The Dutch ruling alliance has come undone after Geert Wilders, the leader of the far-right Freedom Party, abruptly pulled his party out of the government.

This dramatic exit, triggered by disagreements over immigration policy, is expected to lead to early national elections.

A final effort to salvage the coalition took place Tuesday morning when Prime Minister Dick Schoof attempted to negotiate with coalition partners. However, the meeting collapsed in under a minute when Wilders left the room, effectively ending the government.

Wilders had demanded ten new asylum-related restrictions, such as suspending asylum intake, ceasing the development of refugee shelters, and restricting the reunification of migrant families.

“No signature for our asylum plans. PVV leaves the coalition,” said Wilders on X, referring to his Freedom Party.

The announcement stunned the political sphere. Many leaders expressed disbelief, pointing out that several of Wilders’ asylum policies were already agreed upon in the coalition pact, and his party had the means to pursue them without further conflict.

A number of the extra measures Wilders proposed had previously been excluded during coalition negotiations, with legal implications cited as the primary concern.

With this move, Wilders has dismantled a fragile government that was only formed in July 2024, following extended talks that emerged from the election the year prior.

Although Wilders’ PVV held the most seats, it governed in partnership with three others still officially part of the coalition: the VVD (a right-leaning liberal party), the BBB (Farmers’ Citizen Movement), and the centrist NSC (New Social Contract).

Critics from within the alliance say Wilders orchestrated the collapse. VVD’s Dilan Yesilgoz described the withdrawal as “super irresponsible,” and added: “This wasn’t about asylum at all.”

“I think Wilders is betraying the Netherlands,” said deputy Prime Minister Mona Keijzer from the BBB.

Opposition figures, meanwhile, celebrated the fall of the government. The Socialist Party’s Jimmy Dijk said the country had been “liberated from a political hostage situation”, and labeled the coalition “four right-wing quarrelsome parties that achieve nothing”.

Economists weighed in on the situation, noting that the outgoing government had “barely made any concrete plans” during its tenure, suggesting the economic repercussions of its collapse would be limited.

There was also strong criticism of how the government was handled, with one outlet describing it as a cabinet “that was supposed to stand up for the citizens [but] was destroyed by amateurism and incompetence.”

Analysts believe Wilders may have welcomed the collapse, as his party’s popularity has been slipping in recent polls. His decision to trigger the crisis over asylum matters likely signals a strategy to center his next campaign around immigration.

Still, since the PVV has managed asylum policy over the past year, it remains uncertain whether voters will rally behind his latest tactic.

Government ministers are expected to hold urgent discussions this afternoon, after which Prime Minister Schoof will likely submit the cabinet’s resignation to King Willem-Alexander before the day ends.

Speculation suggests new elections might be scheduled for the fall.

Alternatively, Schoof could remain in charge of a minority administration, but that would require complex cooperation between center-right factions and progressive parties to advance any legislation—a scenario many believe improbable. Frans Timmermans of the Labour-Green alliance has already pushed for a new election.

With a NATO summit set to take place in The Hague later this month, the current ministers are expected to continue temporarily in a caretaker role until the country heads back to the ballot box.

On Monday, Annalena Baerbock, who previously served as Germany’s foreign minister, was chosen through a confidential vote to preside over the 80th session of the United Nations General Assembly.

As part of the UN’s rotation tradition among regional groups, the Western European and Other States Group was due to provide this session’s president. Baerbock emerged as the nominee and received 167 votes in favor.

“it is fitting that in this milestone 80th year of the General Assembly, leadership should fall to someone whose career has been defined by an unwavering commitment to multilateralism,” said Philemon Yang, the current President of the General Assembly’s 79th session.

Although the election was conducted by secret ballot at Russia’s request, the outcome had been expected, as Baerbock stood unopposed in the race for the one-year leadership role.

She won a decisive endorsement from the member states, earning nearly twice the minimum threshold required.

In this new capacity, Baerbock will be responsible for coordinating the General Assembly’s discussions, bringing together representatives from its 193 member nations, and acting as the Assembly’s public face in international affairs.

Her term begins at a moment when multiple global conflicts continue to unfold.

“Today, we live in challenging times. We are walking on a tightrope of uncertainty. At the birth of the United Nations, 80 years ago, reminds us we have lived through difficult times before, and it’s up to us to take on these challenges.” Annalena Baerbock said during a speech to the General Assembly.

Her appointment marks the fifth time a woman has been chosen to lead the UN’s primary decision-making chamber.

