EU PARLIAMENT’S MOST TOXIC DUO BRINGS TROUBLE FOR VON DER LEYEN Social Democrat chief Iratxe García and center-right boss Manfred Weber’s dire relationship is Brussels’ worst-kept secret. By MAX GRIERA in Brussels Illustration by Natália Delgado/ POLITICO A confrontation six years ago poisoned a relationship at the heart of the EU that remains toxic to this day. Manfred Weber, the powerful German head of the center-right European People’s Party, the largest political family in Europe, knew something was wrong when Iratxe García walked into his office shortly after the 2019 EU election. García, a Spanish MEP who leads the center-left Socialists and Democrats group in the Parliament, was accompanied by Romanian former liberal chief Dacian Cioloș. The pair told Weber that they wouldn’t support his bid to become president of the European Commission, despite the Parliament’s longstanding position that the head of the party receiving the most votes in the election should get the job. While Cioloș is long gone from the EU political scene, García and Weber remain in post — and the animosity between them has only grown, especially now that the EPP is aligning with the far right to pass legislation.  García’s move killed Weber’s Commission ambitions, souring relations between the two and threatening Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen’s ability to deliver her second-term agenda, as she needs the support of senior MEPs to pass legislation. The pair are like “two toxic exes who had a good relationship, but Weber cheated on García with the far right, and this makes it hard for the Socialists,” said Manon Aubry, co-chair of The Left group in the Parliament. Today, the dire relationship between Weber and García is the talk of the town. For decades, the EPP and S&D — the two largest political families in Europe — have worked hand in hand to provide stable majorities in the Parliament, including backing a second term for von der Leyen at a time of unprecedented crises facing the bloc. Now that stability is in doubt. POLITICO spoke to 12 officials and lawmakers who are or have been close to the pair. Some say the problem is personal, while others blame politics and argue that anyone in their position would have the same relationship issues. “Weber and García have become a problem for von der Leyen,” said a senior Commission official, granted anonymity to speak freely, as were others in this piece. That’s because disagreements between their two groups could lead to less predictable voting in the Parliament, as happened in November with the simplification bill on green reporting rules for businesses, when the EPP sided with the far right rather than with the centrists. Tensions have also spilled toward von der Leyen herself, with García accusing her of “buying into Trump’s agenda” by pushing deregulation. Center-left MEPs have urged the Commission president to rein in Weber over his cooperation with the far right. RELATIONSHIP TAKES A DOWNTURN Verbal attacks in the Parliament’s hemicycle, tensions over Spanish politics, opposing views on the EU’s green ambitions and migration policy, and the fact that the EPP is voting for laws with the far right have eroded what started as a promising relationship. Weber “will never get over the big treason when Iratxe backstabbed him on the Commission presidency,” said a senior EPP MEP. “Everyone needs to stay calm and keep emotions out of it,” said a senior Socialist MEP, noting that many lawmakers, including commissioners, often express concern about the emotional undertones of the relationship. Manfred Weber “will never get over the big treason when Iratxe backstabbed him on the Commission presidency,” said a senior EPP MEP. | Filip Singer/EPA Publicly, both insist relations are just fine. “I really appreciate the strong leadership of Iratxe, she’s a tough representative,” Weber told POLITICO, describing the relationship as in a “great state.” “I can confirm that we have good and regular talks to each other, but we also see our different political positioning,” he added. García also played down the perceived friction, saying the pair have a “working relationship” and “try to understand each other,” while stressing that despite their differences, it is “much more normalized than you might think from the outside.” The reality, according to MEPs and staffers close to the pair, is that six years of working side by side have eroded trust. Weber sees García as incapable of delivering on her promises due to the S&D’s internal divisions and weakness, as it has lost power and influence across Europe; García views Weber as power-hungry and willing to empower the far right at the expense of the center. PERSONAL ATTACKS In her September 2025 State of the Union address, von der Leyen tried to bridge the widening rifts between the EPP and the Socialists by giving policy wins to both sides and calling for unity. But her efforts came to nothing as Weber and García