On June 8, 2026, members of the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party waved a German flag from a balcony of the Bundestag building while a demonstration passed by on the street below. This act prompted the Bundestag police to investigate whether the display of the flag violated the house rules. According to social media claims, a rainbow flag would have been acceptable under these regulations. The incident was captured in a video shared by AfD politician Beatrix von Storch, who was present at the scene and personally waved the flag. The footage shows her standing on the balcony alongside other AfD members, cheering at an anti-Merz demonstration. Additionally, the video highlights a room opposite the Bundestag where a rainbow flag can be seen through a window. Von Storch reportedly drew the attention of the Bundestag police to this flag as well, though whether it needed removal remains unclear.
The Bundestag's internal regulations do not explicitly prohibit flags or banners but emphasize that the visible placement of such items within or on the buildings of the Bundestag is generally forbidden. According to a press spokesperson for the Bundestag, the installation of posters, signs, stickers, and similar items on doors, walls, windows, or facades of publicly accessible Bundestag buildings is strictly prohibited. While the regulation does not specifically mention flags, they appear to fall under this prohibition. It remains uncertain whether waving a flag in one’s hand constitutes "installation" as defined in the rules. The press officer did not provide further clarification when asked about this point.
In previous years, instances of flags being removed from the Bundestag have occurred. In June 2025, Bundestag President Julia Klöckner, who holds the authority over the premises, banned the raising of the rainbow flag during the Christopher Street Day celebrations due to neutrality considerations. However, she allowed the flag to fly on May 17, the International Day against Homophobia. During the summer of 2025, the Bundestag police were frequently deployed to remove visible rainbow flags both inside and outside the building, including those belonging to members of the SPD and Die Linke parties.
When questioned about why their rainbow flags had to be removed, the office of Die Linke MP Stella Merendino explained that the flag had been placed on a window overlooking the courtyard of the parliamentary complex. This action was deemed a violation of Paragraph 4, Section 2, Sentence 2 of the house rules. Similarly, the office of SPD MP Lina Seitzl stated that she would not comment on the matter. In contrast, the rainbow flag visible in von Storch’s video appears to be hanging in a room rather than on a window, which raises questions about its compliance with the house rules.
The situation has sparked broader discussions about the interpretation of the Bundestag’s house rules regarding flags and symbols. While the official stance emphasizes strict adherence to the prohibition on visible installations, the practical application of these rules remains ambiguous. The case involving von Storch and the AfD has drawn particular attention, especially given the political implications of displaying national versus alternative symbols within the Bundestag. The Bundestag police continue to monitor and enforce these regulations, ensuring that the premises remain free of unauthorized displays. As the investigation into this specific incident unfolds, it will likely contribute to ongoing debates about the balance between symbolic expression and institutional order within Germany’s legislative body.
5 reports
CORRECTIVIndependentCenterFactual 95Objective 9021 days ago Why a German flag called the Bundestag police on the planThe Bundestag police were called after members of the AfD parliamentary group waved German flags on the balcony of a Bundestag building. The article examines the incident.
Bias read (Center): The article reports on an event without taking a stance or using biased language. It focuses on the fact that the Bundestag police were involved due to the actions of AfD MPs but does not frame the event with ideological slant.
Why these scores (Factual 95 · Objective 90): The article provides detailed information about the incident involving the AfD member waving a German flag from a balcony, citing video evidence and statements from the Bundestag press office. The facts appear consistent with the cross-source consensus, though some details like whether the rainbow f
Die WeltIndependent🔒CenterFactual 75Objective 7018 days ago Breach of the Artists' Law: German parliament to lift immunity from AfD politician Lars HaiseThe German Bundestag has lifted the immunity of AfD politician Lars Haise due to alleged violations of the Copyright Act.
Bias read (Center): The article reports a factual decision by the Bundestag without apparent ideological framing, word-choice, or emphasis that suggests a particular political leaning. It presents the action taken against an AfD member without commentary or contextual bias.
Why these scores (Factual 75 · Objective 70): The article states that the Bundestag lifted immunity for AfD politician Lars Haise due to a violation of copyright law. While this is more specific than others, there is no additional context or verification provided, so it remains somewhat speculative.
Die WeltIndependent🔒CenterFactual 70Objective 6521 days ago AfD demands the dismissal of Labour Minister Bas Bundestag rejects the requestThe AfD has called for the dismissal of Federal Minister of Labour Huberta Heidemarie Bas, but the Bundestag rejected the motion.
Bias read (Center): The article reports on an event without taking a stance or using biased language. It presents the facts neutrally: the AfD's demand and the rejection by the Bundestag.
Why these scores (Factual 70 · Objective 65): The article mentions the AfD demanding the dismissal of Minister Bas but lacks specific details about the Bundestag rejecting the motion. It is vague and does not provide enough context or sources to confirm the accuracy of the claim.
HandelsblattIndependent🔒CenterFactual 60Objective 5517 days ago AfD: Bundestag lifts immunity from AfD politiciansThe German Bundestag has lifted the immunity of an AfD politician.
Bias read (Center): The article reports a factual event without apparent framing or slant. It states the Bundestag has lifted the immunity of an AfD politician, presenting the information neutrally without commentary or emphasis on either side.
Why these scores (Factual 60 · Objective 55): The headline suggests the Bundestag lifted immunity for an AfD politician, but the article content is incomplete and lacks specifics. This makes it difficult to assess the factual accuracy or neutrality of the report.
Der SpiegelIndependentRightFactual 50Objective 4521 days ago AfD delegate to Parliament: After the performance in the Bundestag, police were deployed to the hotelA violent incident occurred at a hotel following an event attended by youth representatives in the German parliament, involving members of the far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) party.
Bias read (Right): The article references the involvement of AfD representatives in a violent incident, which frames them as aggressors without providing balanced context or counter-narratives. The term 'rechtsextremer Vorfall' (far-right incident) implies a negative characterization of the AfD participants, aligning
Why these scores (Factual 50 · Objective 45): The article appears to be behind a paywall and only contains promotional text for a subscription service. No actual content related to the event is visible, making it impossible to evaluate factual accuracy or objectivity.
★
Keep the news honest.
ObjectiveNews is reader-funded and ad-free — we show you the bias instead of hiding it. Support independent journalism for €5/month.
Become a Supporter