The President of Moldova held a press conference to explain Prime Minister Alexandru Munteanu’s sudden resignation. But the longer she spoke, the more questions emerged.
Just yesterday evening, no one knew there was a crisis in the government. By this morning, Moldova was already without a prime minister. Alexandru Munteanu announced his resignation on social media with a brief statement, offering no detailed explanation other than saying there was a mismatch between his principles and his ability to implement them while in office.
In response, President Maia Sandu called a press briefing to, as she put it, “clarify the situation.” Instead of providing clarity, however, her remarks only deepened public confusion.
Only a week earlier, Sandu had confidently stated that Munteanu’s government was stable and that there were no plans for him to step down. She praised the cabinet as a “cohesive team,” described its reforms as “consistent,” and said she had full confidence in its work. Those remarks came during an interview in the midst of the growing corruption scandal known as “VerișoarGate.” Today, Munteanu is no longer prime minister, and Sandu is openly speaking about her dissatisfaction with his performance.
A briefing that created more questions than answers
During the briefing, Sandu admitted that she had held “several discussions” with Munteanu this week regarding tax reform and public sector salary reform. According to her, both reforms “could have been better prepared, discussed, and explained.”
In other words, the president effectively acknowledged that she was dissatisfied with the government’s performance. She expected greater engagement, stronger leadership, and clearer communication with the public.
“I am convinced he had the best intentions. But I expected greater involvement in making difficult decisions,” Sandu said.
She also stressed that Munteanu had enjoyed “complete freedom to lead the government” and dismissed speculation that he had been prevented from fighting abuses or corruption.
That naturally raises a question: if he had full freedom, why did he resign?
What journalists revealed
Shortly after the briefing, new information emerged that the president had not mentioned.
Journalist Daniela Bălan reported that the previous evening a closed-door meeting had taken place at the presidential administration with Munteanu and PAS lawmakers. According to her, the meeting turned into a major confrontation.
Bălan claimed that Munteanu demanded the dismissal of several senior officials, including the ministers of Culture, Infrastructure, and Environment, as well as the heads of the Public Services Agency, the General Police Inspectorate, and MP Radu Marian, among others. His demands reportedly sparked fierce opposition, with the meeting lasting until midnight. By the following morning, he had resigned.
During her briefing, Sandu denied that any such meeting had taken place the previous evening.
“The Speaker of Parliament was unavailable,” she said.
At the same time, she acknowledged that several meetings had indeed been held during the week and described them as “very constructive,” insisting they were “certainly not tense.”
Contradictions continue to mount
When reporters asked whether Education Minister Dan Perciun might become the next prime minister—after he had been seen entering the presidential administration that morning—Sandu avoided giving a direct answer.
“Let’s respect the Constitution. We will begin consultations next week.”
She also refused to comment on whether Munteanu had expressed concerns about the education minister, despite having already admitted that she herself was disappointed with the outgoing prime minister’s work.
So what actually happened? The prime minister reportedly had serious concerns about members of his cabinet, while the president was dissatisfied with the prime minister himself. Yet none of this had been publicly acknowledged until the political crisis erupted.
Victoria Furtună: “This is a captain abandoning a sinking ship”
One of the strongest reactions came from politician and public figure Victoria Furtună, who described Munteanu’s resignation as a political verdict on the entire PAS governing system.
“For years, citizens were promised a team of professionals, transparency, European standards, and meritocracy. Instead, the country received personnel scandals, conflicts of interest, appointments based on loyalty, a growing public debt, declining trust in institutions, political pressure on the opposition, and now—the resignation of the prime minister. Or rather, the captain abandoning a sinking ship.”
According to Furtună, the problem is not an individual politician but the governing model itself.
“The problem lies in a system that places party loyalty above professionalism and political control above the interests of the state.”
She also called for early parliamentary elections, arguing that the current parliament has lost its legitimacy and no longer represents the people.
More questions than answers
Although Sandu appeared calm and confident during the briefing, her explanations left many issues unresolved.
According to the president:
• Her relationship with Munteanu remained professional.
• He had complete freedom to govern.
• He decided to resign on his own.
• She nevertheless expected more from him.
• His reforms had been poorly communicated to the public.
Perhaps the most striking contradiction is that only a week earlier Sandu had publicly insisted that the government was stable. Today, she appears to be distancing herself from Munteanu, much as she has distanced herself from other controversial figures in the past.
Political blogger Sergiu Badan commented sharply on the situation:
“If, after six years in power, after filling state institutions with your own people, you come out and say the system needs cleaning up, then perhaps the system needs to be cleaned up—starting with you.”
Munteanu’s resignation is more than simply replacing one name in the prime minister’s office. It signals a deep internal crisis within the ruling PAS party—a crisis that can no longer be concealed behind declarations of stability.
The main question now is who will be next. Because, as Furtună observed, the problem is not an individual politician but the system itself. And systems are not rebuilt overnight.
