I sorta alluded as to how the government is pushing the sale through, but to reiterate more clearly, and with political detail:

* In early 2025, the previous dutch government lost majority coalition support. The previous government remains in power until a new one is elected, but isn't expected to make major decisions any more; they're effectively just stewards to ensure the country isn't totally leaderless[0] (this is also called a demissionary government here).

* In late 2025, a new second chamber is elected and work on a coalition begins. Until a new coalition is formed, the previous government remains in power.

* In November 2025, right around this, Kyndryl announces it's takeover of Solvinity. The demissionary government gives initial approval for the takeover and decides that the takeover won't mess with the DigiD contract.

* In January 2026, the deal begins to fall under scrutiny in IT/privacy circles and some political parties express their concerns, but not much media attention is drawn to it at first. The ACM (dutch antitrust authority) also gives it's approval for the sale. All this still happens under the demissionary government.

* In February 2026, the new coalition government is sworn in. Scrutiny on the deal is starting to intensify and media coverage becomes more public.

* In late April 2026 (as in, last week), parliament passes a motion to request to change away from Solvinity in 2028. At the same time, the minister responsible for the sale is answering press questions about the sale, indicating he doesn't intend to block the sale. Just four days ago, the minister publishes a formal letter to parliament, effectively saying that they aren't stopping anything and that the government already gave preliminary approval to extend the DigiD contract with Solvinity (a separate matter, but just as related) back in March (so under the current government). They expect to ink it before the end of next week (May 6th.)

Somewhere between March and April, some internal government employees also step to the press to warn them about the sale in terms of a national security threat, but I don't exactly recall when on the timeline that happened.

The reason why the government is getting the blame for it isn't just inaction; they aren't standing by and letting something they had no involvement with (since the previous government was demissionary) happen - they're actively choosing to continue the motions of the previous demissionary government - including signing contract extensions that the previous government wasn't involved with - in spite of the very clear pushback they're getting from doing so.

[0]: This is the abbreviated version - somehow the previous government managed to lose coalition support twice, even when it was already demissionary. It's not normal for two parties to pull out like that on separate occasions.

Soft launch of open-source code platform for government