BRUSSELS — Disgraced British politician Peter Mandelson is facing demands to be stripped of his pension as a former European commissioner if investigators found he broke EU rules over his contact with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.  Mandelson served as a European commissioner between 2004 and 2008 and is now at the center of a spiraling scandal in Britain. Newly released files showed how Mandelson, who was a senior British minister at the time, helped provide Epstein, then a financier, with information about a €500 billion bailout to save the euro in 2010.  The European Commission is looking into whether Mandelson broke its rules, which apply even after commissioners have left office, though ethics campaigners have called for a full fraud inquiry by independent investigators. Mandelson should lose the commissioner’s pension to which he is entitled if he’s found to have breached the rules, the campaigners said.  “Given the severity of allegations concerning Peter Mandelson’s deplorable relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, the European Commission and European Anti-Fraud Office must pursue an immediate investigation to establish any potential misconduct both during and beyond his tenure as European Commissioner,” Nick Aiossa, director at Transparency International, a leading anti-corruption campaign group, told POLITICO. “Should it do so, Mandelson must be stripped of his Commissioner’s pension.” Daniel Freund, a Green MEP from Germany, condemned the lack of action and investigations against “the most powerful people on earth” over their links to the disgraced financier. “That EU commissioners were somehow involved with this universe is just outrageous,” he told POLITICO. “Taking away the pension would be justified if he broke any EU rules.” Mandelson, 72, was entitled to an inflation-linked pension reportedly worth £31,000 a year when he turned 65 for his four years as a European commissioner. This is on top of other any pensions from his time as an elected politician in the U.K. and in other roles. Mandelson did not immediately respond to a request for comment. He has previously said he was wrong to have continued his association with Epstein and apologized “unequivocally” to Epstein’s victims. In a statement, the EU’s anti-fraud office, known as OLAF, said: “We cannot provide details regarding cases which OLAF may or may not be treating. This is to protect the confidentiality of any possible investigations and of possible ensuing judicial proceedings, as well as to ensure respect for personal data and procedural rights.” In London, Britain’s Health Secretary Wes Streeting said Mandelson should lose the severance payment he was entitled to when his career as U.K. ambassador to the United States ended over the Epstein scandal. Speaking to Times Radio, Streeting also suggested Mandelson could potentially be stripped of related pension entitlements. The opposition Reform UK party said Mandelson should lose the pension he’s entitled to receive as a former government minister. Noah Keate contributed to this report.

LONDON — Keir Starmer will strive for “maximum transparency” when releasing files on Peter Mandelson’s appointment as British ambassador to the U.S., a senior U.K. minister said Wednesday. Health Secretary Wes Streeting said the prime minister wants to release as much information into the public domain about how Mandelson was appointed, his correspondence with ministers and his subsequent sacking last September over the former Labour peer’s friendship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. “The prime minister’s going for maximum transparency here,” Streeting, a former friend of Mandelson, told Sky, though added the PM is “obviously drawing a line” by “not releasing information where it might compromise our national security and our security services, or where there may be information in there that might undermine international relations with other countries.” The opposition Conservatives have put forward a humble address — a parliamentary message to King Charles that was favored by Starmer during his time as leader of the opposition — calling for “all papers” relating to Mandelson’s appointment last year to be published. These include “due diligence which was passed to Number 10,” conflict of interest forms over his work in Russia and China, and correspondence (including electronic communications) between Mandelson, ministers and the PM’s Chief of Staff Morgan McSweeney — who encouraged Starmer to send the then Labour peer to Washington. The government has published an amendment to the address accepting the Tories’ request, with the caveat that it will exclude “papers prejudicial to U.K. national security or international relations.” U.K. lawmakers will debate the substance of what should be released this afternoon. “What we’ve seen in recent days also is a prime minister acting rapidly to make sure that Peter Mandelson is stripped of all of the titles and privileges that were conferred on him through public service,” Streeting told the BBC, calling his behavior “so jaw-droppingly stupid and outrageous.” The Metropolitan Police confirmed Tuesday evening that Mandelson is under investigation for alleged misconduct in public office after it appeared he leaked sensitive government discussions at the height of the financial crisis to the late financier. Mandelson didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment on the investigation on Tuesday evening. He has previously said he was wrong to have continued his association with Epstein and apologized “unequivocally” to Epstein’s victims. And in a Times Newspaper interview that was conducted before the most recent batch of Epstein files were released, Mandelson attempted to explain his historic association with the disgraced financier. “I don’t know what his motives were — probably mixed — but he provided guidance to help me navigate out of the world of politics and into the world of commerce and finance,” Mandelson told the newspaper. Mandelson didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment on the investigation on Tuesday evening. Mandelson also resigned from the House of Lords and left Labour following the latest tranche of correspondence in the Epstein Files.

