The Wild(ers) West: Uncertain Political Future in the Netherlands

In the Netherlands, known for its effective water management, a political tsunami ensued after an unprecedented victory by the far-right Party for Freedom (PVV) in the November 2023 parliamentary elections. After six months of new coalition negotiations, the new Dutch government was sworn into office on July 2, 2024; the majority coalition consists of the PVV, ex-prime minister Mark Rutte’s People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD), the populist Farmer Citizen Movement (BBB), and the centrist New Social Contract party (NSC). The swearing-in of Prime Minister Dick Schoof marked a monumental end to the 14 years of Rutte’s tenure. The longest-serving Dutch prime minister to date, Rutte led four coalition governments between 2010 and 2023 before the most recent coalition government split on July 8, 2023. Coalition parties disagreed on asylum policies, with some objecting to Rutte’s proposal to restrict the scope for immigrant families to reunite, leading in large part to the collapse.

Despite lacking affiliation to any particular political party, Schoof, the former intelligence chief, was able to ascend to the prime minister position. The decision by the coalition to appoint him comes after opposition from coalition partners prevented Geert Wilders, the controversial leader of the PVV, from taking the job. Wilders’ policy proposals—which include restrictions on Islamic institutions (the banning of mosques, Islamic school, and the Quran) and Eurosceptic legislation—were viewed as challenges to the coalition’s more centrist agenda.

The purportedly non-partisan Schoof serves as the de facto leader of the government, and the now broad coalition works to keep Wilder and the PVV, as well as any other particular political party, in check. Still, experts worry about the potential implications of Wilders’ influence in Dutch domestic policy, as he and his party represent 37 out of 150 seats in parliament. More significantly, controversy has arisen about the spillover effect of Dutch discourse on Europe and beyond, particularly with political stability, asylum and immigration, Israel, Ukraine, and recent democratic backsliding globally.

Playing with Fire

Heavy regulation of immigration and asylum is a key policy focus on Wilders’ agenda, exemplifying a popular approach to international relations across Europe. In Italy, the Brothers of Italy (FDL)—the post-fascist party in power—illegally outsourced a migration hub from Italy to Albania. In Germany, the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party—who won 20.8 percent of the vote in recent federal elections—also champions immigration controls, including the rejection of asylum applications. The isolationist approach is clearly a burgeoning movement across key countries in Europe, and Wilders has taken a particularly assertive stance in order to pursue his agenda to minimize immigration and asylum in the Netherlands.

In recent negotiations regarding changes to asylum claim laws, Wilders threatened to quit the government coalition unless a controversial policy targeted at reducing the number of asylum applications was adopted. Both the Dutch Council of State, the country’s highest advisory body, and coalition members recommended against the introduction of Wilders’ proposals, citing legal viability and drafting issues. Wilders’ threats are not new: in September 2024, he proposed a nationwide state of emergency to pass strict asylum measures without parliamentary approval. These threats pose a serious challenge to the stability of the Dutch government, given that the previous Rutte government collapsed precisely due to irreconcilable differences within the coalition about migration control policy. Wilders’ unyielding approach has created deep uncertainty for a country that has already experienced recent political and civil unrest, including farmers protesting a nitrogen emission policy in 2023 and protests around the Israel-Palestine war in November 2024.

Transparency Turmoil

Wilders and the PVV’s actions raise further doubts about the political stances of the Netherlands with their controversial position on the Israel-Palestine conflict. In February 2025, after intense lobbying by the PVV and pro-Israel campaign organisations, the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Dutch Parliament retracted an invitation to Francesca Albanese, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in Palestine, who intended to present findings on issues of human rights within the occupied Palestinian territories. The lobbyists cited preventing the “opportunity to further spread anti-Israel narrative” as justification.

Notably, Wilders has demonstrated strong support for Israel throughout his time in politics: he was awarded the Jabotinsky Prize for Liberty by the Israeli parliament for his support of Israel and visited Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in November 2024 despite his international arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC). The future of the Netherlands’ role in international diplomacy and engagement with multilateral organizations is complicated by such actions: disagreement with  the United Nations shows an unwillingness to work with international organizations, which can stall future progress on preventing and resolving conflicts.

Room for Ukraine?

Wilders’ comments on Ukraine also add to the uncertainty around the Netherlands’ role in international conflicts. After the Trump-Zelensky clash in the White House, Wilders clarified the PVV’s support for Ukraine, stating on X that “of course, the PVV supports Ukraine and with conviction.” However, Wilders has notoriously promoted Dutch nationalism: in the past, he has criticized the influx of Ukrainian refugees to the Netherlands, the provision of military aid, and sending Dutch troops to Ukraine. This juxtaposition of positions between support and opposition towards Ukraine raises questions about how the Netherlands, a key player in European politics, will handle the already unstable situation regarding the Russia-Ukraine war. With President Trump suspending military aid to Ukraine, it is uncertain whether or not Wilders will push the government to ramp up support for Ukraine, or if the Netherlands is bound to follow suit.

“The Dutch Donald Trump”

Wilders parallels many of the behaviors of another politically assertive world leader: US President Donald Trump. Like President Trump’s hold on the Republican Party, Wilders has complete control over the agenda of his party, the PVV, having established his party to formally be classified as a one-member institution. Thus, the party is technically not considered a political party, but a single person engaged in political activities, solely dictating the views and actions of the party. This structure gives Wilders more control over the party, but eliminates any kind of internal democracy within the party, making the party less appealing to voters in turn.

Furthermore, Wilders emerged victorious in the election through a strategy reminiscent of Trump: scapegoating migrants to address contemporary domestic struggles; Wilders was convicted for inciting violence against Dutch Moroccans in December 2016. Suffering from a massive housing crisis, high taxes, and high cost of living in recent years, Dutch voters searched for an unconventional candidate to invoke change, protesting against the status quo of long-standing power for Mark Rutte and the VVD. Wilders and the PVV capitalized on the opportunity, just as Trump and other populist politicians across Europe did. Through fiery, country-first rhetoric, often spread through extensive social media campaigns, Wilders addressed the woes of the general public by pitting them against particular groups, predominantly immigrants, and giving his party a focused and emotional tactic to gain political advantage. Ultimately, Geert Wilders has dramatically transformed the state of Dutch politics. Through threats in coalition negotiations, reluctance toward international cooperation with the UN, contradictory attitudes regarding Ukraine, and polarizing rhetoric, Wilders’ strategy is reminiscent of Trump’s approach to governance. As parallels between Wilders and Trump emerge, questions about the future of the Netherlands have also arisen. Most essentially, will this unconventional approach to politics yield prosperity for the Netherlands, Europe, and beyond, or cause further sociopolitical vulnerability?