Why we should warn the world about Mark Rutte

Why we should warn the world about Mark Rutte
Avatar photo
4 days ago

on December 16, 2025

By means of Editorial Indepen
Why we should warn the world about Mark Rutte
Photo: ANP

Mark Rutte represents a pattern. A political method. The Dutch know this after fourteen years under his rule. Not unfortunate slips of the tongue or forgetfulness, but systematic deception. And precisely for this reason, we, the Dutch, have a social responsibility: to warn the world about who Mark Rutte really is. We do this using factual examples in this article. Readers can then draw their own conclusions about the value of Rutte's statements and policies as Secretary General of NATO.

Dual nationality: opportunism from day one

In his first year as prime minister, Rutte declared that he had "no problem" with the dual nationality of then-State Secretary Veldhuijzen van Zanten-Hyllner. "From the fact that I was aware of her dual nationality, you can deduce that I don't find it a problem," Rutte said during an interview with the NOS in his first year as prime minister.

It later emerged – from earlier statements and parliamentary debates – that he had always been an outspoken opponent of dual nationality.

The truth changed along with his self-interest.

The troubled relationship with the World Economic Forum

Mark Rutte has been an enthusiastic ambassador of the World Economic Forum (WEF) for many years .

Since the WEF published the book "The Great Reset" (2020), which advocates for a kind of global government to replace national governments, Rutte has become more cautious with his enthusiasm. So cautious, in fact, that he denied having read "The Great Reset" to MP Gideon van Meijeren in the House of Representatives.

After this denial, van Meijeren produced Rutte's letter to Klaus Schwab in which Rutte thanks Schwab for sending the book and indicates that its contents reflect a "hopeful analysis for a better future."

Rutte continued to deny having read the book.

Groningen gas field: lying under oath about safety

On January 30, 2013, the Volkskrant published this article in which then-Prime Minister Rutte stated: "Addressing the increasing risks of natural gas extraction in Northern Groningen will be given 'absolute top priority' within the cabinet."

Questioned under oath by the parliamentary inquiry into natural gas extraction in Groningen in 2022, the same Rutte stated that it only dawned on him very late – in 2018 – that there were significant safety concerns in Groningen. The outrage over the record production in 2013 also escaped his notice, according to the inquiry. These statements are diametrically opposed to those in the 2013 Volkrant article.

In 2013, Rutte spoke of “absolute top priority” for safety.
In 2022, under oath, he stated that it was not until 2018 that he realized there were serious safety risks at the Groningen gas field.

Anyone who lies under oath about threats to public health is also lying about other matters.

Another natural gas lie. In 2018, Rutte declared that finances were not a factor in the Groningen gas decision at the time. The safety of the people of Groningen comes first. Years later, in 2023, the same Rutte concluded : "The interests of the people of Groningen have been subordinated to financial interests for years."

The benefits scandal: institutional deception

The childcare benefits scandal is the low point of Rutte's premiership – and at the same time the most revealing:

Tens of thousands of parents were wrongly labelled as fraudsters.
Information was deliberately withheld from Parliament.
The cabinet resigned, but continued to govern.
Rutte said he “doesn't remember” what he knew, when he knew it, and why he didn't intervene.

A parliamentary inquiry and subsequent political trials led to the collective resignation of the cabinet in January 2021. Later – on April 23, 2021 – the caretaker cabinet admitted to deliberately withholding information from the House of Representatives .

Dividend tax: pretending he knew nothing

For years, Rutte was a passionate advocate for abolishing the dividend tax – a measure that would generate billions of euros for multinationals. The plan would cost the treasury approximately 2 billion euros in revenue annually .

Public outrage over this plan was therefore enormous in April 2018 – and with it, confidence in Rutte plummeted . This was especially true when the cabinet released substantive documents on April 25, 2018, regarding the abolition of this tax , and Rutte denied having been informed of its contents just hours after publication . In August 2018, he even labeled this plan a " bizarre measure, " even though he had been a strong supporter of it for years.

No one believed Rutte anymore on this issue.

“Omtzigt, position elsewhere”: a proven lie

Notes from coalition talks mentioned the name of CDA parliamentarian Pieter Omtzigt with the words "position elsewhere." Rutte stated on television that he had not discussed Omtzigt with the "scout" Kajsa Ollongren.

Documents later proved otherwise.

On Thursday, April 1, 2021, it was revealed that Omtzigt's position had also been discussed in a conversation with Prime Minister Rutte. This once again exposed a serious lie by the Prime Minister.

This lie caused great unrest among the population because it concerned honesty during the formation of a cabinet and because trust between the Prime Minister and Parliament had already been damaged for some time.

Rutte even made it into the international press with these lies, as can be seen from this Reuters article.

Incorrect and/or incomplete information provided to Parliament

Misinforming the House of Representatives is considered a "political mortal sin" that should have consequences. Yet, time and again, the Dutch parliament proves too weak to take such steps against untrustworthy government officials, as listed in this article .

In 2018 alone, Rutte was twice found guilty of misinforming the body that was supposed to oversee him. The recurring comment from opposition parties and regulators is that Rutte regularly uses convoluted formulations ("I didn't know," "I had indirect responsibility") that come across as politically misleading.

From The Hague to NATO: Why the world needs to know

With a frightening history as illustrated above, this man now heads NATO at a time of:

rising international tensions,
increasing war language,
enormous pressure to increase defense spending.

We therefore pose a simple but crucial question to the world: If someone misled his own parliament and people for fourteen years, why should we assume that he is now telling the truth?

about Russia?
about war?
about the need for billions of dollars in weapons?

This is a warning based on the experiences outlined above, this is not a personal attack.

We Dutch have experienced Mark Rutte – not as a myth, but as a ruler.

We saw what he did when no one was looking.

We saw who he protected, and who he sacrificed.

And that is why we say without hesitation: whoever trusts Mark Rutte does not know him.

The world deserves that knowledge – before the disastrous consequences become irreversible.