Von der Leyen’s Moment of Truth by Alberto Alemanno

Alberto Alemanno explains what’s at stake in the European Parliament’s motion to dismiss the European Commission president.

This week’s European Parliament vote on whether to dismiss Commission President Ursula von der Leyen could mark a turning point for the EU. It offers mainstream parties a rare opportunity to test whether European democracy has matured to the point where accountability takes precedence over institutional loyalty.

PARIS – On July 10, the European Parliament will vote on whether to dismiss Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and her entire team. This motion of censure – the European Union’s equivalent of a no-confidence vote – is highly unusual. While such motions have never succeeded, they represent the bloc’s most powerful check on executive authority and have historically reshaped the political dynamics in Brussels.

The stakes could not be higher. As Europe negotiates a potential trade deal with US President Donald Trump’s administration and struggles to maintain its influence in the on-again, off-again Ukraine-Russia peace talks, the vote’s outcome could determine the EU’s strategic direction. It may finally compel von der Leyen to make a defining choice: govern from the political center or continue what some Europeans see as a drift toward the nationalist right. Von der Leyen’s choice could have profound implications for the bloc’s global relevance and credibility.

The censure motion, prompted by a recent court ruling criticizing von der Leyen’s refusal to disclose the text messages she exchanged with Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla during the COVID-19 vaccine negotiations, was initiated by right-wing and far-right groups. It also reflects broader concerns about her alleged bypassing of the EU Parliament and centralization of power within the Commission.

Although the motion has little chance of passing, it cannot be dismissed as mere posturing or, as von der Leyen put it, “another crude attempt to drive a wedge between our institutions, between the pro-European, pro-democratic forces in this House.” Ironically, the right-wing push to unseat von der Leyen has provided a platform for mainstream parties to air their own frustrations with her increasing willingness to accommodate far-right positions.

The three centrist parties that played a vital role in securing a second term for von der Leyen as Commission President – the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats (S&D), Renew Europe (formerly ALDE), and the Greens/European Free Alliance – have grown disillusioned with what they see as her abandonment of their shared political priorities. Although she pledged to govern from the center with these parties’ backing, her European People’s Party (EPP) has increasingly relied on support from the right.

This strategic pivot has led the EPP to undermine the European Green Deal by diluting corporate sustainability-reporting regulations and delaying the EU’s deforestation law. More recently, it has reportedly sought far-right support to secure key rapporteur appointments on two immigration laws that could make the bloc’s migration policies significantly more restrictive.

These shifts have left von der Leyen politically vulnerable. A Commission president caught between two incompatible parliamentary blocs threatens the EU’s ability to pursue a coherent political agenda.

Since its establishment in 1958, the European Parliament has held censure powers as a key instrument of democratic oversight. From the moment of its appointment, the European Commission is collectively accountable to the Parliament. When trust breaks down, Parliament retains the authority to impose the ultimate sanction.

Yet all 13 censure motions brought forward since the European Parliament’s creation have either been withdrawn or failed. This is partly due to the deliberately high threshold: two-thirds of votes cast, representing at least 361 members – an even higher bar than for electing the Commission president in the first place.

The far-reaching consequences of forcing the entire Commission to resign have traditionally dissuaded mainstream parties from endorsing such motions. More fundamentally, MEPs have long been guided by a sense of institutional loyalty, often prioritizing European unity over democratic accountability.

But limited use has not rendered the mechanism politically irrelevant. In parliamentary democracies around the world, opposition parties routinely use no-confidence votes to extract concessions from governing coalitions. While the EU’s version is more demanding, the underlying dynamic remains the same: opposition forces can create leverage even when success is out of reach.

It’s happened before. In 1996, Parliament established a committee of inquiry into the mad cow disease crisis. Although a subsequent censure motion was defeated, it paved the way for a “conditional censure” mechanism through which lawmakers gave the Commission six months to address specific concerns, using the threat of future action to secure concrete policy commitments.

Today, mainstream European parties find themselves in a surprisingly strong position to apply similar pressure. Without their continued support, von der Leyen cannot advance several major policy priorities: the upcoming Multiannual Financial Framework budget negotiations, the implementation of the EU’s competitiveness agenda, a package of single-market reforms, and the European rearmament initiative, which requires unprecedented levels of fiscal coordination.

The Social Democrats, Liberals, and Greens in Parliament could use this moment to demand explicit commitments in exchange for their continued support. More importantly, they must force von der Leyen to choose between two irreconcilable political paths: governing with the centrist coalition that has defined EU policy for the past five decades, or continuing to court nationalist parties whose votes come with decidedly non-centrist policy strings attached.

With democratic institutions under pressure worldwide, Europe’s ability to self-correct matters far beyond its own borders. The question isn’t whether Parliament will remove von der Leyen – it won’t – but whether it will seize the opportunity to define the terms for responsible European governance.

Von der Leyen’s ongoing political ambiguity has become a strategic liability at a time when Europe’s allies need clarity. Above all, they must know whether they are engaging with a Commission committed to democratic values or one being shaped by nationalist actors who often prioritize the interests of Russia and the Trump administration. The July 10 vote will reveal whether European democracy has matured to the point where democratic accountability takes precedence over institutional loyalty, and whether the bloc is prepared to face today’s challenges with purpose and resolve.