Ursula von der Leyen faces no-confidence vote
Even if driven by right-wing factions within the European Parliament, the motion reveals growing cross-party unease with the EU’s escalating techno-authoritarian regime
This is a longer version of an article originally published in UnHerd.
The pressure is mounting on European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. On Wednesday, a group of right-wing MEPs announced that they had secured enough support to table a no-confidence against von der Leyen over concerns about her leadership style, lack of transparency and growing accusations of bypassing democratic norms within the EU’s institutional framework.
The initiative, launched by Romanian MEP Gheorghe Piperea, stems from the ongoing “Pfizergate” scandal, which escalated in May when the EU General Court issued a landmark ruling against the Commission for failing to disclose text messages exchanged between von der Leyen and Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla during negotiations in 2021 for the purchase of up to 1.8 billion doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine at a mind-boggling cost of €35 billion.
The motion was supported by 74 MEPs from various cross-party groups — 32 from the conservative ECR group, 23 from the sovereigntist ESN group (formed on the initiative of the AfD), 4 from the Patriots for Europe Groups, 14 independents and even 1 from the EPP, von der Leyen’s own group. The vote is expected to take place in July 2025, though an exact date has not been set.
While the motion has little chance of succeeding due to the high bar of a two-thirds majority —the EPP has the relative majority in the Parliament — this nonetheless represents a serious political hurdle for von der Leyen: for the first time the European Parliament will be forced to have a public and official discussion about a scandal that for years has been confined to newspaper reports and courtrooms. “The initiative is fundamentally about upholding transparency and ensuring a fair and genuine democratic process”, Piperea said. He acknowledged that the chances for it to succeed were slim, but said it offered a “crucial opportunity for constructive and substantiated criticism towards von der Leyen”.
This is about more than just Pfizergate. Since her re-election in 2024, von der Leyen has been fiercely criticised from various quarters for her authoritarian approach and systematic sidelining of the Parliament. Last month, for example, the Commission proposed using an emergency clause in the EU treaty to shut Parliament out of approving a €150 billion loan scheme to boost joint procurement of weapons by EU countries, known as SAFE.
In response to European Parliament President Roberta Metsola, who threatened legal action against the European Commission, von der Leyen defended the move, arguing that the emergency clause is “fully justified” as SAFE is “an exceptional and temporary response to an urgent and existential challenge”.
In this sense, Pfizergate symbolises a broader process of supranationalisation, centralisation and “Commissionisation” of the bloc’s politics, where the Commission has progressively increased its influence over areas of competence that have previously been considered the preserve of national governments — from financial budgets and health policy to foreign affairs and defence. Piperea’s motion also mentions this alleged “procedural abuse”. He “calls on the European Commission to resign due to repeated failures to ensure transparency, persistent disregard for democratic oversight and the rule of law within the Union”.
Thus, while the motion is largely driven by right-wing and conservative factions, it exposes growing dissatisfaction across ideological and party lines. Socialists, liberals and even some Greens — who backed von der Leyen’s re-election — have become increasingly vocal in their criticism over von der Leyen’s leadership style, particularly regarding transparency issues and her withdrawal of a greenwashing law without parliamentary consultation. However, these groups explicitly stated they would not support a “far-right”-led motion.
Ultimately, the no-confidence motion will not topple von der Leyen, but its symbolic force is undeniable. Long-standing concerns over the concentration of power within the Commission can no longer be dismissed as fringe or conspiratorial. By compelling a public debate in the European Parliament, the initiative may begin to tear open the institutional façade of unity and consensus, revealing a growing unease even among mainstream parties with the EU’s escalating techno-authoritarian regime. Whether or not the motion passes, it signals that the age of unquestioned executive authority in Brussels may be nearing its limits — and that a reckoning over the future of EU governance may be fast approaching.
Putting out high-quality journalism requires constant research, most of which goes unpaid, so if you appreciate my writing please consider upgrading to a paid subscription if you haven’t already. Aside from a fuzzy feeling inside of you, you’ll get access to exclusive articles and commentary.
I don't know anyone here in France that even thinks the EU should still exist!
A badly-disguised 19th century tyrannical duchess masquerading as the President of the EU commision with a cartoo ishly-pompous name such as "Ursula von der Leyen" has no place in modern politics.