By Plenary Sessions: Tõnis Lukas

The main criticism is directed at the current government coalition, accusing them of failing to deliver on the promises outlined in the coalition agreement and lacking regional political will. The criticism is policy- and results-based, citing the widening gap between the ratio of teachers' salaries and the average wage as an example. The previous government (2022–2023) is also being criticized for the poor state of Estonian finances.

The criticism is aimed at the government's actions concerning prison management and the inadequate honoring of historical memory. Specific criticism focuses on the failure to properly commemorate heroes, and the minister is directly questioned regarding the absence of threat assessments, implying an underestimation of security risks (e.g., "Putinists in a dormant state"). The criticism is rooted in policy and values.

Criticism is directed against the government and the committee handling budget decisions, faulting them for passivity and blindly trusting the government. The objection is politically and procedurally justified, focusing on the inadequate response to changed economic circumstances.

The opposition is aimed at the logic presented by the minister regarding the equal treatment of services between those who are working and those who are raising children. The criticism is political and value-based, calling into question the future security of the state and the foundations of service provision.

The main opposition is directed at the government and the prime minister concerning the plan to raise the immigration quota and disregard the strengthening of Estonian language requirements. Strong criticism is also aimed at employers who wish to import low-wage labor, which suppresses local wages and takes jobs away from Estonians. The criticism is policy- and value-based.

The opposition is directed at the government and the minister who are promoting zero-based budgeting as a cost-saving measure. The criticism is policy-based, accusing the government that the method they are championing does not result in genuine national savings, but merely generates unnecessary administrative workload.