Combating undermining by social organizations: debate summarized

The Dutch Senate debated on Tuesday, March 17 with Minister Van Weel of Justice and Security about a bill aimed at countering the undermining of the rule of law through the financing of social organizations by the government. The Senate will vote on the bill on Tuesday, March 24.

In brief

The so-called Transparency and Countering Undermining by Social Organizations Act aims to prevent undesirable foreign influence through donations received by social organizations in the Netherlands. This form of financing can pose a risk to the democratic rule of law.

The Senate agrees with the government that the undermining of the rule of law must be countered. However, some senators questioned whether this bill is the right means to achieve this. They raised concerns primarily about the proportionality and feasibility of the bill. There are doubts whether this measure is reasonably proportionate to its goal.

Both mayors and the Public Prosecution Service (OM) have indicated that they cannot properly implement and enforce the law. Senators also found the concept of 'undermining' insufficiently substantiated. Supporters of the bill believe that the government will have an instrument to prevent financial flows from unfree and anti-Western countries from being used to undermine Dutch society.

About the bill

Under this bill, social organizations are required to disclose donations originating from outside the European Union or the European Economic Area. Foundations will also be required to deposit their balance sheets and income statements with the trade register. The bill does not apply to political parties.

To counter foreign influence through donations, mayors, the Public Prosecution Service, and other specifically designated government bodies will have the authority to request targeted information from social organizations—such as foundations, associations, religious denominations, and foreign legal entities—regarding foreign donations. Additionally, foundations will be required to deposit financial documents with the trade register. Several government supervisory and enforcement bodies will also gain access to the balance sheets and income statements of foundations deposited in the trade register.

• Wet transparantie en tegengaan ondermijning door maatschappelijke organisaties (35.646)

Impression of the debate

GroenLinks-PvdA: Undermining insufficiently limited

Senator Veldhoen spoke on behalf of the OPNL and Visseren-Hamakers factions. She raised objections to several points in the bill. For example, the authority of the mayor to request donation data does not align with their role in maintaining public order and stretches the concept too far. Another concern raised by Veldhoen is that there is no low-threshold administrative legal procedure available against an information request from the mayor. Furthermore, she stated that the central concept of 'undermining' is insufficiently defined, which could lead to arbitrary enforcement.

D66: Is the law necessary?

Senator Dittrich said that D66 supports the goal of a resilient rule of law and countering foreign interference. However, he expressed concerns about the bill. Why is this administrative obligation imposed on all social organizations? Additionally, privacy rights are violated when personal data must be disclosed upon request by mayors. He noted that there is already an arsenal of existing legislation and questioned why this bill was necessary. He suggested that a better approach would be to establish an independent supervisor. Why did the government not choose that route?

BBB: Why doesn’t the minister withdraw the bill?

Senator Van Gasteren, speaking on behalf of the Van de Sanden faction, was also critical. The enforceability and effectiveness of the law have not been demonstrated. The Public Prosecution Service and the Association of Netherlands Municipalities doubt whether the bill is feasible. The authority to request information could conflict with fundamental rights. Van Gasteren highlighted the risk of selective application and the broad, vague norm of 'undermining.' It is a heavy-handed measure whose necessity has not been proven. Why doesn’t the minister simply withdraw the bill?

CDA: Beware of blurring the roles of the mayor

Senator Doornhof noted that this bill is a result of the parliamentary inquiry into undesirable influence on social and religious organizations in the Netherlands. He mentioned that mayors are often referred to as the 'guardians of societal safety.' When assigning powers to mayors, we must be cautious about blurring their roles. Gaining insight into foreign donations is not directly related to maintaining public order, he argued. Doornhof asked whether the minister acknowledges that explicitly linking this to the mayor’s public order task is problematic from the outset.

JA21: Good that mayors receive this authority

Senator Van Bijsterveld, speaking on behalf of the Walenkamp faction, acknowledged the tension: on one hand, there is a need to counter undermining, while on the other, the instruments in the bill encroach on freedoms inherent to an open society. However, she argued that this bill provides the government with a tool to prevent financial flows from unfree and anti-Western countries from being used to undermine Dutch society. According to Van Bijsterveld, local government is a crucial link in countering foreign interference. It is important that mayors have this instrument because they are the first to witness the consequences of such interference.

PvdD: The bill raises issues on multiple points

Nicolaï, who also spoke on behalf of Volt, echoed the criticisms raised by previous speakers. He asked the minister about the position of the mayor in our constitutional system. He also questioned why the bill does not address the points raised by experts. Nicolaï pointed out that the provision allowing the donation amount to be lowered by a General Administrative Order lacks any limitation. This could apply to donations from any country, including the Netherlands, which he argued is in violation of the law.