exchanged personal attacks on the hemicycle floor, each blaming the other for the instability of the pro-European coalition. Weber accused Garcia and the Socialists of “harming the European agenda.” During her remarks, the S&D chief shot back: “You know who is responsible for the fact that this pro-European alliance … does not work in this Parliament? It has a name and surname. It is called Manfred Weber.” The exchange reflected a relationship under strain, as the EPP pushed deregulation, weaker green rules, and a crackdown on migration backed by far-right votes after the 2024 election shifted the Parliament to the right. Sidelined by that new math, the Socialists have increasingly felt alienated and have hardened their attacks on von der Leyen for embracing a right-wing deregulation agenda, and on Weber for empowering the far right in general. “The only way for Iratxe to survive is to be more aggressive with EPP and with Manfred,” said a former centrist lawmaker, who argued that García is leaning on rhetoric to rally her base as concrete wins are in such short supply. For his part, Weber is unapologetic about sidelining traditional centrist allies, arguing that the end — tackling policy issues the far right has weaponized against the EU, notably migration and overregulation — justifies the means. “He could not be Commission president so he has been pushing to be a power broker from the Parliament, which means he needs to show he can push for whatever EPP wants, which includes using the far right,” a second senior EPP MEP said of Weber. BETRAYAL Weber and García started their collaboration after the election in 2019, when the latter was chosen as the group leader of S&D after serving as an MEP since 2004 and chair of the committee on women’s rights between 2014 and 2019. For the first two years they were united in their goals of delivering on the Green Deal and addressing the Covid-19 pandemic, but the relationship began to deteriorate in the second half of the term. In a mid-term reshuffle of the Parliament’s top posts, Weber struck a backroom deal with the liberals of Renew and The Left to keep the powerful position of the Parliament’s secretary-general in the hands of the EPP. García had wanted the job for S&D because the previous secretary-general was from the EPP, as is Roberta Metsola, who was about to become the Parliament’s president. Ursula von der Leyen tried to bridge the widening rifts between the EPP and the Socialists by giving policy wins to both sides and calling for unity. | Ronald Wittek/EPA “This was a moment of tension because she really thought she would get it … she took it very personally,” said the senior Socialist MEP. “Her position in the group was also affected by that; she got a lot of criticism.” Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez’s reelection in 2023 further strained relations. Weber has for years been betting on the fall of Sánchez, backing Spain’s EPP-aligned opposition (the People’s Party, or PP) and giving them free rein in the Parliament to attack the Spanish Socialist Party, knowing that the EPP would be boosted with an EPP party in power in Madrid. “He does everything the People’s Party wants,” said a liberal Parliament official, who added that “every time Spain is on the agenda, it becomes a nightmare, everyone screaming.” The most recent example came in November, when the EPP sided with far-right groups to cancel a parliamentary visit to Italy to monitor the rule of law in the country, while approving one to Spain — sparking an outcry from García, whom EPP MEPs frame as Sánchez’s lieutenant in Brussels. “It generates a toxic dynamic,” echoed the first senior EPP MEP. BREAKING POINT The Spanish issue came to the fore during the 2024 hearings for commissioners, when MEPs grill prospective office-holders to see if they are up to the task. Under pressure from his Spanish peers, Weber and the EPP went in hard on Sánchez’s deputy Teresa Ribera, blaming her for deadly floods in Valencia in October 2024. While the EPP wanted to take down Ribera, the Socialists hoped to make life difficult for Italy’s Raffaele Fitto, who was put forward by Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni. While Fitto is not from the EPP (he’s from the European Conservatives and Reformists), his nomination was supported by Weber. In the end, the S&D went easier on Fitto in order to save Ribera from further attacks. After weeks of tensions — with both Weber and García visibly furious and blasting each other in briefings to the press — both Ribera and Fitto were confirmed as commissioners. The struggle highlighted that the old alliance between the EPP and the S&D was cracking, with Weber snubbing García and instead teaming up with the far right.   