A key AfD committee meets in Erfurt as the party clashes over bringing back conscription.

Germany’s Alternative for Germany (AfD) is set to confront its deepest internal rifts as its foreign and security policy committee gathers in Erfurt to weigh a proposal to revive military conscription. The measure, advanced by defence spokesman Rüdiger Lucassen as central to the party’s identity, is slated for introduction in the Bundestag once the centre-right Union and the Social Democrats unveil their plans for voluntary service. A clause has been added to the draft to bar the use of conscripts in foreign wars.

The meeting at the Hotel Krämerbrücke comes after months of mixed signals from the party leadership. Co-leader Tino Chrupalla, influential among eastern German voters, has argued against reinstating the draft, while co-leader Alice Weidel has spoken in favour. In eastern state branches, a counter-campaign under the banner “No conscription for foreign wars” gained traction. Thuringia’s AfD leader Björn Höcke says he supports conscription in principle but opposes it for now amid fears young men could be pulled into overseas conflicts, a view that prompted the no-foreign-deployment clause.

Beneath the policy dispute lies a struggle over direction and influence. Eastern factions now account for 42 of the party’s 151 Bundestag members, shifting the internal balance and prompting grumbling in western ranks about the spotlight on eastern gains. The split extends to foreign policy: Höcke has urged a reset with Russia and remains sceptical of the United States, while Weidel has criticised Moscow and pressed for closer ties with Washington under President Donald Trump. Markus Frohnmaier, a close ally of Weidel, plans a visit to Washington to bolster those links and seek support against any potential move to ban the party.

The turbulence is compounded by scrutiny of AfD figures, including party member Maximilian Krah, who is under suspicion of espionage for foreign actors. The Erfurt committee’s recommendation will shape whether the party’s parliamentary group proceeds with its amendment — and whether the leadership can bridge a widening East–West divide.