts by an increasingly discredited establishment to marginalize it, and cautions against a broader EU-wide shift toward centralized, unaccountable governance.
Nancy Faeser, Germany’s outgoing federal interior minister—widely seen as a far-left activist who, during her tenure, arguably did more than any predecessor to undermine the country’s security and freedom—recently claimed the ‘traffic light’ coalition has significantly curbed illegal migration, pointing to slight increases in deportations and fewer asylum claims. Many view her statement as out of touch and dismissive of public concern. How do you interpret her remarks?
You’re absolutely right. It’s honestly unbelievable—the range of policies Faeser has pushed through is staggering. And now, there’s the latest scandal that broke just yesterday: a journalist from Deutschland Kurier was convicted of defaming her. What happened? He posted a meme showing her holding a sign that read, ‘I hate freedom of speech.’ She pressed charges, and the court sentenced him to seven months in prison, although it was suspended on probation. Still, that’s outrageous—it really is.
Anyway, that’s just one more example—among many—we’ve seen over the past several months, or even years. Take last year, for instance: there was a big incident involving Robert Habeck, the Minister of Economics. Someone had posted a meme featuring a silhouette of his head next to a hair product brand, with the caption ‘Schwab, COVID,’ which basically means ‘moron.’ Well, the police showed up at the poster’s house at six in the morning, searched the place, and confiscated his phone, computer—everything. It’s truly insane. So yes, I think it’s fair to say that in Germany today, we’re no longer living in a real democracy.
Beyond that, Faeser has targeted the police, launched purges against alleged ‘right-wing extremists’ in the civil service, and pressured the press. How do you explain her ability to pursue such a sweeping agenda without significant political pushback?
Well, you’re right—and what the government’s doing is adding insult to injury. Right now in Germany, we’re seeing an average of two brutal gang rapes every single day. These aren’t minor assaults—we’re talking about women being viciously beaten, suffering broken skulls, shattered jawbones—attacks that leave them barely clinging to life. And that doesn’t even include the rapes committed by individual perpetrators.
On top of that, we’re now facing random knife attacks on an hourly basis. It’s not just daily anymore—there are 13, 14, sometimes 15 such stabbings happening all across Germany every day. Yet, if you dare to speak out about this, you’re immediately labeled an Islamophobe or a right-wing extremist. The moment you criticize what’s happening, those labels get thrown at you.
Even worse, criticism of the government is now being treated as “delegitimization of the state.” That means simply expressing dissent can land you on the radar of the domestic intelligence agency, as though you’re trying to overthrow the government. But in any true democracy, holding your leaders accountable—criticizing their actions—is not just a right, it’s a responsibility. Silencing that criticism crosses a line into authoritarianism, and that’s exactly where we’re heading.
I understand there are certainly bad actors in the old parties—the SPD, the Greens, and the CDU—but surely there are also some well-meaning individuals among them. They must see where the current trajectory of the German state leads. So why don’t they speak out? It would be in their own interest—and even more so, in their children’s. Is it a failure of courage, or simply a lack of self-reflection?
To me, this is the real conundrum. In Germany, we’ve experienced totalitarianism firsthand—under the Nazis in the 1930s and in East Germany under the GDR. So, if anyone should be able to recognize the signs of totalitarianism, it should be the German people. But sadly, they’re not seeing it. Now, they seem to think it’s acceptable because it’s being done by the “good guys.” But that’s the crux of the issue: it’s never okay.
The danger lies not in the policies themselves or the intentions behind them, but in the methods used to achieve those goals. For example, ending world hunger is a noble goal—who wouldn’t want that? But the real question is: how do you plan to achieve it? The problem arises when the path to that goal involves oppression or infringing on fundamental rights. That’s where we need to draw the line. Even the best intentions can go astray if they’re implemented through authoritarian means. As Camus famously said, “The welfare of the people is the alibi of tyrants.”
How do you view the current political situation, particularly in light of the promises made by party leaders and the ongoing attempts to destroy your party by painting it as some kind of neo-Nazi party in the eyes of the German public?
The thing is, they tried their hardest to accomplish that goal, but they’re failing. In the last election, we hit 20% for the first time, and now we’re polling at 20-24%. We’re even with the Christian Democrats, who used to be the main conservative party in Germany. I personally voted for them from the time I turned 18 until 2005.
In this election, the party leader said all the right things, and people trusted him, thinking he would bring change. As a result, he received around 27-28% of the vote. But the very day after the election, he broke his number one promise, which was to close the borders—something he had campaigned on.