PVV: The threat outweighs concerns

According to Senator Bezaan, the bill is a targeted transparency rule, designed as an instrument to be used only when necessary. It is important that the powers are exercised in a targeted manner and that personal data is not shared beyond what is strictly necessary. Bezaan acknowledged the objections but stated that they do not outweigh the threat for the PVV. Without visibility into the origins of funding, we lose sight of who is influencing our society, she concluded.

50PLUS: What does the law actually add?

Senator Van Rooijen supports the goals: countering both undesirable foreign interference and money laundering. However, he said, the objections to this bill are clear. Granting authority to the mayor represents an undesirable expansion of the mayor’s role. According to Van Rooijen, there is no connection to acute public order enforcement. Additionally, the neutrality of the mayor could come under pressure. He also noted that the Public Prosecution Service struggles with the definition of 'undermining.' Finally, he asked what this bill actually adds.

ChristenUnie: Not convinced of added value

Senator Talsma agreed with the goal of countering undesirable interference but questioned whether the bill is the right means to achieve it. If the concern is a potential breach of public order, why isn’t this included in the legislative text? The authority granted to mayors is disproportionate to the Municipalities Act. Furthermore, mayors themselves have stated that they do not need this authority. Talsma asked the minister to address the stringent requirements set by the European Convention on Human Rights regarding restrictions on fundamental rights as outlined in the bill.

SP: Not convinced

Senator Janssen noted that both the Public Prosecution Service and mayors have said, 'Don’t burden us with this.' While the SP faction supports the goal of the law if the situation demands it, they are not convinced by this bill. The authority granted to mayors is their primary concern. He is not convinced that this task should be assigned to mayors and has reservations about the practical application of the bill. Janssen asked the minister what alternative measures could be taken to address threats if the bill fails to pass in the Senate.

SGP: Has necessity been sufficiently demonstrated?

Senator Schalk questioned whether this law strikes the right balance between freedom of association and external influence. Why not grant the authority entirely to the Public Prosecution Service and allow the mayor to signal concerns to them? Regarding the power of the government to issue a strike order, which forces an organization to immediately halt certain activities or operations, Schalk asked whether the necessity has been sufficiently demonstrated and whether existing measures are not already adequate. He also wanted to know whether it is sufficiently clear under what criteria an activity would be considered undermining.

VVD: The law fills a gap

Senator Vogels stated that undesirable influence is taking place in the Netherlands, and therefore the VVD faction supports the bill. The Senate should not lose sight of the bill’s goal when assessing its legality, feasibility, and enforceability. Vogels asked the minister which organizations or individuals will have access to the data and how this aligns with the Open Government Act. It will still be possible to donate discreetly, she noted. The administrative tool complements civil and criminal measures, providing added value by filling a gap, according to Vogels.

FVD: Transparency selectively applied

Senator Van den Oetelaar argued that this bill tramples on fundamental rights. Why wasn’t this law withdrawn? Last year, the Senate rejected the bill on administrative bans for undermining organizations. He referred to the handling of that bill for his substantive objections. Van den Oetelaar stated that transparency is being used as a weapon selectively. In his view, the bill does not create equality but rather a slippery slope toward censorship through the back door. He asked how the minister will prevent this law from being used to target undesirable voices in society.

Fractie-Beukering: Why not a more targeted law?

Senator Beukering noted that no one supports the undermining of the democratic rule of law. The focus should be on the legal quality of the law. He pointed to the vagueness of the norms and definitions, highlighting the lack of clear delineation of what constitutes 'undermining.' How will it be ensured that different mayors and other authorities reach consistent judgments? He asked whether the scope of the law has become too broad and why a more targeted approach was not chosen. Legislation must be assessed based on its text and structure, and we must ask ourselves whether we should adopt a law that is vague.

Minister’s response

Minister Van Weel stated that concerns about the influence of social organizations in the Netherlands through foreign financial flows have existed for some time. This can pose a risk to the democratic rule of law. Therefore, the government wants to gain more targeted insight into these flows and intervene where necessary. This is not about targeting charitable organizations or national or international organizations that are critical of the Dutch government. He agreed with the Senate that strong safeguards are needed. With the amendments from the House of Representatives, the bill is now clearly framed, according to the minister.

• Report of the plenary meeting of Tuesday, March 17, 2026