On Monday, Prime Minister Keir Starmer declared that the United Kingdom would move toward a heightened state of military preparedness, pledging the construction of as many as 12 advanced attack submarines. This initiative is part of a broader strategic overhaul aimed at reinforcing the country’s defense posture amid a global landscape he described as increasingly volatile.

“The threat we now face is more serious, more immediate and more unpredictable than at any time since the Cold War,” Mr. Starmer stated during a press event, highlighting mounting risks such as “war in Europe, new nuclear risks, daily cyberattacks,” and “growing Russian aggression,” both in the air and at sea near British territory.

“I believe that the best way to deter conflict is to prepare for it,” he added while speaking from a production site in Glasgow, just prior to the anticipated release of a comprehensive defense policy review. The plan includes initiatives to boost drone manufacturing and bolster reserves of essential military hardware.

The decision to significantly enhance Britain’s defense capabilities comes as the war in Ukraine intensifies, U.S. commitment to European stability appears to wane, and overall geopolitical tensions rise. Starmer’s announcement came only hours after Ukrainian forces reportedly executed one of the largest aerial attacks of the conflict by deploying drones against Russian military airfields.

The defense review, commissioned shortly after Starmer’s election win, was spearheaded by George Robertson, a former NATO chief. The urgency of the review was further escalated by perceptions of President Trump’s wavering stance on safeguarding Europe and his unusually cordial rapport with President Vladimir V. Putin.

While the full details of the review are expected later in the day, some of its core recommendations have already been revealed. These include the acquisition of up to 7,000 domestically manufactured long-range missiles and the establishment of a new national cyber defense unit. Additionally, £1 billion has been earmarked for upgrading digital capabilities across the armed forces.

Part of the strategy involves shoring up Britain’s vulnerable undersea infrastructure and expanding its drone fleet—technologies that have proven crucial in recent military operations, especially in Ukraine.

An extra £1.5 billion will also be directed toward improving military accommodation, part of a broader effort to address the decline in army recruitment and retention, which has pushed personnel numbers to historic lows not seen since the early 19th century.

Officials emphasized that defense spending could stimulate the British economy, though concerns persist about the feasibility of funding these ambitions during a period of economic constraints.

To finance this expansion, Starmer has pledged to raise defense spending to 2.5% of the country’s gross national product, partially by reallocating funds from foreign aid. In a broadcast interview, he affirmed the need to eventually reach 3%, though he admitted that a definitive timeline depends on identifying sustainable revenue sources.

The expansion of the submarine fleet will be carried out under a trilateral security pact with the U.S. and Australia, which seeks to counterbalance China’s increasing assertiveness in the Indo-Pacific. This pact will see the deployment of up to 12 conventionally armed, nuclear-powered submarines.

Government officials have described this pivot as a “landmark shift in our deterrence and defense: moving to warfighting readiness to deter threats and strengthen security in the Euro Atlantic area.”

In his Monday remarks, Mr. Starmer reaffirmed the U.K.’s deep-rooted allegiance to NATO and its enduring alliance with North America, which he has sought to solidify by engaging closely with Mr. Trump on matters of security and commerce.

Among the bold proposals in the review is a call to explore the purchase of aircraft capable of launching tactical nuclear arms—raising questions about Britain’s reliance on the U.S. for extended nuclear deterrence.

On social media, Liberal Democrat MP and military veteran Mike Martin suggested that the direction of the review signals a diminishing confidence in the U.S. role in European defense.

He wrote: “The drop dead giveaway is the air dropped nuclear weapons,” adding that “this is a key capability that the US provides that enables nuclear escalation without going all the way up to destroying Moscow with nuclear weapons fired from our submarines.”

The United Kingdom has maintained a tradition of publishing major defense policy reviews roughly every ten years. The previous one was carried out in 2021, then refreshed in 2023.

This most recent review was guided by Lord Robertson, who was joined by Fiona Hill—formerly a key advisor in the first Trump administration—and Richard Barrons, once deputy head of Britain’s defense command. Hill, known for her expertise on Russian affairs, has publicly criticized Trump’s approach to Putin since her resignation from the U.S. National Security Council in mid-2019.

Observers expect the tone of this review to differ substantially from its predecessor, which, under Boris Johnson’s leadership, emphasized stronger U.S.-U.K. ties in a post-Brexit world. That vision has since been replaced by Starmer’s attempt to reforge relationships with the European Union.