He ran on the promise of the debt brake—no more debt. He got elected and came in first. But the day after the election, he said, “No one ever promised to close the borders.” People were left confused, thinking, “Wait, what?” The constant labeling of my party as the “evil enemy”—as if we want to abolish democracy—is completely ludicrous. The people are starting to realize that.
Here’s the thing: when we were founded in March 2013, which was about 12 years ago, everything we warned about has turned out to be true. We weren’t fear-mongering or imagining things. We laid out clear scenarios: if this happens, this is the result. If that happens, this is what will follow. And it happened. Now, people are beginning to see it.
What they’ve been trying to do is no longer working. And on top of that, the constant labeling of my party as Nazis—repeating it in nearly every sentence—is not only misleading but also an abominable trivialization of the horrific atrocities the Nazis inflicted on humanity. That’s what they’re doing.
The CDU, following the federal snap election where it was victorious, has seen its support drop precipitously. Pollsters have pointed out that no winning party in Germany has ever experienced such a loss of trust between the election and the formation of the government. Some key figures within the CDU have openly voiced their opposition to Friedrich Merz’s plan to form a coalition with the left-liberal SPD, which is unprecedented. What do you make of all this?
The so-called “wannabe Chancellor”—I’ll refer to him that way—actually lost the public’s trust even before the government was formed. This process started right after the election, when he claimed, “No one ever said anything about closing borders,” despite the fact that closing borders was the top issue he campaigned on. As a result, he’s losing support from many voters in Germany who, once again, thought, “This time we can trust this guy and his party.” They’re now completely disappointed.
Furthermore, many members of the Christian Democrats are furious. They remember the winter election campaign, when it was freezing cold in Germany. Campaigners were out on the streets, handing out leaflets and manning information booths in temperatures well below freezing. They did this because they believed in Friedrich Merz and hoped he would finally bring meaningful policy changes to Germany. Now they feel betrayed, realizing that wasn’t the case.
It’s understandable that they’re upset—and honestly, they have every right to be. It’s almost unheard of for a prospective Chancellor to lose all credibility before the coalition government is even formed.
One of the regional leaders of the CDU told Merz that party members no longer feel adequately represented and are considering leaving the party. Do you think this is a credible threat?
Yes, and they are. Party members are leaving in droves, and more are likely to follow. But the main issue here is simple: Merz is a fool. He made it clear during the campaign that he wouldn’t even consider talking to the AfD, despite polls showing that the two main parties would be the Christian Democrats and the AfD. By ruling out any negotiation with the AfD, he essentially told all the other parties, “You can blackmail me and I’ll have to give in.” That seems to be the only promise he intends to keep. What was he thinking? Honestly, I have no idea. It doesn’t seem like there was much thought behind it at all.
How do you see this unfolding? By stating publicly that the CDU won’t, under any circumstances, form a center-right coalition with the AfD, Merz and the CDU leadership have effectively boxed themselves in and given the Social Democrats an incredible amount of leverage.
Yes, they’ve boxed themselves in. Merz has done the same, and it doesn’t even seem like he realizes what he’s done. Alice Weidel, one of the leaders of my party, has been telling Merz throughout the campaign that “you need to explain to the people how you plan to implement all of your policy changes with the Social Democrats and the Greens. There’s simply no way to make that work. So, how do you plan on doing it?” Of course, he had no answer.
The people feel utterly betrayed. The bottom line is that whatever Merz promised, he won’t be able to deliver. Not only will he fail to keep his promises, but he’s also bound to implement whatever the Social Democrats demand. It’s essentially a situation where they can ask anything of him, and he’ll have to comply, or he won’t remain Chancellor.
You mentioned during out brief discussion before the interview that you’re hearing that the German government may be considering abolishing the Freedom of Information Act. Can you tell us more about that?
Yes, they’re actually discussing abolishing the Freedom of Information Act in Germany. Can you believe that? And yes, it’s similar to the Freedom of Information Act in the U.S.—it’s a fundamental democratic tool that allows citizens to request information from the government to ensure transparency and accountability.
What prompted this? Well, just before the election, the Christian Democrats became a target of Antifa because they had introduced a piece of legislation to restrict immigration—something they described as addressing what they see as an invasion. This happened right in the middle of the campaign. As a result, they faced widespread protests, vandalism, and intense backlash, especially aimed at Friedrich Merz and the CDU.