BRUSSELS — The European Union is pressing ahead with talks to grant United States border authorities unprecedented access to Europeans’ data, despite growing concerns about American surveillance. The European Commission is brokering a deal to exchange information about travelers, including fingerprints and law enforcement records, so the U.S. can determine if they “pose a risk to public security or public order,” according to official documents. Commission officials flew to Washington last week for the first round of negotiations, according to two people familiar with the matter. The Trump administration’s request for deeper access comes after the U.S. border agency in December proposed reviewing five years of social media history. Talks are happening as the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) service is under heavy scrutiny for its use of surveillance technology against protesters in cities such as Minneapolis. The negotiations should be “put on hold” until the security and privacy of citizens in the EU and U.S. can be guaranteed, liberal European Parliament member Raquel García Hermida-van der Walle said in an interview. Romain Lanneau, a legal researcher with surveillance watchdog Statewatch, said police databases in Europe could contain information on anyone from protesters to journalists who might be considered a “threat,” and that — under the deal being discussed — this information would be at the fingertips of U.S. border authorities who could refuse those people entry to the United States or even detain them. European regulators are “very cautiously looking at what’s happening in the United States,” Wojciech Wiewiórowski, the EU’s in-house data protection supervisor, told POLITICO. Europe “has to be careful” about how it allows the data of Europeans to flow to the U.S., he said.  Hermida-van der Walle in January co-signed a letter by six prominent lawmakers calling on the Commission to stand down given the “current geopolitical context,” despite Washington’s admonition that failure to reach a deal will mean Europeans lose access to its visa waiver program. UNPRECEDENTED ACCESS The U.S. is seeking access to information including biometric data such as fingerprints that is stored on national databases in European countries, according to an explanatory note sent to national experts. The data would be used to “address irregular migration and to prevent, detect, and combat serious crime and terrorist offences,” the note said. In an earlier opinion on the deal, the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) — a watchdog that advises the Commission on privacy policies — noted the deal would be the first of its kind to enable “large-scale sharing of personal data … for the purpose of border and immigration control” with a non-EU country. The Commission would negotiate a framework deal that would serve as a template for bilateral agreements called Enhanced Border Security Partnerships (EBSPs), which national governments agree with Washington. EU countries in December signed off on the Commission’s request to start talks with the U.S. Washington is pressuring its EU counterparts by imposing a deadline for the bilateral deals to be agreed by the end of 2026. If countries fail to reach a deal with the U.S. they risk being cut from the latter’s visa waiver program. The U.S has made it mandatory for all countries that are part of the visa waiver program to have an EBSP in place. “The pressure which the United States is extorting on our member states, the threats that if you don’t agree with this we will cancel your access to the visa waiver program, that is an element of blackmail that we cannot let go,” Hermida-van der Walle said. The EDPS watchdog has cautioned that the scope of data sharing should be as narrow as possible, with clear justifications for every query; transparency around how the data is used; and judicial redress available in the U.S. for any person. Commission spokesperson Markus Lammert emphasised at a recent press briefing that the framework being negotiated will involve “clear and robust safeguards on data protection,” and will ensure “a non-systematic nature of the information exchange and that the exchange is limited to what is strictly necessary to achieve the objectives of this cooperation.”  