The Netherlands’ government collapsed Tuesday after Geert Wilders pulled his far-right Freedom Party (PVV) out of a fragile four-party coalition, citing a breakdown in talks over migration policy.
The decision triggered the resignation of Prime Minister Dick Schoof — in office for just 11 months — ushering in a new phase of political uncertainty for the EU’s fifth-largest economy.
The coalition, which included Wilders’s PVV, the centre-right People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD), the agrarian populist Farmer–Citizen Movement (BBB), and the centrist New Social Contract (NSC), had already faced deep ideological divisions. Wilders’ party — which won the most votes in November 2023, but failed to secure a majority — was only able to enter government after months of negotiations that saw him personally barred from the coalition. Party leaders then appointed Schoof, a technocrat without party affiliation, to lead the wobbly alliance.
The government fell amid Wilders push for a more hardline approach to asylum and migration policy, an issue central to his party’s identity. With new elections unlikely before autumn, the Netherlands now enters months of caretaker governance with limited legislative power.
The Parliament spoke with Tom Louwerse, professor of political science at Leiden University, to examine the implications for Dutch politics, Wilders’ future and the country’s role in the EU.
This interview has been edited for clarity and length.
Did the collapse of the government come as a surprise?
This government had been stumbling from crisis to crisis, so the collapse wasn’t entirely unexpected. But until now, they had always managed to find a compromise or a way out. They could have done so again this time, but Wilders pushed things very far. By Monday evening, it was already clear the situation was critical.
This was a government where coalition partners never really trusted each other, and the structure of the coalition didn’t help build confidence either.
Why was migration the final straw?
Geert Wilders made a deliberate choice to let migration be the issue that would break the government. It’s the topic his party is best known for — they have real ownership of it. In his view, migration policy wasn’t going far enough. Even though he had signed up to the [government's migration] agreement, he felt the implementation was too slow and the terms too soft.
He proposed a ten-point plan to accelerate and tighten migration measures, including border closures, no new asylum centres, and returning Syrian [immigrants] as soon as possible. His coalition partners were willing to discuss it but refused to sign the plan on the spot, which he essentially demanded. He was playing a high-stakes game, and the other parties no longer wanted to be part of it.
He preferred the government to fall over this subject, rather than over something like foreign policy, where he’d be forced to take public positions that have less voter appeal. By triggering a collapse now, he can put migration back at the centre of debate ahead of [fresh] elections.
At the outset, this coalition had promised the strictest asylum policy in Dutch history. Why do you think Wilders didn’t wait to see that through?
The main deviation from the original asylum plan was about declaring a state of emergency — that was the initial goal. But this had to be legally justified, and they failed to do that. So instead, the government agreed to pursue an emergency legislative procedure, which moved much more slowly.
That’s where things started to fall apart. In the Dutch system, a minister needs to seek consensus across various parties. Wilders’ minister, who was in charge of migration policy, wasn’t skilled at that — and Wilders' confidence began to wane.
Polls also showed his party slipping, so I think he decided to act: to bring migration back into the spotlight, and to let the government fall on this issue if necessary. That way, he could send a message to voters: “If you want a truly strict asylum policy, you need to vote for me.”
Some critics say Wilders never really wanted to govern. He acted more like an opposition leader within his own government — making proposals that violated international treaties, while formally committing to uphold those same agreements.
We’ve seen far-right parties become part of governments all over Europe. The PVV entering government was a first for the Netherlands. Why didn’t it work?
The PVV has no real internal structure and few members with government experience. That was a problem. It also didn’t help that Wilders, as party leader, kept criticising the government — including his own ministers — from his seat in the House of Representatives.
He repeatedly said, “This isn’t good, this must change,” and his coalition partners started to feel that he needed to take some responsibility. They had agreed on a [migration] programme and wanted to stick to it. So when Wilders suddenly tried to reopen major parts of the deal, they were no longer willing to go along, especially given his lack of loyalty to the cabinet.
Are other parties still willing to govern with the PVV in the future?
The [centre-right] VVD hasn’t ruled it out yet — they’re being cautious. If they exclude the PVV entirely, they’ll likely be forced to form a coalition with the left. But working with such an unreliable partner as the PVV makes future cooperation very difficult.
The [centrist] NSC has been much clearer and now seems to be collapsing in the polls. The [populist] BBB was always the most PVV-aligned party in the coalition, but they've also lost support.
The [conservative] Christian Democratic Appeal (CDA), which has gained a bit in the centre-right, has also said they won’t govern with the PVV. That makes it hard for Wilders to form a new coalition unless the PVV becomes so large that it can govern with the VVD and a few smaller parties. It’s always theoretically possible if the numbers are there, but right now there’s no obvious coalition on the horizon.
Did Prime Minister Schoof have the authority to avoid these conflicts?
He didn’t. Schoof had no political support base — no party behind him — and the largest party in the coalition was perhaps its biggest critic.
He lacked a real mandate, and in the Dutch system, a prime minister needs to rally support across parties. It helps enormously if you have a solid backing bloc. Schoof didn’t have that.
What does the government’s collapse mean for the Netherlands' role in the EU and NATO?
With the PVV leaving, the most sceptical voice on defence and Ukraine is out of the cabinet. The Netherlands will continue to honour its previous commitments. But as the government enters caretaker mode, the country’s international clout will decrease.
Schoof has little leverage now, especially since the largest party has exited. At this month’s NATO summit in The Hague, [Mark] Rutte — now NATO Secretary General — will lead the substantive programme. But long-term decisions, like increasing support for Ukraine, will become harder to push through.
What happens in the meantime, with the PVV still the largest party in parliament?
The cabinet is now in caretaker mode. Whether they can still govern depends largely on the House of Representatives. If MPs label a proposal "controversial," it cannot move forward.
That said, parliament has recently become more willing to work on legislation even during caretaker periods — partly because these periods have been lasting longer. So we’ll likely see some legislative progress, but only on topics where there is broad consensus.
Sign up to The Parliament's weekly newsletter
Every Friday our editorial team goes behind the headlines to offer insight and analysis on the key stories driving the EU agenda. Subscribe for free here.