German far-right party faults protesters against its new youth wing for being ‘deeply undemocratic’

The party board of the AfD youth after the re-founding of the AfD youth organization in Giessen, Germany, early Saturday, Nov. 29, 2025. (AP Photo/Martin Meissner)
Short Url
Updated 30 November 2025
Follow

German far-right party faults protesters against its new youth wing for being ‘deeply undemocratic’

  • Police deployed 5,000 officers as more than 25,000 demonstrators tried to prevent the far-right Alternative for Germany from setting up its youth wing
  • AfD finished second in Germany’s national election in February with over 20 percent of the vote and is now the biggest opposition party

GIESSEN, Germany: A confident far-right Alternative for Germany set up its new youth organization on Saturday even as thousands of protesters converged on the western city of Giessen, where the party held its meeting, some of them clashing with police.
A convention of the anti-immigration party, known by its German acronym AfD, started more than two hours late after groups of protesters blocked or tried to block roads in and around the city of around 93,000, delaying many delegates’ arrival.
Officers used pepper spray after stones were thrown at them at one location, police said. They also used water cannons to clear a blockade by about 2,000 protesters after they ignored calls to leave. They did so again Saturday afternoon as a group tried to break through barriers toward the city’s convention center.
Police said up to 5,000 officers were deployed. They put the total number of demonstrators at more than 25,000 and said that a large part of the various protests went peacefully. They said they knew of 10 slightly injured officers.

AfD’s leaders assailed the protests as the meeting opened. “What is being done out there — dear left-wingers, dear extremists, you need to look at yourselves — is something that is deeply undemocratic,” party co-leader Alice Weidel said.
She said that one AfD lawmaker was attacked. Police said that a lawmaker had been injured near Giessen but didn’t give details.
Generation Germany
The new youth organization’s predecessor, the Young Alternative, a largely autonomous group with relatively loose links to the party, was dissolved at the end of March after AfD decided to formally cut ties with it.
AfD wants to have much closer oversight over the new group, named Generation Germany and open to all party members under 36, whose statute was approved Saturday.
AfD finished second in Germany’s national election in February with over 20 percent of the vote and is now the biggest opposition party. The party, with which mainstream parties refuse to work, has continued to rise in polls as Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s coalition government has failed to impress voters.
Germany’s domestic intelligence agency had concluded that the Young Alternative was a proven right-wing extremist group. It later classified AfD itself as such a group, but suspended the designation after AfD launched a legal challenge.




A sticker reading "Generation Germany" is displayed in a merchandise shop at the founding of Alternative for Germany's (AfD) new youth organiszation "Generation Deutschland" in Giessen, Germany, November 29, 2025. (REUTERS)

In a ruling last year rejecting a call for an injunction against the Young Alternative designation, a Cologne court argued that preserving an ethnically defined German people and the exclusion if possible of the “ethnically foreign” was a central political idea of the group.
It also pointed to agitation against migrants and asylum-seekers, and links with extremist groups such as the Identitarian Movement. In June, a higher court ended the appeal process, noting that the Young Alternative had been dissolved.
AfD’s other co-leader, Tino Chrupalla, said the party must learn from past mistakes.
“Some benefited from the young, from their ability to mobilize, but didn’t have the well-being and future of this youth sufficiently in sight,” he said. “We should have taken more care of the young new hopes in our party; it will be different in the future.” He added that the young activists must “put themselves at the party’s service.”
Anti-establishment force
It’s typical for German parties to have youth wings, which are generally more politically radical than the parent parties. It remains to be seen whether the new AfD youth organization will be more moderate than its predecessor, with significant continuity expected.
Jean-Pascal Hohm, a 28-year-old state lawmaker from the eastern region of Brandenburg, was elected unopposed as Generation Germany’s leader. He told delegates he had been the “proud chairman” of the Young Alternative in his home state. Hohm is considered a right-wing extremist by the regional branch of the domestic intelligence agency, a designation he rejects as politically motivated, German news agency dpa reported.
Kevin Dorow, a delegate from northern Germany, said he also was previously active in his local Young Alternative branch.
“The new formation means above all continuing what the Young Alternative started — being a training ground, attracting young people ... and above all bringing them into politics for the good of the party,” in which they could take on offices at some point, he said. He said he hadn’t seen any “drift in a radical direction” in the Young Alternative.
AfD portrays itself as an anti-establishment force at a time of low trust in politicians. It first entered the national parliament in 2017 following the arrival of large numbers of migrants in the mid-2010s. Curbing migration remains its signature theme, but it has shown a talent for capitalizing on discontent about other issues too. That was reflected in leaders’ confident tone Saturday.
Five of Germany’s 16 states hold regional elections next year. Two are in the ex-communist east, where the party is strongest.
“We will get the majority of mandates; we will provide our first governor,” Weidel said.
 


