Denmark screens citizenship applicants’ political views; expert group

(DENMARK) Denmark is weighing a formal screening of citizenship applicants for their political and societal views, a move the government says targets anti-democratic attitudes and aims to protect core constitutional values. The proposal, first announced on December 17, 2024, by Minister of Immigration and Integration Kaare Dybvad Bek, remains under study by an expert group tasked with mapping the legal, ethical, and practical contours of such screening. As of September 10, 2025, no law has been passed. The Folketing—the Danish Parliament—retains final authority over citizenship and would need to approve any new process. Supporters say the plan would align citizenship with Denmark’s democratic foundations. Critics warn it could chill free speech, introduce bias, and create unequal treatment of applicants.

Expert group mandate and core legal questions

The expert group is reviewing how screening might work in daily practice and how it would fit with Denmark’s Constitution and international commitments, including human rights conventions. According to the ministry’s public statements, the group’s mandate includes setting guardrails for any checks on applicants’ beliefs and expressions, so the state does not cross legal lines.

The most contentious question is how to draw a clear line between protected expression—even if it is offensive or harsh—and views that show rejection of democratic order or equality. The government has not defined “anti-democratic” in an official way, and that gap worries lawyers, civil society groups, and several MPs who argue that vague rules would invite arbitrary choices.

“How do you distinguish offensive or critical speech from a real rejection of democratic order?” — central legal and ethical challenge under review.

December 2024 Parliament interviews and political reaction

In December 2024, three citizenship applicants who had met all formal criteria were invited for interviews by the Citizenship Committee—an unprecedented development. The process had no agreed legal standard, and the lack of clear rules led to public pushback.

• Helene Brydensholt, MP from the Alternative Party, resigned from the committee in protest, saying the approach risked trampling principles that guard against discrimination and unfair treatment.
• Her resignation became a rally point for those arguing Denmark must keep a bright line between the right to hold beliefs and the state’s authority to judge them in the citizenship process.

Supporters maintain citizenship should reflect a real bond to constitutional values. Critics worry about chilling effects on speech and the risk of unequal treatment.

What screening might look at — practical considerations

Officials have suggested any screening might review an applicant’s public posts, shared content, or statements. Potential risk markers mentioned include:

• Open rejection of democratic rule
• Praise for totalitarian systems
• Calls for exclusion of groups based on religion or sexual orientation
• Content that encourages or praises violence

At the same time, the expert group is weighing significant privacy and fairness questions:

• What time frame would be relevant?
• Would likes or shares count the same as original posts?
• How would context, satire, or translation issues be handled?
• How to give applicants an opportunity to respond, correct errors, and appeal?

These practical design issues will shape whether a system can be legally defensible and fair.

Existing citizenship requirements and where the screening would fit

Denmark’s current requirements include:

• Residency for the required years
• Language skills
• Proof of self-sufficiency
• Clean conduct record
• Passing the Indfødsretsprøven (citizenship test)

Under the proposal, applicants who meet these standards could still face a separate review of their political and societal views—potentially adding processing time, extra documentation, and interviews. Integration advisers warn a subjective filter could frustrate otherwise well-qualified applicants. Officials counter that clear criteria would bring transparency to Parliament’s duty in granting citizenship.

Public vs. private sources and legal defensibility

Experts note a key distinction:

• A screening focused only on public material (posts, letters to editors, speeches, open group memberships) would be easier to defend legally and ethically.
• Probing private communications would collide with privacy rules, data protection law, and human rights norms.

A model that limits review to public sources and uses a well-defined list of exclusion grounds would likely fare better in legal review—but selection and wording of those grounds remain the core challenge.

Real-world concerns from applicants

Several hypothetical examples illustrate applicant worries:

• A nurse from the Philippines living in Aarhus for eight years wonders if an old frustrated post during a polarizing election could be problematic.
• An engineer from Turkey who once shared a harsh meme (later deleted) worries about context and misreading.
• A Syrian doctoral student who criticizes Western foreign policy fears being misinterpreted as rejecting democracy.

These cases underscore the need for precise rules, time windows, context consideration, and an appeals path.

Parliamentary process and the role of the Folketing

Citizenship in Denmark is granted through a naturalization bill passed by the Folketing; it is not a decision made solely by a ministry or court. Any new screening must fit within this parliamentary framework.

The December 2024 interviews exposed risks of improvisation and eroded public trust. The expert group’s task is to design a framework Parliament can use consistently, including:

• Written standards
• Documented reasons for decisions
• A route for applicants to challenge errors

Legal risks and equal treatment issues

Legal scholars have highlighted several friction points:

• The Danish Constitution and international conventions (e.g., European Convention on Human Rights) protect belief and expression; punishment for lawful speech is likely to be struck down.
• Focusing on conduct—support for or participation in violence or groups seeking to overthrow democracy—stands on firmer legal ground.
• Screening that affects certain groups disproportionately (by religion, origin, etc.) could create claims of indirect discrimination.
• Therefore, content-neutral, narrowly tailored criteria are vital.

Possible operational safeguards under consideration

Observers expect the expert group to recommend practical safeguards such as:

• Training for reviewers
• Conflict-of-interest rules
• A coded framework for consistent scoring
• Independent oversight (e.g., a panel of legal and civil society members to audit decisions)
• A formal appeals process with written reasons

Without these elements, the proposal would likely face intense parliamentary and judicial scrutiny.

Political framing and societal impact

In late 2024, Minister Kaare Dybvad Bek linked the proposal to concerns about totalitarian leanings in a small subset of the population, including among a minority of Muslims. Critics argued this risks stigmatizing communities and missing the diverse reasons people seek citizenship.