US PRIVACY UNDER PRESSURE Access to the data is the latest issue putting pressure on a troubled relationship between the U.S. and the EU on data privacy. Since whistleblower Edward Snowden in 2013 revealed U.S. mass surveillance practices affecting Europeans, the EU has tightened controls on how Washington handles Europeans’ data. Since the return of Donald Trump as president last year, officials and rights groups have deplored a move by the U.S. administration to gut a key privacy watchdog tasked with overseeing privacy safeguards in place to protect Europeans. The Trump administration has also been ramping up mass surveillance of citizens by federal agencies like ICE, including through contracts with Israeli spyware company Paragon, surveillance giant Palantir and other firms. Capgemini, a prominent French IT firm, on Sunday said it was selling off its American activities after it faced political backlash from the French government that its software was being used by ICE authorities. Civil rights groups, lawmakers and other watchdogs fear the new EU-U.S. data sharing deals would add to backsliding on privacy rights.    “The current initiatives are being presented as toward counter-terrorism, but a lot of them are actually adopted for the chilling effect [on political activism],” Statewatch’s Lanneau said. Hermida-van der Walle, the liberal lawmaker, warned: “If people have to go to the United States, if it’s not a choice but something that they have do, there is a risk of self-censoring.”  “This comes from an administration who claims to be the biggest defender of free speech. What they’re doing with their actions is curtailing the possibility of people to express themselves freely, because otherwise they might not get access into the country,” she said.

A group of researchers is suing Elon Musk’s X to gain access to data on Hungary’s upcoming elections to assess the risk of interference, they told POLITICO. Hungary is set to hold a highly contentious election in April as populist nationalist Prime Minister Viktor Orbán faces the toughest challenge yet to his 16-year grip on power. The lawsuit by Democracy Reporting International (DRI) comes after the civil society group, in November, applied for access to X data to study risks to the Hungarian election, including from disinformation. After X rejected their request, the researchers took the case to the Berlin Regional Court, which said it is not competent to rule on the case. DRI — with the support of the Society for Civil Rights and law firm Hausfeld — is now appealing to a higher Berlin court, which has set a hearing date of Feb. 17. Sites including X are obliged to grant researchers access to data under the European Union’s regulatory framework for social media platforms, the Digital Services Act, to allow external scrutiny of how platforms handle major online risks, including election interference. The European Commission fined X €40 million for failing to provide data access in December, as part of a €120 million levy for non-compliance with transparency obligations. The lawsuit is the latest legal challenge to X after the researchers went down a similar path last year to demand access to data related to the German elections in February 2025. A three-month legal drama, which saw a judge on the case dismissed after X successfully claimed they had a conflict of interest, ended with the court throwing out the case. The platform said that was a “comprehensive victory” because “X’s unwavering commitment to protecting user data and defending its fundamental right to due process has prevailed.” The researchers also claimed a win: The court threw the case out on the basis of a lack of urgency, as the elections were well in the past, said DRI. The groups say the ruling sets a legal precedent for civil society groups to take platforms to court where the researchers are located, rather than in the platforms’ legal jurisdictions (which, in X’s case, would be Ireland). X did not respond to POLITICO’s request for comment on Monday.

