Response to interpellation 2024/25:596 on the risk of right-wing extremist infiltration of the Armed Forces and the Home Guard

Försvarsministern Pål Jonson (M)

Answers to interpellations

Mr. Speaker! Hanna Westerén has asked me whether I and the government ensure that the Armed Forces' important work for Sweden and Swedish democracy is not undermined by undemocratic forces.

Violence-promoting extremism shall, regardless of ideological or religious affiliation, never be accepted within the Armed Forces. The Armed Forces shall work towards a work environment that is inclusive and free from discrimination, harassment, and violations. The authority has a duty to investigate and take measures against all forms of unwelcome behavior. All personnel within the Armed Forces – whether they are employed, subject to total defense obligation, or volunteers – have the right to a work environment characterized by equal treatment and that is free from influence from various extremist movements.

Violence-promoting extremism and other society-overturning forces are a threat to Swedish democracy. Counteracting the infiltration of such forces into activities of total defense importance, such as those conducted by the Armed Forces, is therefore of great importance for Sweden's security. The Armed Forces, like other authorities, are responsible for their own security work in accordance with the Security Protection Act. This includes, among other things, working with personnel security, where the goal is to prevent persons who are not reliable from a security perspective from participating in an activity where they could gain access to security-classified tasks or in an activity that is security-sensitive for some other reason.

I have full confidence in the Armed Forces' security work, just as I do that the agency conducts a goal-oriented and structured work for equal treatment and to create a work environment that is free from harassment and violence-promoting extremism.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Hanna Westerén (S)

Mr. Speaker! I truly appreciate the solid answer to my questions to Defense Minister Pål Jonson. I want to emphasize that I also have confidence in the Armed Forces and the Home Guard – the activities that are specifically mentioned in my interpellation.

The purpose of the interpellation was not to undermine or cast suspicion on either the activities in question or the government's representatives here in the chamber. My interpellation stems from genuine concern for our common security.

In times of unrest, anxiety, and great risks of external influence, it is of the utmost importance to have order in one's home environment. I find it very worrying that there is now increased movement among far-right organizations, both in terms of numbers and the level of activities. This occurs at a time when we must strive for more cohesion and even greater respect and care for, and of, one another.

The Armed Forces and the Home Guard are responsible for defending our territorial borders and our democracy – or as the Minister for Defence himself expressed it in a previous interpellation debate with my group leader Peter Hultqvist: This is particularly important because all personnel within the Armed Forces have a task in protecting Sweden and our way of life.

The organizations that are now breathing morning air and growing in number during this government's term are a threat to democracy and our way of life. Their entire activity aims to destroy democracy and everything concerning the equal value of all people. There have also occurred incidents.

I believe that this is a signal to be taken most seriously. The far-right violence-promoting organizations are increasing in number, and the risk that they attempt to infiltrate the Armed Forces and the Home Guard should not be underestimated. This is thus occurring in a time that is referred to across the entire political spectrum as the most dangerous since the Second World War.

For that reason, I would have expected a somewhat greater degree of concern or a sense of urgency than what I hear in the Minister for Defence's response. The Minister for Defence and I share, as I said, a rock-solid confidence in the Armed Forces and the Home Guard. That is not where the problem lies.

The interpellation concerns the threat and the risk of infiltration. I would therefore like to ask Minister of Defence Pål Jonson: What does the Minister of Defence consider can be done within the framework of his own area of responsibility to counter the growth of right-wing extremist violence-oriented organizations and the risks these entail? Is there anything else that can be done to jointly safeguard our defense organizations and reduce the risk of infiltration and obvious vulnerabilities?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Försvarsministern Pål Jonson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Hanna Westerén for the interpellation! I will try to divide the answer according to the same structure as I have in the reply.

I will start with the most important thing first. Is it important to follow this area? Without a doubt it is, for a number of reasons. For the first, the Armed Forces do, to some extent, have a monopoly on violence. This naturally implies a great responsibility, given that one handles explosive goods and firearms, and one handles various types of qualified issues surrounded by defense secrecy.

The second part, which one also needs to be aware of, is that the total defense and the military defense are becoming an ever larger part of our society. It is an activity that is growing in a large extent. This applies to both the economic resource allocations, materiel, and not least personnel.

We are now seeing an expansion of the conscription system. We see more active-duty soldiers, more specialist officers, and more officers. It will therefore become a larger part of society, and purely proportionally, these risks then increase. That is one dimension.

The second dimension concerns whether there are any signs today of systematic deficiencies regarding violent individuals seeking entry into the Armed Forces and being successful in that endeavor. We have no such indications. There is no such statistics. There have been individual cases, and new individual cases may certainly arise.

I believe that this is the consequence of two things that the Armed Forces are undertaking. The Armed Forces are conducting systematic work on values at different levels. It is established that things such as diversity are an asset for the Armed Forces. They also attribute very clear messages when it comes to distancing themselves from extremist and violence-oriented elements. They are firm regarding this.

The second is the work that the Armed Forces carry out when it comes to security clearance work, which is also systematic and extensive. One of the things we have introduced in relatively recent times is that we conduct security screenings, among other things, for conscripts. This is naturally important in order to be able to identify risks with individuals who seek to join the Armed Forces, but for obvious reasons are not suitable.

The combination of a systematic work on core values and a high level of security work – which has become even more important – means that all statistics indicate that this does not occur systematically. That said, this is an area that will need to be worked on over time. This applies in particular to the work on core values. One must constantly ensure that it takes place and that it permeates the Armed Forces at all levels.