Integration specialists recommend education, open debate, and enforcing existing criminal laws as alternative tools to defend democracy. Backers argue citizenship is distinct because it gives full political rights that are hard to revoke, so the standard for admission can be higher.

Proposed process flow (if implemented)

1. Applicant submits the standard file: proof of residence, language skills, conduct record, financial self-sufficiency.
2. Authorities run the usual eligibility check.
3. A targeted review of political and societal views using public sources; potential interview.
4. An expert body assesses findings against written criteria and issues a recommendation.
5. The Citizenship Committee and the Folketing make the final decision, with any denial including written reasons and an appeals route.

Timeline and next steps

• The expert group is expected to deliver recommendations later in 2025.
• If the government drafts a bill, it will go to the Folketing for debate, amendment, and legal review.
• A feasible start date could be mid-to-late 2026, depending on the model’s scope and the legislative calendar.
• Meanwhile, the ministry advises applicants to proceed with current requirements and monitor official updates at the Ministry of Immigration and Integration portal: Danish Ministry of Immigration and Integration.

Suggestions from civil society and integration advisers

To reduce unfair outcomes, groups have proposed:

• A written list of concrete exclusion grounds tied to Denmark’s constitutional framework
• A narrow time window for content review (e.g., the last three to five years) to avoid punishing youthful errors
• A chance for applicants to submit context, retractions, or proof of changed views
• A “rehabilitation” path: documented, consistent public support for democratic norms could offset past anti-democratic expressions

These measures aim to keep the process forward-looking.

Stakeholder concerns: employers, universities, families

• Employers and universities worry a broad, subjective screen could deter international talent in health care, tech, green energy, and research.
• Company and university leaders want narrow criteria, predictable processing times, and appeal options that don’t derail careers.
• For families, predictability matters deeply. Simple interim advice: keep records up to date, complete language and civics requirements early, and archive public posts with context.

Narrow vs. broad approaches — the central trade-off

Advocates for a narrow rule set argue it should target active support for anti-democratic actions (e.g., endorsing violence) or repeated calls to deny legal equality to protected groups—rather than policing general political beliefs.

The expert group’s final blueprint may hinge on whether such a narrower focus can be written into law in a way that is practical for reviewers and transparent for applicants.

Broader social question

Behind technicalities lies a fundamental question: What should citizenship mean in Denmark? Is it a final administrative stamp after years of integration, or a deeper promise to uphold a shared civic culture? Many Danes would say both. The debate is intense because it tests the balance between:

• Protection of free speech and open debate
• Safeguarding democratic norms, mutual respect, and equal rights

If legislation leans too far one way, it could undermine the values it seeks to protect.

Key technical choices ahead

The expert group must decide on:

• Scope of review (which sources and how far back)
• Specific exclusion grounds and their wording
• Training and safeguards for reviewers to prevent bias
• Privacy and data protection rules
• A clear appeals path with written decisions

Parliament will weigh these against constitutional limits and public opinion. Denmark’s decision will be watched across Europe as a test of how liberal democracies balance free speech and loyalty to democratic norms.

Policy Changes Overview

• Government intention announced: On December 17, 2024, Minister Kaare Dybvad Bek said Denmark would explore a formal screening for anti-democratic attitudes among citizenship applicants. An expert group was formed to study feasibility, legal limits, and practical design.
• Present status: No law has been enacted as of September 10, 2025. The policy remains under investigation; the expert group is expected to report in late 2025.
• Parliamentary anchor: Only the Folketing can grant citizenship, so any screening must operate under parliamentary control with the Citizenship Committee and the full chamber retaining the final decision.
• Scope under review: The proposal may include checks of social media and other public expressions. The government has not yet defined clear criteria for “anti-democratic,” leaving ambiguity that critics say could enable bias.

Impact on Applicants

• Who could be affected: All foreign nationals seeking Danish citizenship would be subject to the screening if the policy is adopted. Existing requirements—residency years, language proficiency, good conduct, self-sufficiency, and passing the Indfødsretsprøven—would remain.
• Possible criteria: A focus on support for democratic order, equality, and respect for constitutional rights. Publicly expressed anti-democratic, anti-Semitic, or homophobic content could trigger extra review and potentially denial if it crosses a defined threshold tied to conduct or incitement.
• Process flow if implemented:
  1) Application filed with required proofs.
  2) Eligibility check for standard rules.
  3) Screening of political and societal views using public sources; potential interview.
  4) Expert assessment against written criteria.
  5) Parliamentary decision, with written reasons and a path to appeal.
• Risks identified by experts:
  • Overreach into lawful speech
  • Unclear standards and inconsistent outcomes
  • Privacy concerns and longer processing times
  • Erosion of trust if the filter is perceived as subjective

Legal scholars urge narrow, content-neutral rules that target conduct rather than beliefs.

Closing summary and practical advice

Ministry officials say the goal is to protect Danish democracy while keeping the process fair and predictable. Meeting that standard requires tight legislative drafting, strong safeguards, and steady oversight.

For now, applicants should:

• Continue following current steps to citizenship
• Keep documentation (language certificates, work history, community involvement) organized
• Archive relevant public posts with dates and context in case explanation is needed
• Watch for official updates at the Ministry of Immigration and Integration: Danish Ministry of Immigration and Integration

The stakes are both personal—for thousands of families—and structural—for Denmark’s democracy. The expert group’s recommendations and the Folketing’s response will determine whether a values screening can be designed to be legally sound, transparent, and fair.