The Department of Justice is releasing more than three million pages of materials related to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, deputy attorney general Todd Blanche announced Friday. The files fulfill the DOJ’s obligations under the law Congress passed last year to compel the release, Blache said. It includes 2,000 videos and 180,000 images. “Today’s release marks the end of a very comprehensive document identification and review process to ensure transparency to the American people and compliance with the act,” he said. “The Department has engaged in an unprecedented and extensive effort to do so.” The tranche comes more than a month after the Trump administration blew past the Dec. 19 statutory deadline for DOJ to make public all of the materials in its possession related to the federal Epstein investigation. Administration officials have maintained it has taken this long to properly vet the documents, though they released some files late last year — including photos depicting former President Bill Clinton. The former president has not been accused of wrongdoing in connection with Epstein and has called for the files to be released. Blanche, at a press conference Friday announcing the development, outlined the redactions in the materials, which included images of any women besides Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s co-conspirator now serving 20 years in prison for her part in the scheme. He cautioned that mistakes were “inevitable,” and potential victims could reach out to the department to rectify them

BRUSSELS — Several EU lawmakers have declared they have a side income but didn’t reveal how much extra money those gigs bring in. According to the MEPs’ code of conduct, lawmakers are supposed to declare any money they make outside of the European Parliament if it’s over €5,000 a year. MEPs earn €8,088 a month after tax and insurance contributions are deducted. The actual provision in the code of conduct says: “If [a remunerated activity undertaken alongside the exercise of the member’s office] generates income, Members shall indicate for each separate item the respective amount of that income and, where relevant, its periodicity.” However, Transparency International shared with POLITICO’s EU Influence newsletter the names of 14 MEPs who had not listed that income. The information was verified by POLITICO and all 14 MEPs were contacted. Raphaël Kergueno, senior policy officer at Transparency International, said: “Without proper monitoring of MEPs’ declarations, and sanctioning for breaches to the code of conduct, EU citizens are left relying on MEPs’ promises alone. The results of this speak for themselves.” Those on the list include Alvise Pérez, a Spanish far-right lawmaker who moonlights as a corruption-hating influencer. He wrote in a declaration to the Parliament last year that the “exact generated income” from his influencing would be updated at the end of each year. However, the amount that he earned since being voted in as an MEP in 2024 has not been revealed — although his records show he was getting €20,000 per month from the side job in the months running up to the election. His team said: “All income received has been duly declared in accordance with the applicable rules.” Then there’s Mario Mantovani, an Italian MEP for the European Conservatives and Reformists, who has had three consulting roles in addition to his parliamentary post; Transparency International says he promised to declare the sums by the end of 2024. He has yet to do so (and didn’t respond to a request for comment) but we know from his records that he was regularly pulling in six-figure sums annually from these roles before this term began. Meanwhile, Michał Wawrykiewicz, a long-time EU lawyer from the European People’s Party who has had clients in the retail, property, telecoms and rail sectors, said he didn’t think he had to declare the earnings with the European Parliament because he had already done so with the Polish parliament. He told POLITICO he had “misunderstood” the rules and added: “I inquired about this with my assistant several times” and “despite her very broad experience in the EP,” she was unaware that he also was supposed to submit declarations to the European Parliament. He said it was “in no way intentional.” Far-right Czech lawmaker Jana Nagyová said she had been “wrongly informed” by her office about income declarations. She added that she did have some side income from regional politics: around €150 per month for being elected to a local parliament and approximately €300 a month from a regional parliament, although the latter stopped last January.  A few of the lawmakers sent info after POLITICO got in touch. Sibylle Berg, a German non-aligned lawmaker, was an author and playwright before joining the European Parliament. Her office sent a document that said she makes €120,000 per year outside of her work as a parliamentarian. “We value transparency and believe that publication obligations support public scrutiny,” said her head of office, Dustin Hoffmann. Greens lawmaker Lena Schilling, who made some extra money via the book she published in 2024 and who flagged her potential earnings to the Parliament ahead of its release, said she hadn’t declared it because it fell below the €5,000 threshold. Her office added that they would update the register nevertheless and also sent over a breakdown of her earnings. Esteban González Pons, a Spanish EPP parliamentarian, said he had published two books in 2025 but wouldn’t be able to confirm the royalties earned until May.  Those who didn’t respond to a request for comment include Domenico Lucano, a lawmaker for The Left group, who flagged that he had done some work for a film production company; and Vladimir Prebilič, a Greens lawmaker who lectures in Ljubljana. Also not responding were Katri Kulmuni, a Renew lawmaker who has various municipal roles in Finland (as well as being a paid board member of a Christian foundation) and Pekka Toveri, a Finnish EPP lawmaker who lists himself as the CEO of his own company. François Kalfon, a French S&D parliamentarian, said he had “not received any remuneration or income from any professional activity,” and that “all necessary steps” had been taken to ensure “full compliance” with the Parliament’s rules on transparency and financial declarations. In Kalfon’s declaration it says “dividends for 2024 not yet defined”. Riho Terras, an Estonian EPP lawmaker who had flagged some potential dividends, told POLITICO: “Everything has been declared.” Socialists and Democrats MEP Elisabeth Grossmann was on the Transparency International list but told POLITICO that she hadn’t worked as a lecturer in Vienna since being elected and hadn’t updated her parliamentary records. Max Griera contributed to this article.

