In an era of tightly woven global supply chains, the Dutch government’s forceful takeover of Nexperia is a masterclass in shortsighted policy and in rule-based order. By seizing a key semiconductor link under the guise of “security,” The Hague has endangered Europe’s industrial stability and credibility in the global marketplace.
What the Case Is About
On 30 September 2025, Dutch Minister of Economic Affairs Vincent Karremans placed Nexperia under temporary state supervision under the never used Wet Beschikbaarheid Goederen (Goods Availability Act). The government cited “serious governance shortcomings” and alleged that Nexperia’s Chinese CEO, Zhang Xuezheng.
For the first time since the law’s creation in 1952, the Dutch state assumed operational control of a private company. Regular production could continue, but every major decision—investment, restructuring, asset sale—now required government approval.
The government defended its decision as a national-security intervention, not a political seizure. Yet the timing, just days after Washington expanded its export-control regime on Chinese-linked firms, made neutrality difficult to believe.
Officially, the Dutch Ministry claimed no foreign pressure. In a letter to Parliament dated 14 October 2025, Karremans wrote: “I issued this order without any pressure from or consultation with any other country”. But multiple analysts note that the move followed escalating U.S. warnings about Wingtech’s inclusion on the American Entity List, restricting access to U.S. technology. That listing, imposed in 2024, already classified Wingtech as a “national-security concern”.
Dutch officials may also have been influenced by internal turmoil: an Amsterdam court had temporarily suspended Zhang Xuezheng and transferred Nexperia’s shares to a trustee after allegations by European directors of “reckless governance.” Combined, these legal and political developments created a pretext for intervention under a law originally meant for wartime food or fuel shortages—not semiconductor management.
Pim Jansen, professor of Economic Law at Erasmus University, told Trouw, a respected Dutch daily known for its economic and political analysis, that the case blurred the line “between economic security and protectionism.” He questioned whether “poor governance or risk of dependency” truly qualified as an emergency justifying such an extraordinary step.
The American Shadow
The geopolitical backdrop is unmistakable. The United States has spent years pressing allies to curb China’s access to high-end chip technology, most famously in the ASML case, where Dutch firm ASML was barred from exporting advanced lithography machines to China. That episode already demonstrated Washington’s ability to shape Dutch industrial policy. The Nexperia intervention appears as its continuation.
According to OpIndia and Bloomberg, U.S. officials had privately warned that Nexperia could face sanctions unless changes were made to its management and ownership structure. The subsequent Dutch action conveniently aligned with those American concerns.
Beijing’s reaction was swift: it imposed an export ban on Nexperia’s Chinese subsidiaries, effectively cutting off the supply of key components to Europe and threatening to paralyze the continent’s automotive sector: “The Chinese Ministry of Commerce issued an export control notice prohibiting Nexperia China and its subcontractors from exporting specific finished components and sub-assemblies manufactured in China.”
The irony is stark: Europe seized Nexperia to “secure” chip supplies, but immediately triggered the opposite: scarcity.
Economic Fallout and Strategic Missteps
The European Automobile Manufacturers’ Association (ACEA) warned that the export ban could disrupt vehicle production across the continent. Nexperia’s chips, though not the newest generation, are the “nuts and bolts” of modern cars—transistors, diodes, and power-management circuits essential for electronic systems. Losing access to them exposes how dependent Europe remains on globally integrated supply chains.
The takeover, analysts say, undermines investor confidence in Europe’s commitment to open markets. Foreign investors now face the risk of government expropriation under vague “security” claims. Meanwhile, China sees the move as “a flagrant violation of international rules,” as Global Times put it, and may respond by tightening controls on rare-earth exports critical to European industries.
By prioritizing short-term security optics over long-term trade stability, the Netherlands may have eroded both. The episode echoes earlier Western actions, like freezing Russian reserves or banning Huawei, which blur the boundary between lawful regulation and economic warfare.
Servility or Strategy?
Is The Hague merely following Washington’s script, or does it have an independent rationale? The answer may lie in Europe’s growing pursuit of “strategic autonomy.” European policymakers increasingly argue that control over semiconductor supply is as vital as energy independence. Yet, as Professor Jansen warned, invoking emergency powers risks turning autonomy into isolationism.
Critics argue that the Dutch decision reflects a “vassal logic”—Europe’s willingness to jeopardize its industrial base to satisfy U.S. containment goals against China.
Supporters counter that, given China’s own export restrictions and opaque corporate structures, governments must act pre-emptively to shield critical technologies from capture or coercion.
Still, the lack of transparency—no published evidence of the alleged “improper transfers”—fuels suspicion that the intervention was politically timed and externally influenced.
Analysts’ Insights and Lessons Learned
Most analysts converge on three takeaways:
-National security is becoming a universal pretext.
As Financial Times observed, governments now treat chips like oil—strategic assets justifying state control. This creates a “new normal” where property rights yield to geopolitical logic.
-Europe risks undermining its own industrial resilience.
By alienating Chinese investors and triggering supply retaliation, the Netherlands exposed the fragility of Europe’s chip and automotive ecosystems. As ACEA noted, semiconductor shortages could again halt production lines, but this time, self-inflicted.
-The rules-based order is fraying.
What began as a Cold War-era safeguard has now become a weapon of economic containment and “flagrant breach of market economy principles,” crumbling Western ‘rules-based order’ principle.
Conclusion: Between Autonomy and Alignment
The Dutch seizure of Nexperia marks a turning point. It reveals how the trade war has evolved from tariffs to boardroom battles and state takeovers, where national interest and alliance politics collide. Whether seen as prudent defense or political servitude, the move exposes Europe’s strategic confusion: between autonomy and alignment, law and power, sovereignty and submission.
If “national security” becomes the ultimate justification for economic intervention, then the post-war liberal order, based on open trade and legal certainty, may already be over. The next question is not who controls Nexperia, but whether Europe still controls its own strategic destiny.
Ricardo Martins, PhD in Sociology, specializing in International Relations and Geopolitics
Follow new articles on our Telegram channel