While they still meet to coordinate parliamentary business — often alongside Renew leader Valérie Hayer and von der Leyen — the partnership is far less effective than before. “It’s very clear they’re no longer running Parliament the way they used to,” said The Left’s Aubry. The breakdown has injected instability into the Parliament, with the once well-oiled duo no longer pre-cooking decisions, making outcomes more unpredictable. Aubry said meetings of group leaders used to take place with a deal already struck — “political theater,” as she put it. “Now we walk in and don’t know where we’ll end up,” Aubry added. “While they get along personally, the results of that cooperation are not that good,” said the second EPP MEP, adding that the alliance between the EPP and the S&D has “not really delivered.” LOOKING AHEAD TO YET MORE BATTLES The next reshuffle of top Parliament jobs is in 2027, and Weber and García are already haggling over who will get to nominate the next Parliament president. The EPP is expected to try to push for Metsola getting a third term, but the Socialists claim it’s their turn per a power-sharing agreement after the 2024 election. Officials from the EPP deny such an agreement exists while officials from Renew and the S&D say it does, although no one could show POLITICO any documentation. The EPP is expected to try to push for Roberta Metsola getting a third term, but the Socialists claim it’s their turn per a power-sharing agreement after the 2024 election. | Ronald Wittek/EPA That’s a major headache for García. The S&D’s Italian and German delegations are itching to get leadership positions, and if the Parliament presidency is off the table they could try to replace her as party chief. With tensions simmering, one Parliament official close to the pair half-joked that García and Weber should settle things over an after-work drink — but it seems the détente will have to wait. “I’d definitely go for a drink,” Weber said with a nervous laugh before noting that both are “so busy” it probably won’t happen. García, also laughing, was even less committal: “I’ve become a real homebody. I don’t go out for drinks anymore.”

President Donald Trump threatened that Venezuelan Vice President Delcy Rodriguez will “pay a very big price” if she doesn’t “do what’s right” and cooperate with U.S. intervention into the country following the attack and capture of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro. Trump told The Atlantic on Sunday that Rodriguez could face a fate similar to Maduro, who is being detained in federal prison in New York on narcoterrorism and drug trafficking charges, if she doesn’t align with U.S. interests. “If she doesn’t do what’s right, she is going to pay a very big price, probably bigger than Maduro,” Trump said. The comment marks a stark reversal from Trump’s praise of Rodriguez in a press conference Saturday following the attack. The president said U.S. officials had spoken with Rodriguez, and reported that “she’s essentially willing to do what we think is necessary to make Venezuela great again.” Throughout Saturday’s press conference, Trump said that U.S. officials would “run” Venezuela until a democratic transition of power can be achieved. The president declined to offer a timeline on when that may occur. Shortly after Trump’s press conference, Rodriguez — a hand-picked Maduro ally — insisted that Maduro remains at the head of Venezuela’s government despite his capture, called the U.S. intervention into the country “an atrocity that violates international law,” and said Venezuela is “ready to defend our natural resources.” Trump left the door open Saturday to U.S. troops reentering Venezuela if needed, and told The Atlantic on Sunday he views rebuilding the country as “not a bad thing in Venezuela’s case.” In contrast, Secretary of State Marco Rubio downplayed Rodriguez’s fiery comments, saying the administration’s next steps in Venezuela depend on how Rodriguez reacts to what the U.S. wants from Venezuela. “We’re not going to judge moving forward based simply on what’s said in press conferences. We want to see action here at the end of the day,” Rubio told ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday. “There’s a lot of different reasons why people go on TV and say certain things in these countries, especially 15 hours or 12 hours after the person who used to be in charge of the regime is now in handcuffs and on his way to New York.” Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), a Trump ally who has advocated for military interventions abroad in the past, branded Rodriguez as an illegitimate ruler and called for a U.S.-backed rebuild of the Venezuelan government. “We don’t recognize Delcy Rodriguez as the legitimate ruler of Venezuela,” Cotton told CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday. “They have control of the military and security services. We have to deal with that fact, but that does not make them a legitimate leader.” “What we want is a future Venezuelan government that will be pro-American, that will contribute to stability, order and prosperity, not only in Venezuela, but in our own backyard,” he added.