In the midst of this, the Christian Democrats had the audacity to ask the government questions like: Who are these NGOs? How are they funded? Simply asking those questions was treated like they had opened the gates of hell. The backlash was fierce.
Now, during coalition negotiations, there are serious discussions about abolishing the Freedom of Information Act altogether. But that act is essential—it’s a fundamental right. Without it, how can citizens hold their government accountable? If we’re no longer allowed to ask, “Why was this done? Who made this decision? What was the justification?” then transparency disappears.
A prime example of why this matters happened just last year. The Ministry of Health claimed that the Robert Koch Institute—our equivalent of the CDC—was acting independently and that pandemic-related measures were based purely on science. But when citizens gained access to the meeting minutes through the Freedom of Information Act, it was revealed that the opposite was true. The government had already decided on the restrictions and then pressured the Institute to back them with scientific justification.
If we lose access to that kind of information, how will the public ever uncover when the government acts in bad faith or serves interests other than the public good?
You have said that the COVID-19 so-called ‘vaccination campaign’ will go down in the medical books as the biggest medical scandal ever and the biggest crime against mankind. How come?
Yes—just look at the lengths they went to. This wasn’t limited to one country, or even a handful; governments around the world, particularly in Western democracies, acted in complete lockstep. And the reason I emphasize Western democracies is important: I didn’t expect countries like China or North Korea to uphold fundamental rights or democratic principles—they’re already totalitarian regimes. But I did expect democratic nations to stay true to those principles. Instead, they aligned perfectly, using the same messaging, the same strategies, and the same restrictions.
That’s exactly where the attack had to happen—on the democratic process itself. Elections, checks and balances, citizen rights—all of it becomes a barrier when you’re trying to centralize power or build a one-world governance structure. And so, those very principles had to be undermined. And the extent to which they were willing to go to do that was staggering.
They used the same slogans everywhere: “Stay at home,” “No one is safe until everyone is safe,” “The infection stops with you,” “No jab, no job,” “Build back better.” It was as if every government and institution was reading from the same script.
And all of this was done to promote mRNA injections—something I don’t even call a vaccine, because it doesn’t meet the traditional definition. These injections were neither safe nor effective, and what’s worse is they knew that.
They knew the truth before they pushed it on the public. The mRNA injections were tested on monkeys, and even then, it was clear they didn’t prevent transmission. Yet, they promoted it to the public as if it did—plain and simple.
Janine Small, a Vice President at Pfizer, testified before the EU Parliament’s COVID committee and was directly asked whether the mRNA injection had been tested for its ability to prevent infection and transmission. Her answer? No, we never even tested that. So it was a blatant lie from the start. And on the basis of that lie, people were ostracized, stigmatized, and coerced. They were threatened with losing their jobs. The message was clear: If you don’t get the jab, you’re endangering others—you’re literally killing people.
That’s what we were told. Just for refusing the injection, we were labeled murderers. That became the justification for lockdowns and restrictions. Remember the phrase “the pandemic of the unvaccinated”? There was no such thing. That narrative existed solely to put immense pressure on people who chose not to take the mRNA injection. The aim was to isolate and force them into compliance.
And that is exactly why I stand by my statement: this will go down as the greatest crime ever committed against humanity—on a global scale.
What happened during that time marked a massive paradigm shift. The most dangerous part is that the effects are still with us. Fundamental rights have been reframed as privileges—something the government can grant or withhold depending on how we behave. That’s still the case. This isn’t over.
And honestly, who knows what they’ll try next? That uncertainty is terrifying. For example, in Germany, they changed the law related to infectious diseases—and those changes are still in effect. They still have the legal authority to lock us down again.
And yes, they did learn from COVID. At one point, we weren’t allowed to move beyond a 15-kilometer radius from our homes. Trust me, they wanted that radius to be even smaller—but the infrastructure didn’t exist yet to enforce it. So now, they’re building that infrastructure.
And that’s what these so-called “15-minute cities” are really about. They’re not designed for your convenience or to improve your quality of life. They’re about control. They’re about being able to lock you down more efficiently next time. It’s not about saving the planet. It’s not about public health. The real purpose is total control.
If I may add something here, this is precisely why there’s a growing push to grant governing authority to the World Health Organization. The underlying reason is to give democratically elected politicians and governments plausible deniability.