With that said, I have a high level of confidence that we also, in an international comparison, have fewer problems than many other countries in this regard. I perceive, as I said, that the Armed Forces are conducting a solid and systematic work to reduce the risks that exist with people with violent extremism entering and interacting with the Armed Forces' activities.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Hanna Westerén (S)

Mr. Speaker! Many thanks to the Minister for Defence for the report!

In the debate on the same theme conducted between the Minister for Defence and Peter Hultqvist some years ago, it was noted that there are no major differences between our parties in this area, and it still appears to be so. What Pål Jonson prefers here in the chamber is also perfectly excellent; it is of course extremely important with the increased security protection.

It has, however, been one and a half years since that debate, and just as the Minister for Defence himself notes, the security situation has intensified further. Total defense is also expanding to more and more parts of society, and since the debate between Peter Hultqvist and Pål Jonson took place, very many people have sought out different parts of the Home Guard and the Armed Forces.

That many want to participate in the defense of Sweden is outstanding, as we are dependent on many wanting to participate in the defense of Sweden in a challenging time. We actually want everyone to participate in the defense of Sweden to some extent and in some way. But we must not compromise on the compliance of the equal treatment plan and that needle's eye for becoming a part of the operations, and I also hear from Pål Jonson that this is not being compromised.

The growth of violent extremism does not occur in a vacuum. With power comes responsibility, and the responsibility falls heavily on every government to keep clear of harmful elements in these activities, which are so incredibly important for Sweden. The far-right, violent organizations appear to be thriving in Sweden, but they are also growing around Europe. It is also no secret that defense organizations constitute a particular attraction for violent extremism.

There, I think that Defense Minister Pål Jonson has important tools at his disposal. Pål Jonson says that Sweden appears to be more successful than many other countries in repelling this type of activity. But Pål Jonson also says that there have been those who have had greater problems than we have, and they have certainly also been forced to resort to other methods. Therefore, I wonder which examples Pål Jonson would like to highlight on how we could further sharpen the work to keep the violence-oriented organizations far away from the defense of Sweden.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Försvarsministern Pål Jonson (M)

Mr. Speaker! When it comes to the broader problem area in society linked to violent extremism, we have a relatively good mapping through the work that NCT does. They carry out systematic work where they look at what the problem area looks like.

My intention here is not to broaden the debate into a general political debate about violent extremism, but it is clear that the Armed Forces are a part of society and that it, just as Hanna Westerén says, is affected by general trends. At NCT, it is pointed out that the greatest threat linked to violent extremism is posed by lone actors who can come from either Islamist or right-wing extremist environments. It is therefore that analysis that is made linked to the problem itself.

The second dimension is what the government is doing to counter this, and here Hanna Westerén knows that in January 2024 the government presented a national strategy to intensify the work against violent extremism. The strategy has four parts: to prevent violent extremism and terrorism, to prevent terrorist attacks, to protect society's people and functions, and to manage the situation during and after attacks.

It is, therefore, a quite broad approach, and I believe it will require both quite broad brushstrokes and a quite systematic effort not only in a single department but within the entire Government Offices – and above all in society as a whole – to combat violent extremism. Those parts are also important to reduce the risk that the Armed Forces will be affected by people with these tendencies seeking out the Armed Forces.

What we can nonetheless state is that the Armed Forces have grown significantly in terms of personnel over the recent years and that we do not have systematically more cases of this than we have had previously. I think that gives me hope that the work that the Armed Forces is carrying out is also relatively successful. Purely statistically, one could imagine that we would get more cases of this kind within the Armed Forces, but I believe that above all, the work that is done linked to the new security protection act and the security screenings is a good vaccine against the problem.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Hanna Westerén (S)

Mr. Speaker! I am aware of what Pål Jonson refers to.

The strategy is mentioned specifically. It is from 2024, and the figures I highlight in my interpellation originate from 2025. The growth of right-wing extremist and violence-promoting organizations is occurring in this present moment, in 2025. It may be that there are not more cases, but the organizations are growing in number. The risk and threat that they infiltrate the Försvarsmakten and the hemvärnet remains.

With that said, I would like to thank Minister of Defence Pål Jonson for today's debate. I think it is important, and I will continue to follow this development – not primarily because I want to hunt the government, as it is usually called, but because I find it utterly important to keep the defense of Sweden free from harmful elements in a challenging time. It is about harmful elements that risk both our internal and our external security and, as previously mentioned, our invaluable democracy.

I mean that the figures I refer to in my interpellation are correct upon reflection. It says a lot about our contemporary time that the organizations in question are becoming more numerous and increasing their activity not only here at home in Sweden but also across Europe. It worries me, and it should worry Defense Minister Pål Jonson. The type of internal threats that we are discussing today, we cannot afford in the challenging times we are currently experiencing.

Thank you for the debate!

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Försvarsministern Pål Jonson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Hanna Westerén for the interpellation debate.

There are, of course, several ways to measure this. Expo does a job, and NCT does a job. I also note that Hanna Westerén uses a measure, namely to see if this is being expanded to more municipalities. It is in 140 municipalities where cases of this have been seen. The other measure is the number of activities, which has also increased but not proportionally as much as the number of municipalities has increased. However, there are always reasons to keep a close watch on violent extremism as it constitutes a threat to our society and to our democracy.

In conclusion, I just want to say that the Armed Forces have a unique position when it comes to the important work they do in protecting democracy. I know that the Armed Forces therefore work extra hard with the work on core values. When it comes to ensuring the work environment, it is purely technically an agency responsibility, but there are always reasons to follow this, not least from the perspective of the Riksdag. It is about ensuring that we have as good a vaccine as possible against this type of activity so that it does not enter the Armed Forces and thereby lower our defense capability and the large, broad support that exists today in society for the Armed Forces' important activities.

The interpellations debate was hereby concluded.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)