Only a few days ago, President Donald Trump lashed out at Europe in an interview with POLITICO as a “decaying” group of countries with “weak” leaders. In public at least, it didn’t ruffle European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. “I have always had a very good working relationship with the presidents of the United States, and this is also the case today,” von der Leyen said in an interview at this year’s POLITICO 28 event. “From the bottom of my heart, I’m a convinced transatlanticist.” Now in her second term leading the EU’s lawmaking body, von der Leyen also acknowledged that Europe’s relationship with the United States is in flux, and not just because of Trump. “Of course, our relationship to the United States has changed. Why? Because we are changing,” she said. “And this is so important that we keep in mind: What is our position? What is our strength? Let’s work on these. Let’s take pride in that. Let’s stand up for a unified Europe.” The question of European unity is front of mind as Russia’s war on Ukraine grinds on and Trump pushes harder for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to accept a peace deal. In her interview with POLITICO, von der Leyen emphasized the need for a “just and lasting peace” with real security guarantees. “This peace agreement should be such a solid peace agreement that it does not sow the seeds for the next conflict immediately,” she said. The Russian threat also goes beyond Ukraine, of course. How long until Europe is fully able to defend itself? “That’s a good question,” von der Leyen said. “We have not the luxury of time.” This conversation has been edited for length and clarity. I want to start with a question very much on the minds of the people in this room: Will there be a funding agreement by next week for Ukraine to keep the fight up against Russia? We’re working intensively towards a just and lasting peace. And I emphasize “just and lasting” because this peace agreement should be such a solid peace agreement that it does not sow the seeds for the next conflict immediately. In a new interview, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen discusses Russia’s war on Ukraine and Trump’s challenge to Europe. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen gestures as she delivers a major state of the union speech at the European Parliament in Strasbourg, France, earlier this month. Only a few days ago, President Donald Trump lashed out at Europe in an interview with POLITICO as a “decaying” group of countries with “weak” leaders. In public at least, it didn’t ruffle European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. “I have always had a very good working relationship with the presidents of the United States, and this is also the case today,” von der Leyen said in an interview at this year’s POLITICO 28 event. “From the bottom of my heart, I’m a convinced transatlanticist.” Now in her second term leading the EU’s lawmaking body, von der Leyen also acknowledged that Europe’s relationship with the United States is in flux, and not just because of Trump. “Of course, our relationship to the United States has changed. Why? Because we are changing,” she said. “And this is so important that we keep in mind: What is our position? What is our strength? Let’s work on these. Let’s take pride in that. Let’s stand up for a unified Europe.” The question of European unity is front of mind as Russia’s war on Ukraine grinds on and Trump pushes harder for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to accept a peace deal. In her interview with POLITICO, von der Leyen emphasized the need for a “just and lasting peace” with real security guarantees. “This peace agreement should be such a solid peace agreement that it does not sow the seeds for the next conflict immediately,” she said. The Russian threat also goes beyond Ukraine, of course. How long until Europe is fully able to defend itself? “That’s a good question,” von der Leyen said. “We have not the luxury of time.” This conversation has been edited for length and clarity. I want to start with a question very much on the minds of the people in this room: Will there be a funding agreement by next week for Ukraine to keep the fight up against Russia? We’re working intensively towards a just and lasting peace. And I emphasize “just and lasting” because this peace agreement should be such a solid peace agreement that it does not sow the seeds for the next conflict immediately.

