Skip to content

Germany Slams U.S. for Banning Anti-Hate Activists Over ‘Radical’ Label

A U.S. travel ban on two German anti-hate leaders ignites a diplomatic row. Berlin demands answers—why were they labeled ‘radical’ without evidence?

This picture contains a poster and we see some text written in black color. In the middle, we see a...
This picture contains a poster and we see some text written in black color. In the middle, we see a heart shape symbol with text written as "HATE". In the background, it is white in color.

Foreign Minister Wadephul: Entry bans against HateAid CEOs 'not acceptable' - Germany Slams U.S. for Banning Anti-Hate Activists Over ‘Radical’ Label

Two German activists have been barred from entering the U.S. after being labelled 'radical' by American authorities. Anna-Lena von Hodenberg and Josephine Ballon, directors of anti-hate organization HateAid, now face travel restrictions. The move has sparked criticism from Berlin, with German officials calling for dialogue instead of exclusion.

HateAid works to combat digital violence and push for stronger prosecutions of online hate crimes. The organization operates under the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA), a law ensuring that illegal offline behaviour remains illegal online. This legislation was democratically adopted by the EU and applies only within its borders.

The U.S. decision to block von Hodenberg and Ballon has drawn sharp condemnation. German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul criticized the bans, arguing that disagreements should be settled through discussion rather than restrictions. He emphasized the importance of maintaining open transatlantic exchanges. Neither activist has been accused of supporting extremism or violence. Their organization focuses on legal advocacy and victim support, with no ties to state-level politics in Germany.

The entry bans highlight tensions over free speech and digital regulation between the U.S. and EU. HateAid continues its work under the DSA, which does not extend beyond Europe. German officials now seek clarification on why the two directors were deemed a security risk.

Read also:

Latest