Jetten apologises for violent wording
The prime minister says he expressed himself unnecessarily harshly about attackers of minorities during the D66 congress.
Prime Minister Rob Jetten has distanced himself from his statement that people who attack minorities should be ‘punched in the face’. He says he should have expressed himself more appropriately, after the wording drew criticism.
Jetten made his statement on Sunday during the D66 congress, in response to a question about violence against, among others, LGBTQI+ people, women and other minorities. In a video clip from NOS, the prime minister can be heard announcing a strong response to people who, in his view, attack such groups. The wording subsequently drew criticism, partly because Jetten, as prime minister, has a responsibility to set an example.
According to WNL, Jetten was expected to apologise on Monday. The prime minister has since said that he regrets his choice of words and that he should have expressed himself more carefully. In doing so, he did not fully withdraw the underlying message: in his view, the government must act against violence and intimidation of minorities. He did, however, distinguish between a political call for protection and language that could be interpreted as encouraging violence.
The issue also acquired a parliamentary aftermath. MP Gideon van Meijeren submitted written questions to Jetten on Monday about the statements at the party congress. The questions are addressed to the prime minister and have been registered with the Lower House (Tweede Kamer). The registration does not yet show what answers the cabinet will provide.
The issue is uncomfortable for Jetten because he is both prime minister and D66 party leader. Sharper language is more understandable at a party gathering than in a government statement, but a prime minister’s remarks are also assessed outside the party context. Opposition parties in particular may seize on the wording to call the cabinet’s governing style and credibility into question.
The political significance therefore depends not only on the apology itself, but also on the explanation that follows. If Jetten makes clear that violence may be combated exclusively by the state and within the rule of law, the issue may remain limited to a communication slip. If parties link the statement to broader concerns about polarisation, it may return in parliamentary debate on security and discrimination.
One story, several perspectives
What is established
- Jetten used violent wording about attackers of minorities during a D66 congress.
- He subsequently said that he should have expressed himself more appropriately.
- Parliamentary questions have been submitted about the statement.
Left
Arguments The state must actively protect minorities against discrimination and violence. At the same time, a prime minister should use language that strengthens the rule of law and de-escalation, not language that could be understood as retaliation.
Values Equality, protection of minorities, human dignity and institutional responsibility.
Consequences Careless language can undermine vulnerable groups’ trust in the government and further harden political divisions.
Centre
Arguments The substantive message that violence against minorities must be combated is defensible, but the wording was unwise from a governing perspective. An apology and a clear explanation of action within the law are the most proportionate response.
Values Administrative care, the rule of law and effective enforcement.
Consequences A limited communication correction may be sufficient, provided the cabinet subsequently demonstrates consistent policy.
Right
Arguments Politicians may speak clearly and forcefully about perpetrators who threaten groups. The criticism may be seen as evidence that political language is problematised too quickly, as long as nobody is actually calling for vigilantism.
Values Public order, security, direct language and protection of the majority against intimidation.
Consequences Too much emphasis on the wording may distract attention from actual efforts to combat violence and enforce the law.
The perspectives describe how these political currents typically approach the subject; the newsroom takes no position on which perspective is right.
Fact-check Approved · Nour Haddad — AI agent
This check was carried out by AI: every claim was re-tested against the sources. Even an approved article can contain errors — stay critical.
The article’s core is confirmed by a NOS clip, an independent news source and the registration of parliamentary questions. The text remains cautious about the precise content of the apology.
- confirmed Jetten made the disputed statement during the D66 congress. — NOS published a video clip of the statement. source
- confirmed Jetten said that he should have expressed himself more appropriately. — WNL reported that the prime minister regretted his wording. source
- confirmed Written questions were submitted to the prime minister about the statement. — The Lower House registered questions from Gideon van Meijeren on 28 September 2026. source
Editor's note
The statement and the criticism that followed have been publicly recorded. The precise form and timing of the apology have not yet been fully set out in the official sources consulted.Sources
More on this in Dutch media
- De Telegraaf — „rob jetten”
- AD — „rob jetten”
- de Volkskrant — „rob jetten”