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 vote against her 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 European 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. These were sent during negotiations in 2021 for the purchase of up to 1.8 billion doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine at a cost of €35 billion.
Piperea’s motion was supported by 74 MEPs from various cross-party groups — including one from von der Leyen’s own European People’s Party Group — and the vote is expected to take place next month. While the motion has little chance of succeeding due to the high bar of a two-thirds majority, this still represents a serious political hurdle for von der Leyen — and a challenge to the entire Brussels system.
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 its chances of success are slim, but said it offered a “crucial opportunity for constructive and substantiated criticism” towards the EU Commission President.
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 MEPs out of approving a €150 billion loan scheme to boost joint procurement of weapons by EU countries, known as SAFE.
Responding to European Parliament President Roberta Metsola, who threatened legal action against the 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 and centralisation of the bloc’s politics, whereby the Commission has progressively increased its influence over areas of competence which 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 of her 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. Longstanding 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 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 end — and that a reckoning over the future of EU governance may be fast approaching.