BRUSSELS — Senior European Commission officials hardly ever get the sack. On Thursday, one did. That was the twist in a tale that up until that moment had been classically Brussels. The protagonist: A little-known bureaucrat who had spent two decades working in the EU civil service. The allegations: Taking expensive gifts that aroused suspicions over conflicts of interest. “After nearly 22 years at the Commission, I am obviously disappointed,” Henrik Hololei told POLITICO only hours after he was informed of the decision. “But I’m happy that this long process has finally come to a conclusion.” While commissioners, the EU’s 27 political appointees, have been known to fall on their swords, there are few precedents for the dismissal of such a high-ranking civil servant, two senior officials familiar with the inner workings of the Commission said. Neither of the officials, who have several decades of EU experience between them, could remember any previous examples. Like other people interviewed for this article, they were granted anonymity so they could speak freely about Hololei and his downfall. The “long process” Hololei described totaled three years. It was in 2023 that POLITICO first revealed that the Estonian, who was then the EU’s top transport official, had accepted free flights from Qatar at the same time as negotiating a transport deal with the Gulf state that was beneficial to the country’s airline.   It couldn’t have come at a more inauspicious time. The initial reports emerged just a few months after the so-called Qatargate corruption scandal in the European Parliament, named after one of the countries linked to allegedly offering cash and gifts in return for favors. Hololei was not involved in that affair, but it added fuel to the argument from politicians and transparency campaigners that the EU needed to clean up its act. He resigned from his job within a month but didn’t leave the Commission. Soon after, he became special adviser in its international partnership division. The following year, French newspaper Libération reported additional allegations, including that he exchanged confidential details of the Qatar aviation deal in return for gifts for himself and others, including stays in a five-star hotel in Doha. This led to a probe by the EU’s Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), which in turn led to the Commission’s investigation. On Thursday, the Commission announced that a senior official had breached the EU institution’s rules. These concerned conflicts of interest, gift acceptance and disclosures, according to three officials with knowledge of the investigation. They later confirmed the person in question was Hololei. ‘A LEGEND’ By his own admission, Hololei is a colorful character. Belying the clichéd image of a faceless bureaucrat, he’s known to do business over a drink or two. Michael O’Leary, the outspoken CEO of Irish airline Ryanair, who shared the occasional tipple with him, told POLITICO in 2023 that Hololei was “terrific.” His colleagues are just as glowing. On Thursday, a lower-ranking official who worked with him at the Commission described him as a “legend,” while a former transport lobbyist recalled seeing selfies of him holding up beers with industry representatives. “The feeling is they’re making an example of him,” said a person who works in the aviation field and met him during the course of his work. “He was undoubtedly passionate and determined to make EU transport better. He was a guy who just enjoyed the position he had. He was a people person.” Hololei talks to Czech Transport Minister Martin Kupka at the European Transport Ministerial Meeting in Prague in 2022. Colleagues and industry figures might mourn the departure of a gregarious, engaging figure, | Martin Divisek/EPA What ultimately led to his dismissal was an investigation by IDOC, the Commission’s internal disciplinary body, the result of which is not public.  IDOC’s conclusions were shared with a disciplinary committee made up of staffers who have equal or superior rank to Hololei — a relatively small pool given his seniority. Following a series of interviews with Hololei, the committee sent its recommendation to the College of Commissioners for a final vote. That decision was taken in the past few days.  ‘LONG OVERDUE’ While colleagues and those in the industry might mourn the departure of a gregarious, engaging figure, European propriety campaigners are less sympathetic. “It’s almost three years to the day since revelations of Mr. Hololei’s impropriety broke,” said Shari Hinds, senior policy officer at Transparency International, an accountability-focused NGO. “Though long overdue, it is encouraging that the European Commission finally appears to be dealing out consequences proportionate to the gravity of these ethics violations.” Hololei, 55, who had taken a pay cut when he moved to the role of hors classe adviser from DG MOVE, as the transport department is known, will receive his pension from the Commission when he reaches retirement age. He has three months