Lower House seeks plan to reduce dependence on the US
A motion calls for annual targets to reduce dependence on non-European defence suppliers.
.jpg){kind=link}
The Lower House wants the government to draw up a concrete plan to reduce dependence on non-European suppliers of defence equipment. The motion focuses particularly on the growing American share of Dutch defence purchases.
The motion by MP Wimar Bolhuis was submitted during the debate on the 2027 defence budget. It calls for annual milestones for each capability area and for information to be provided to the House before the 2027 Spring Memorandum. This should make it clearer which dependencies the government intends to reduce and by when.
According to the motion, the American share of Defence’s total procurement volume rose from 9.5 per cent in 2024 to 31.8 per cent in 2026. The share of Israeli suppliers is said to have risen from 3.7 to 5.4 per cent over the same period. Those figures appear in the motion and were not separately checked by the House.
The discussion is not only about the purchase price of equipment. Foreign systems may also require continued access to parts, ammunition, software, maintenance expertise and the supplier’s permission for use. In answers to parliamentary questions, the government writes that such dependencies apply, among other things, to American systems such as the F-35, Chinook and Apache, and to elements of air defence and communications.
At the same time, the government points to the need for interoperability with allies, speed of delivery and military availability. A policy letter states that Defence is seeking to limit risks by maintaining stocks, carrying out maintenance in-house and taking suppliers’ origins into account. A European supplier is therefore not automatically a complete solution to all dependencies.
The motion highlights the tension between strategic autonomy and the rapid strengthening of the armed forces. European production could provide greater control and industrial capacity, but requires time, investment and cooperation between countries. The motion calls for a plan; it does not yet decide on specific weapons systems or ongoing contracts.
One story, several perspectives
What is established
- An MP has submitted a motion on reducing dependence on non-European defence suppliers.
- The motion cites rising shares for American and Israeli suppliers.
- The government points to dependencies involving, among other things, weapons systems, parts, ammunition and maintenance.
- The article has not established a concrete implementation plan for specific systems.
Left
Arguments The Netherlands must retain control over critical defence capabilities and prevent foreign governments from gaining influence through suppliers over deployment, maintenance or parts. European production and transparent public oversight are more important here than the lowest short-term price.
Values Strategic autonomy, democratic oversight and European cooperation.
Consequences More European production could create jobs and improve security of supply, but requires major public investment and could delay procurement.
Centre
Arguments Dependencies should be assessed system by system. Where reliable and available European alternatives exist, European procurement is the obvious choice; where speed, quality or interoperability carry more weight, cooperation with American companies may still be necessary.
Values Security, practicality and sound governance.
Consequences A gradual approach limits risks, but leaves the Netherlands dependent on allies for the time being.
Right
Arguments Defence’s first task is to strengthen the armed forces quickly. American systems are often immediately available and compatible with NATO; political preference for European suppliers must not undermine military effectiveness.
Values National security, deterrence and military capability.
Consequences Retaining American systems could increase operational capacity, but makes the Netherlands vulnerable to political or logistical decisions in Washington.
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 motion, its request and the percentages cited in it were checked directly against parliamentary documents. The explanation of equipment dependencies is based on public government answers and is worded cautiously.
- confirmed The motion calls for a concrete plan with annual milestones to reduce dependence on non-European suppliers. — A literal element of Bolhuis’s motion. source
- confirmed The motion cites an increase in the American share from 9.5 per cent in 2024 to 31.8 per cent in 2026. — These percentages appear in the motion; the article states that they were not separately checked. source
- confirmed The government names the F-35, Chinook, Apache, air defence and communications as areas involving dependencies outside Europe. — Public answers to parliamentary questions about equipment dependencies. source
- confirmed Stocks, in-house maintenance and suppliers’ origins are used to limit risks. — Description in the government’s answers and policy information. source
Editor's note
The motion and the figures mentioned can be found directly in parliamentary documents. The figures are presented in the article as claims from the motion; a definitive voting result or implementation plan is not presented as established fact.Sources
- Motie van het lid Bolhuis over een stappenplan voor de afbouw van afhankelijkheden van niet-Europese leveranciers — Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal
- De materieelafhankelijkheden van de Nederlandse krijgsmacht — Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal
- Nieuwe Wet weerbare defensie-industrie — Rijksoverheid
More on this in Dutch media
- De Telegraaf — „defensie tweede kamer”
- AD — „defensie tweede kamer”
- de Volkskrant — „defensie tweede kamer”