The SF adviser controversy around Thomas Nystrøm became an early test for Denmark’s new government on Saturday, June 13, when the newly appointed special adviser (særlig rådgiver) to Minister for Economic Affairs and the Interior (økonomi- og indenrigsminister) Pia Olsen Dyhr resigned after days of criticism over his return to a senior political role.
SF adviser controversy ended with a resignation
Thomas Nystrøm announced his resignation in a Facebook post after several days of pressure from within the Green Left (Socialistisk Folkeparti, SF), the centre-left party led by Dyhr.
“It has been some very violent days for me and my family, and the debate about my appointment now overshadows SF’s work so much that I have chosen to stop as special adviser,” he wrote, according to Danish media.
His departure came only days after Politiken reported that he had been hired as Dyhr’s special adviser in the Ministry of Economic Affairs and the Interior (Økonomi- og Indenrigsministeriet). The appointment quickly became controversial because Nystrøm had left a previous advisory role in SF in 2020 following allegations of sexual harassment and inappropriate behaviour.
For SF, the resignation removes the immediate personnel issue. But it does not end the political questions raised by the appointment. A special adviser is usually expected to work largely behind the scenes. In this case, the adviser became the centre of a public controversy that overshadowed SF’s first weeks in government.
SF’s political spokesperson Sigurd Agersnap said after the resignation that the party now needed to look ahead and return its focus to welfare, pensions, the green transition and the implementation of the government platform.
A 2020 dismissal returned to the centre of Danish politics
The criticism intensified after Lotte Kofoed, an SF councillor in Frederiksberg (rådmand), publicly identified herself as one of the people affected by Nystrøm’s past behaviour. She said that his return to a role close to the party leadership had placed her under psychological pressure and made her life “hell”.
Nystrøm has acknowledged that he behaved “completely unacceptably” on several occasions. He has said he does not remember the episode described by Kofoed, but added that he had “no reason to believe” her account was not true. He has also referred to other incidents, including an inappropriate text message and a slap on another person at a party.
The case therefore became more than a debate about one appointment. It raised a broader question for SF: whether a person who had left the party after serious misconduct allegations should be brought back into a central political environment where some of the people affected were still active.
Several local SF representatives said they accepted the principle that people can change and deserve a second chance. But many questioned whether that second chance should be given inside the same party organisation, and close to the same political circles, where the original incidents had taken place.
Dyhr defended a second chance, but SF’s grassroots split
Pia Olsen Dyhr defended the appointment on Friday at Folkemødet, Denmark’s annual political festival on Bornholm. She argued that the situation was different six years later, because Nystrøm had apologised and changed his behaviour.
“I think it is something else six years later, when one has apologised and changed behaviour,” she said, adding that people should be able to return after taking responsibility.
That argument failed to convince parts of the party’s grassroots. SF Frederiksberg called for the cooperation with Nystrøm to end. SF’s youth wing also criticised the leadership, saying the party had not done enough to ensure a safe environment for its members in connection with the appointment.
TV 2’s reporting showed a divided party base. Some local chairs expressed trust in Dyhr’s judgement and argued that people should be allowed to learn from their mistakes. Others said the appointment was difficult to understand, especially because the affected people had not left the party.
The controversy also created a difficult image problem for Dyhr. SF had just entered government after a strong election result and after years of growing political influence. Instead of focusing on welfare, climate and public services, the party spent its first governing days responding to an internal crisis.
SF had used Nystrøm after his 2020 firing
The case became more complicated when DR reported, citing Politiken, that SF had used Nystrøm as an external consultant after his 2020 dismissal. SF’s national secretary Jens Andersen said in an email that the party had worked with external agencies during campaigns, and that Nystrøm had contributed as a consultant in recent years, including around municipal and regional elections.
Dyhr also said that Nystrøm had remained a party member and had contributed through an agency in the same way other members can contribute to the party’s development.
But SF has not disclosed when it began using him again after the dismissal. The party has also not answered whether he advised Dyhr directly during that period.
That part of the story is politically important. It suggests that the question was not only whether Nystrøm should have been formally reappointed as a special adviser in 2026. It also concerns how SF handled his continued proximity to the party after 2020, and whether the party had clear internal boundaries after his departure.
An early governing test for a stronger Green Left
The controversy comes at a sensitive moment for Danish politics. After the 2026 election, the Green Left entered a new minority coalition led by Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen’s Social Democrats, together with the Social Liberal Party (Radikale Venstre) and the Moderates (Moderaterne).
SF won 20 seats and became Denmark’s second-largest party in parliament. Dyhr took over the Ministry of Economic Affairs and the Interior, a central portfolio that now includes important economic negotiations with municipalities and regions.
That makes the Nystrøm case more than an internal party dispute. It is also an early test of SF’s transition from opposition success to government responsibility. Parties that enter government face stricter scrutiny, especially when appointments involve trust, workplace safety and political judgement.
Nystrøm’s resignation may allow SF to move the immediate debate away from one adviser. But the broader questions remain. The party will still have to explain how it balances rehabilitation with accountability, how it protects members who report misconduct, and how it prevents internal cases from undermining public trust.
For Dyhr, the next challenge is political as much as organisational. SF entered government promising stronger welfare, a fairer pension system and a faster green transition. The party now needs to show that its new role in government will not be defined by an appointment it was forced to reverse within days.