US vaccine advisers say not all babies need a hepatitis B shot at birth

Updated 06 December 2025
Follow

US vaccine advisers say not all babies need a hepatitis B shot at birth

  • Vaccine advisers named by Kennedy reverse decades-long recommendation
  • Kennedy’s advisory committee decided to recommend the birth dose only for babies whose mothers test positive
  • President Donald Trump posted a message calling the vote a “very good decision”

NEW YORK: A federal vaccine advisory committee voted on Friday to end the longstanding recommendation that all US babies get the hepatitis B vaccine on the day they’re born.
A loud chorus of medical and public health leaders decried the actions of the panel, whose current members were all appointed by US Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. — a leading anti-vaccine activist before this year becoming the nation’s top health official.
“This is the group that can’t shoot straight,” said Dr. William Schaffner, a Vanderbilt University vaccine expert who for decades has been involved with ACIP and its workgroups.
Several medical societies and state health departments said they would continue to recommend them. While people may have to check their policies, the trade group AHIP, formerly known as America’s Health Insurance Plans, said its members still will cover the birth dose of the hepatitis B vaccine.
For decades, the government has advised that all babies be vaccinated against the liver infection right after birth. The shots are widely considered to be a public health success for preventing thousands of illnesses.
But Kennedy’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices decided to recommend the birth dose only for babies whose mothers test positive, and in cases where the mom wasn’t tested.
For other babies, it will be up to the parents and their doctors to decide if a birth dose is appropriate. The committee voted 8-3 to suggest that when a family elects to wait, then the vaccination series should begin when the child is 2 months old.
President Donald Trump posted a message late Friday calling the vote a “very good decision.”

The acting director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Jim O’Neill, is expected to decide later whether to accept the committee’s recommendation.
The decision marks a return to a health strategy abandoned more than three decades ago
Asked why the newly-appointed committee moved quickly to reexamine the recommendation, committee member Vicky Pebsworth on Thursday cited “pressure from stakeholder groups,” without naming them.
Committee members said the risk of infection for most babies is very low and that earlier research that found the shots were safe for infants was inadequate.
They also worried that in many cases, doctors and nurses don’t have full conversations with parents about the pros and cons of the birth-dose vaccination.
The committee members voiced interest in hearing the input from public health and medical professionals, but chose to ignore the experts’ repeated pleas to leave the recommendations alone.
The committee gives advice to the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on how approved vaccines should be used. CDC directors almost always adopted the committee’s recommendations, which were widely heeded by doctors and guide vaccination programs. But the agency currently has no director, leaving acting director O’Neill to decide.
In June, Kennedy fired the entire 17-member panel earlier this year and replaced it with a group that includes several anti-vaccine voices.
Hepatitis B and delaying birth doses
Hepatitis B is a serious liver infection that, for most people, lasts less than six months. But for some, especially infants and children, it can become a long-lasting problem that can lead to liver failure, liver cancer and scarring called cirrhosis.
In adults, the virus is spread through sex or through sharing needles during injection drug use. But it can also be passed from an infected mother to a baby.
In 1991, the committee recommended an initial dose of hepatitis B vaccine at birth. Experts say quick immunization is crucial to prevent infection from taking root. And, indeed, cases in children have plummeted.
Still, several members of Kennedy’s committee voiced discomfort with vaccinating all newborns. They argued that past safety studies of the vaccine in newborns were limited and it’s possible that larger, long-term studies could uncover a problem with the birth dose.
But two members said they saw no documented evidence of harm from the birth doses and suggested concern was based on speculation.
Three panel members asked about the scientific basis for saying that the first dose could be delayed for two months for many babies.
“This is unconscionable,” said committee member Dr. Joseph Hibbeln, who repeatedly voiced opposition to the proposal during the sometimes-heated two-day meeting.
The committee’s chair, Dr. Kirk Milhoan, said two months was chosen as a point where infants had matured beyond the neonatal stage. Hibbeln countered that there was no data presented that two months is an appropriate cut-off.
Dr. Cody Meissner also questioned a second proposal — which passed 6-4 — that said parents consider talking to pediatricians about blood tests meant to measure whether hep B shots have created protective antibodies.
Such testing is not standard pediatric practice after vaccination. Proponents said it could be a new way to see if fewer shots are adequate.
A CDC hepatitis expert, Adam Langer, said results could vary from child to child and would be an erratic way to assess if fewer doses work. He also noted there’s no good evidence that three shots pose harm to kids.
Meissner attacked the proposal, saying the language “is kind of making things up.”
Health experts say this could ‘make America sicker’
Health experts have noted Kennedy’s hand-picked committee is focused on the pros and cons of shots for the individual getting vaccinated, and has turned away from seeing vaccinations as a way to stop the spread of preventable diseases among the public.
The second proposal “is right at the center of this paradox,” said committee member Dr. Robert Malone.
Some observers criticized the meeting, noting recent changes in how they are conducted. CDC scientists no longer present vaccine safety and effectiveness data to the committee. Instead, people who have been prominent voices in anti-vaccine circles were given those slots.
The committee “is no longer a legitimate scientific body,” said Elizabeth Jacobs, a member of Defend Public Health, an advocacy group of researchers and others that has opposed Trump administration health policies. She described the meeting this week as “an epidemiological crime scene.”
Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy, a liver doctor who chairs the Senate health committee, called the committee’s vote on the hepatitis B vaccine “a mistake.”
“This makes America sicker,” he said, in a post on social media.
The committee heard a 90-minute presentation from Aaron Siri, a lawyer who has worked with Kennedy on vaccine litigation. He ended by saying that he believes there should no ACIP vaccine recommendations at all.
In a lengthy response, Meissner said, “What you have said is a terrible, terrible distortion of all the facts.” He ended by saying Siri should not have been invited.
The meeting’s organizers said they invited Siri as well as a few vaccine researchers — who have been vocal defenders of immunizations — to discuss the vaccine schedule. They named two: Dr. Peter Hotez, who said he declined, and Dr. Paul Offit, who said he didn’t remember being asked but would have declined anyway.
Hotez, of the Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston, declined to present before the group “because ACIP appears to have shifted its mission away from science and evidence-based medicine,” he said in an email to The Associated Press.