to lodge a complaint against the decision with the Commission. “Good to see there is an actual reaction,” said Daniel Freund, a Green member of the European Parliament, who campaigns on issues of accountability in the EU institutions. “So far, so good.” ‘MUCH MISSED’ A decade in Estonian politics — where he largely focused on European affairs — preceded his time at the Commission, starting in the cabinet of then-Estonian Commissioner Siim Kallas, the father of current EU foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas, before moving into transport. It was in that role he became a “very much-loved boss,” according to the person who worked with him. “Even now he is still very much missed in DG MOVE. He was a good person to be around.” In the comments Hololei gave to POLITICO on Thursday afternoon, he was as gracious as so often described by those who know him. But in the end, the personality traits that endeared him to so many he worked with, in the Commission and in industry, weren’t enough to save his job.

BRUSSELS — One of the European Commission’s senior officials, Henrik Hololei, breached its rules, an internal investigation found, two officials told POLITICO. Hololei, an Estonian, was subject to an investigation over allegedly violating rules on conflicts of interest, transparency, gift acceptance and document disclosure, according to documents seen by POLITICO last year. Hololei was previously a senior EU transport official in the Commission and became Hors Classe Adviser at the Directorate-General for International Partnerships. He was notified on March 21, 2025 that he faced an internal disciplinary procedure by the Commission, according to the documents seen by POLITICO. “The European Commission has concluded a disciplinary procedure with regard to a senior official,” Commission Executive Vice President Henna Virkkunen told reporters on Thursday, without naming the official. Two Commission officials with knowledge of the investigation confirmed to POLITICO that Hololei was the official in question. They were granted anonymity to speak openly about a confidential matter. “This procedure established that the staff member concerned breached the applicable rules,” Virkkunen said. The college of commissioners has “decided on appropriate and commensurate measures to apply to this senior official.” Hololei did not immediately respond to a request for comment. This article will be updated.

BRUSSELS — The European Commission opened a fresh investigation Monday into Elon Musk’s X following an explosion of non-consensual sexualized deepfakes created by the artificial intelligence chatbot Grok. The Commission will decide whether X met EU requirements to protect users when it integrated Grok into the social media platform and its underlying algorithm. X is already under investigation on several fronts under the EU’s Digital Services Act, which regulates social media platforms, and was in December fined €120 million for lapses in transparency. Penalties can reach up to 6 percent of X’s annual global revenue. The new investigation will look into whether the company properly assessed and mitigated the risks of integrating Grok, particularly those of “manipulated sexually explicit images” including some that “may amount to child sexual abuse material,” the Commission said. But the investigation “is much broader” than these images, a senior Commission official said during a briefing. The chatbot may have generated as many as 3 million non-consensual sexual images and 20,000 child sexual abuse images in the 11 days before it made changes to stop the spread of such photos, an estimate by civil society found. On top of the new investigation, the Commission will expand a 2023 probe to look into the impact of X’s decision, announced last week, to switch the algorithm for its social media platform to a Grok-based system. The Commission said Monday it could take interim steps — for example, order X to change its algorithms or shut down the chatbot — “in the absence of meaningful adjustments to the X service,” something the EU has so far shied away from doing for Musk’s platform. The threshold for such measures is “really high,” a second senior Commission official said. The image-generating feature of Grok went viral just before the end of 2025, as users instructed the chatbot to alter images of real people. This led to global outcry and calls from EU lawmakers to ban nudification AI apps as well as crack down on Grok. The platform did restrict the chatbot’s image generation abilities in January, initially by limiting them to paid subscribers of Grok. The Commission said at the time it was assessing whether changes made to Grok were sufficient. EU officials found initial changes insufficient and voiced their concerns to the platform, after which the platform took further steps. “I dare say that without our interaction, probably none of these kind of changes that they have done would have appeared,” the second official said. X did not immediately respond to POLITICO’s request for comment.