They realized something during COVID: as much as they wanted to impose even harsher restrictions, they were limited—because in a democracy, if a politician goes too far, they risk not being re-elected. So the workaround? Shift the authority to an unelected body like the WHO. That way, when harsh measures are imposed—lockdowns, vaccine mandates, or whatever else—they can say, “Hey, it wasn’t us. Our hands are tied. The WHO made the call.”
That’s the only reason for this push to give the WHO such sweeping powers. It’s not about health—it’s about control through delegation. And yes, it’s devious. It’s also undeniably clever. These people know exactly what they’re doing.
In recent months, the European Union has taken a sharp authoritarian turn, raising serious concerns about the state of democracy across the bloc. Last fall, after Calin Georgescu unexpectedly won Romania’s presidential election, the constitutional court annulled the result, and the election committee subsequently barred him from participating in the re-run. More recently, Marine Le Pen was banned from running in France’s 2027 presidential election following a conviction for alleged misuse of EU funds. Do you see these developments as part of a broader trend toward political repression in the EU?
Romania is a particularly clear-cut example. Calin Georgescu unexpectedly came in first in the initial round of the presidential election, and his platform stood firmly against the EU, against the WHO, and against virtually everything the globalist elite are trying to implement. And what happened? They simply annulled the election. They accused him of being influenced by Russia or having received Russian funds—but provided no evidence. None. They just shut it down.
This marks a dangerous new phase. Until now, the thing these institutions feared most was the democratic process itself—free and fair elections. In a true democracy, the government fears the people. But when the people start fearing the government, that’s no longer democracy; that’s totalitarianism. And now it seems we’ve reached a point where, if the outcome of an election doesn’t suit the establishment, they’ll just annul it. That’s the next frontier of control.
We’re seeing the same pattern emerge in France now as well. Of course, corruption and the misuse of public funds should carry consequences—that goes without saying. But declaring Marine Le Pen ineligible to run in next year’s presidential election feels excessive, at least to me.
From what I’ve read, while it’s not entirely unusual in France to issue such rulings in cases like this, what is unprecedented is making the verdict provisional—effectively barring her from running before the entire legal process has concluded. That’s never happened before. Even though she still has legal recourse, the decision to disqualify her in the meantime seems overtly political. It’s hard not to see this as a politically motivated move.
What do you make of these “preparedness” or “survival” documents that governments of EU member states, along with the EU Commission itself I believe, have been passing out to their people? The documents show people what sort of things they will need to survive in the event of conventional war, nuclear war, government collapse, and an extended power blackout, among other things. Is this a tactic being used to spread fear?
It’s all fearmongering. Just a few years ago, people who prepared for emergencies—preppers—were ridiculed. You know, the ones who kept extra food and water at home in case of a snowstorm, a power outage, or some other disruption. They were labeled conspiracy theorists, even mocked as paranoid.
But now, EU institutions themselves are advising citizens to stock up on supplies—food, water, basic essentials. Suddenly, what was once considered fringe behavior is now being presented as responsible and normal.
To me, this shift suggests something deeper: they’re not just encouraging preparedness for natural disasters. It looks like they’re psychologically preparing the public across EU member states for war. And that’s incredibly alarming.
You seem to have a particularly close relationship with North America, perhaps more so than any other senior figure in the AfD. I understand you spent six years living in the United States, studying and working. When you travel to the US or Canada as an AfD politician, what kinds of questions do people there ask you? What are their hopes, concerns, or perspectives when it comes to Germany and Europe?
Well, they’re certainly paying attention to what’s happening in Germany—and they’re deeply concerned. But it’s important to note that what we’re experiencing here isn’t unique to Germany; similar patterns are unfolding across nearly every Western democracy.
When I last visited the United States, about a year and a half ago, I was invited to give a series of talks. Honestly, I was surprised—genuinely moved, even. To me, the U.S. has always stood as the land of the free, the land of the brave, a place of boundless opportunity. So to be invited there to speak about freedom, democracy, and the rule of law—it was humbling. The fact that Americans would want to hear a German politician speak on those topics felt surreal.
At the end of each of my speeches, I offered a simple request—not for money, not for political favors, but just this: please, return Donald Trump to the White House. Because in my view, if we’re going to have any hope of reversing this coordinated assault on freedom, democracy, and the rule of law, we need a strong United States that leads by example. And for that, I believe Donald Trump’s leadership is essential.
The post Germany Is No Longer a Real Democracy & the EU Is Turning to Totalitarianism — Interview with AfD MEP Christine Anderson appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
