It is indeed true that fact-checking political claims often seems like an impossible task. Politicians sometimes tend to twist facts, throw around accusations or take figures out of
context. Populist politicians are the best in this club, and they are the ones who make the fact checker’s job so much more difficult. But we must never stop cleaning out the Augean stables, because populism can cause far-reaching and drastic problems.
Let me begin by clarifying what populism is. Populism is an influential political phenomenon that revolves around the idea of a struggle between the “people” and an “elite”. It is not an ideology but is often combined with other movements. Right-wing populism emphasises issues such as immigration, national identity and cultural values. Left-wing populism, on the other hand, focuses on socio-economic inequality and redistribution.
Europe has a wide range of well-known populist politicians, often on the right of the political spectrum. Robert Fico opposes EU asylum quotas and pursues a strict anti-immigration policy. Giorgia Meloni won the 2024 European elections with an ultra-conservative programme. Geert Wilders criticises the judiciary and treaties that limit national sovereignty.
Viktor Orbán positions Hungary as a centre for populist leaders worldwide. So, there is no shortage of politicians, and certainly no shortage of statements to fact-check.
Populists eveywhere
And here we need to immediately add some nuance to address one of the major problems for fact-checkers. There are clearly pronounced populist parties and leaders, but it is important to recognise that populist elements are no longer exclusive. Essentially, all politicians try to express the will of the people, especially that of their own supporters, in order to win votes and influence policy. This makes populist rhetoric a strategy that is used more widely than just by parties that explicitly call themselves populist.
Fact checkers are the last line of defence against the erosion of democratic values and growing Euroscepticism, a task that is becoming increasingly difficult in a landscape where slogans often drown out facts.
A good example is Germany. Although populist parties such as the AfD are gaining ground, populist rhetoric is no longer their exclusive domain. In the 2025 German elections, AfD won 20.8% of the vote, mainly thanks to their hardline anti-immigration stance. However, Mertz’s CDU/CSU also scored well with 28.5%, despite having a migration policy that is much stricter than Merkel’s “Wir Schaffen Das” principle.
We are also seeing this trend in Belgium and the Netherlands. Almost all parties have shifted to the right in recent years, especially on issues such as migration and security. In Flanders, the positions of centrist parties such as CD&V and Vooruit are closer to those of the Flemish nationalist party Vlaams Belang than in the past, while socialist parties in the Netherlands and Belgium are operating more centrally to connect with public opinion.
These shifts are blurring the boundaries between populism and mainstream politics, making the political landscape more complex and the work of journalists and fact-checkers considerably more difficult.
Dangers of populism
Whether populism or populist rhetoric comes from the right, left or centre, the danger is equally acute. Because populist parties often base their policies on the will of the majority rather than on expertise, this can lead to less well-considered decisions in crucial areas such as the economy, infrastructure and climate. When complex issues are reduced to simple slogans, policy loses its nuance and effectiveness. Moreover, populist rhetoric emphasises the contrast between the “ordinary people” and the “elite”, which undermines the legitimacy of democratic institutions. This can lead to a less inclusive society in which checks and balances are weakened and the space for compromise disappears. In Hungary, for example, Viktor Orbán has used constitutional amendments to curtail the power of independent judges and media, putting pressure on the democratic rule of law.
Populism also increases Euroscepticism and the risk of political instability. By portraying the EU as an undemocratic, bureaucratic juggernaut, populist parties reinforce mistrust among citizens. This fuels movements advocating an “exit”, such as Brexit, and puts pressure on the internal cohesion of the Union. In Italy, Giorgia Meloni has repeatedly criticised EU rules on migration and the budget, while in the Netherlands, Geert Wilders is calling for a Nexit debate. Populist rhetoric reduces complex integration issues to simple “in or out” choices, stalling the debate on reforms and making the EU less flexible. If the Union is unable to adapt to new challenges, such as migration and climate change, it risks becoming paralysed by internal divisions and external pressure.
Guards at the gate
Fact checkers are the gatekeepers of public debate. Their task is not only to check figures, but also to restore context and nuance that populist rhetoric often omits. Politicians reduce complex issues to slogans, causing misleading information to spread rapidly. Fact checkers must dissect and correct these claims, even though emotional messages on social media are shared much more quickly and widely than their refutations.
Their challenge is growing because populist traits are no longer exclusive to extremists: traditional parties also use them to win voters. When almost all parties respond to sentiments about migration or national identity, the line between fact and framing becomes blurred. Fact checkers must not only verify statements but also analyse broader narratives. They are the last line of defence against the erosion of democratic values and growing Euroscepticism, a task that is becoming increasingly difficult in a landscape where slogans often drown out facts.
RESEARCH | ARTICLE © Stef Stans
Leave your comments, thoughts and suggestions in the box below. Take note: your response is moderated.