A clash between Poland’s right-wing president and its centrist ruling coalition over the European Union’s flagship social media law is putting the country further at risk of multimillion euro fines from Brussels. President Karol Nawrocki is holding up a bill that would implement the EU’s Digital Services Act, a tech law that allows regulators to police how social media firms moderate content. Nawrocki, an ally of U.S. President Donald Trump, said in a statement that the law would “give control of content on the internet to officials subordinate to the government, not to independent courts.” The government coalition led by Prime Minister Donald Tusk, Nawrocki’s rival, warned this further exposed them to the risk of EU fines as high as €9.5 million. Deputy Digital Minister Dariusz Standerski said in a TV interview that, “since the president decided to veto this law, I’m assuming he is also willing to have these costs [of a potential fine] charged to the budget of the President’s Office.” Nawrocki’s refusal to sign the bill brings back bad memories of Warsaw’s years-long clash with Brussels over the rule of law, a conflict that began when Nawrocki’s Law and Justice party rose to power in 2015 and started reforming the country’s courts and regulators. The EU imposed €320 million in penalties on Poland from 2021-2023. Warsaw was already in a fight with the Commission over its slow implementation of the tech rulebook since 2024, when the EU executive put Poland on notice for delaying the law’s implementation and for not designating a responsible authority. In May last year Brussels took Warsaw to court over the issue. If the EU imposes new fines over the rollout of digital rules, it would “reignite debates reminiscent of the rule-of-law mechanism and frozen funds disputes,” said Jakub Szymik, founder of Warsaw-based non-profit watchdog group CEE Digital Democracy Watch. Failure to implement the tech law could in the long run even lead to fines and penalties accruing over time, as happened when Warsaw refused to reform its courts during the earlier rule of law crisis. The European Commission said in a statement that it “will not comment on national legislative procedures.” It added that “implementing the [Digital Services Act] into national law is essential to allow users in Poland to benefit from the same DSA rights.” “This is why we have an ongoing infringement procedure against Poland” for its “failure to designate and empower” a responsible authority, the statement said. Under the tech platforms law, countries were supposed to designate a national authority to oversee the rules by February 2024. Poland is the only EU country that hasn’t moved to at least formally agree on which regulator that should be. The European Commission is the chief regulator for a group of very large online platforms, including Elon Musk’s X, Meta’s Facebook and Instagram, Google’s YouTube, Chinese-owned TikTok and Shein and others. But national governments have the power to enforce the law on smaller platforms and certify third parties for dispute resolution, among other things. National laws allow users to exercise their rights to appeal to online platforms and challenge decisions. When blocking the bill last Friday, Nawrocki said a new version could be ready within two months. But that was “very unlikely … given that work on the current version has been ongoing for nearly two years and no concrete alternative has been presented” by the president, said Szymik, the NGO official. The Digital Services Act has become a flashpoint in the political fight between Brussels and Washington over how to police online platforms. The EU imposed its first-ever fine under the law on X in December, prompting the U.S. administration to sanction former EU Commissioner Thierry Breton and four other Europeans. Nawrocki last week likened the law to “the construction of the Ministry of Truth from George Orwell’s novel 1984,” a criticism that echoed claims by Trump and his top MAGA officials that the law censored conservatives and right-wingers. Bartosz Brzeziński contributed reporting.