AfD: Alice Weidel once lashed out at Björn Höcke, today she courts him

The headline describes a dramatic change in Alice Weidel’s relationship with Björn Höcke. Earlier, Weidel opposed Höcke and wanted to prevent his influence. Today, she publicly treats him as an important ally. The shift matters because it signals changing power relationships inside the AfD and a more openly right-wing direction for the party.

The article cites hacked internal writings from AfD politicians. In those messages, Weidel reportedly complained about Höcke and wrote that she could “really vomit.” Another quoted statement says, “I can’t hear this anymore.” In contrast, she now calls Höcke a “very good politician.”

The article presents this reversal as evidence of the party’s rightward shift. It does not explain every reason for Weidel’s change. The available text does show that internal criticism has given way to public praise, suggesting that Höcke’s position inside the AfD has become harder for leading figures to ignore.

Alice Weidel and Björn Höcke are senior figures in the Alternative for Germany, or AfD. The article identifies Weidel as a party chairwoman and Höcke as a state chairman. Their personal relationship matters because both occupy influential positions, but the source does not provide a full biography or specify every office they hold.

The article contrasts their earlier and current interaction. Internal AfD writings show that Weidel once wanted to stop Höcke and sharply criticized him. A 2023 photograph caption identifies them together in Erfurt as “state chairman Höcke” and “party chairwoman Weidel.” Today, Weidel calls Höcke a “very good politician.”

This makes them symbols of a broader internal struggle. Weidel represents the party’s national leadership in the text, while Höcke appears as a powerful state-level figure. The article’s main point is not their formal job descriptions alone, but how Weidel’s changed stance reflects Höcke’s growing acceptance within the AfD.

The AfD stands for Alternative for Germany, a German political party. In political language, calling a party right-wing describes its position relative to other parties. Right-wing parties commonly place greater emphasis on national identity, traditional social ideas, law and order, and limiting immigration or state intervention in selected areas. The label covers a broad range of positions.

The source describes an internal “rightward shift” in the AfD. It links that development to the changing relationship between Alice Weidel and Björn Höcke. Weidel once attacked Höcke in internal messages, while she now calls him a “very good politician.” The article therefore uses the party’s personnel and alliances as evidence of ideological movement.

“Right-wing” does not itself describe one specific policy or prove that every member agrees. Political classification depends on a party’s programme, rhetoric, leaders, and actions. Here, the article’s concrete evidence is the increased public acceptance of Höcke and the contrast with earlier internal criticism.

The hacked internal writings reveal strong earlier disagreements within the AfD. Senior politicians reportedly used private messages to criticize Björn Höcke and challenge his influence. These documents matter because they show that today’s public unity was not always present. They expose conflicts that party leaders did not necessarily express openly in public.

Alice Weidel is a key example. The article says she wanted to stop Höcke and quotes her writing, “I could really vomit.” Another statement says, “I can’t hear this anymore.” The language indicates intense frustration. The writings therefore provide direct evidence of hostility, rather than merely suggesting that disagreements existed.

The article presents the documents as showing how far the party has moved. Weidel now praises Höcke as a “very good politician,” despite her earlier criticism. The source does not list every disputed issue or identify all writers. It does show a clear change from internal resistance to public accommodation.

The supplied article does not state the AfD’s vote share, number of seats, or current parliamentary strength. Therefore, its own text cannot measure the party’s electoral support or representation. It focuses instead on internal conflicts between senior figures and the party’s alleged rightward shift.

For outside context, the AfD received 20.8 percent of the vote in Germany’s 2025 federal election and won 152 of the Bundestag’s 630 seats. That result made it one of the country’s largest parliamentary forces. These figures are not contained in the supplied article and are included only to answer the question about scale.

That level of representation gives party leaders a strong incentive to manage internal alliances carefully. It also means changes in the party’s direction can affect national parliamentary debate. Electoral strength alone, however, does not prove that every AfD voter supports Höcke or the positions associated with him.

When a political party moves further right, its policies may place greater emphasis on national identity, tougher immigration rules, law and order, or resistance to social change. Its public image can also change. Supporters may see the shift as clearer and more authentic, while other voters, rival parties, and observers may view it as more extreme or divisive.

The article illustrates this through leadership behavior. Alice Weidel once wanted to stop Björn Höcke and privately described him in deeply hostile terms. Today, she calls him a “very good politician.” That change can help bring a powerful right-wing figure closer to the party leadership and make his positions more influential in public debate.

The consequences are not automatic. A rightward move may strengthen internal unity among one faction while creating new conflicts elsewhere. It can also affect coalition possibilities, voter appeal, and scrutiny from opponents. The supplied article establishes the direction of change, but it does not report specific policy decisions or later electoral effects.

Factional power struggles arise when groups inside a party compete over policy, leadership, public messaging, and access to voters. Leaders may oppose one another when one faction threatens the other’s influence. Later, they may cooperate if circumstances change. A previously criticized figure can become an ally when controlling or marginalizing that figure is no longer realistic.

The article gives a clear example. Hacked writings show that Alice Weidel once wanted to stop Björn Höcke and reacted angrily to him. Today, she calls him a “very good politician.” The key mechanism is a changed balance of power: public praise can recognize a faction’s strength, secure cooperation, or prevent an internal split. The source does not identify Weidel’s precise motive.

Electoral incentives can reinforce this behavior. Leaders may accommodate a strong faction if its message attracts voters or if its support is needed for party unity. Such alliances can reshape policy and leadership. They can also make earlier disagreements visible, especially when leaked documents reveal the reversal.