BRUSSELS — The European Commission is in talks with eight of Europe’s top investors to involve them in a fund to support homegrown companies working on critical technologies. Representatives from the private investors are in Brussels on Tuesday to discuss their involvement, according to a planning note seen by POLITICO. The fund has been in the works since the spring and will combine EU money with private investment to fill a late-stage financing gap for European tech startups — buying stakes to support companies ranging from artificial intelligence to quantum. It could range from €3 billion to €5 billion, depending on how much investors contribute. The investors invited to meet with the Commission on Tuesday are Danish investment company Novo Holdings, the Export and Investment Fund of Denmark, Spanish CriteriaCaixa and Santander, Italian Intesa Sanpaolo, Dutch pension fund APG Asset Management, Swedish Wallenberg Investments, and Polish Development Bank Gospodarstwa Krajowego, according to the planning note. The fund will focus on “strategic and enabling technologies,” the note read, including advanced materials, clean energy, artificial intelligence, semiconductors, quantum technology, robotics, space and medical technologies. The Commission is seeking to address the issue of companies struggling to scale in Europe. Many turn to investors from the U.S. or elsewhere for late-stage financing, after which they often relocate. The goal of the fund is to make sure that startups that have completed their early funding rounds can “secure scaleup financing while maintaining their headquarters and core activities in Europe,” the note said.  The fund follows an earlier effort to take direct equity stakes in companies through the European Innovation Council Fund. Investments under the EIC Fund are capped at €30 million, while the new fund would invest €100 million or more. The fund will launch in April. Other investors could still come in at a later date. In November, the Commission plans to begin the search for an investment adviser — a process that should be wrapped up by January, according to the planning note.

BRUSSELS — An EU plan to sanction Israel’s government ministers and cut back on trade ties has been put on ice as a leading group of member countries believes it’s no longer necessary in light of the U.S.-brokered peace agreement to end the war in Gaza. The original push is now unlikely to find sufficient support at meetings of foreign ministers and EU leaders this month, according to four European diplomats, granted anonymity to speak to POLITICO about the closed-door talks. An agreement among all 27 capitals would be needed to impose the penalties, and despite growing pressure on the EU to act, the deal announced by U.S. President Donald Trump has divided national governments on the way forward. Separate measures to restrict trade could be introduced with the backing of a smaller group of countries, but this too now looks unlikely, according to the diplomats. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen used her State of the Union address in September to announce she would move to blacklist “extremist ministers,” impose restrictions on violent West Bank settlers and pause bilateral payments to Israel. Those proposals are due to be discussed at a Foreign Affairs Council in Luxembourg on Oct. 20 and a summit of leaders in Brussels on Oct. 23. Despite that, draft documents reveal that no consensus has yet been achieved. In comments to POLITICO, Belgian Foreign Minister Maxime Prévot — whose country has been pushing for a tougher stance on Israel — said it was “regrettable” the EU had taken more than two years to present measures. “The credibility of the EU’s foreign policy has been seriously shaken,” he said. “For many citizens, it is still difficult to understand why the EU is incapable of taking firm decisions.” Germany, Hungary and a handful of other delegations have consistently opposed the implementation of sanctions, even though there has been broad agreement at the political level and a joint EU declaration backing steps against settlers accused of human rights breaches. In the wake of the announcement that Hamas and Israel had “signed off on the first phase” of a pact to end the war, European Commission spokesperson Paula Pinho this week hinted the bloc could change its stance. The sanctions were “proposed in a given context, and if the context changes, that could eventually lead to a change of the proposal,” she said. According to the diplomats who spoke to POLITICO, the Commission currently doesn’t intend to withdraw the plan even if the prospect of a lasting ceasefire has cast it into uncertainty.

The European Commission floated the possibility of withdrawing or amending its proposal to partially suspend the EU–Israel Association Agreement and sanction two ministers in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government. The measures were “proposed in a given context, and if the context changes, that could eventually lead to a change of the proposal,” Commission spokesperson Paula Pinho said Monday, adding that the goal of the measures was to bring about a ceasefire in the Israel-Hamas war. A ceasefire began in Gaza on Friday as part of the  “first phase” of a peace deal agreed by Israel and Hamas. In September, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced plans to restrict trade with Israel and sanction “extremist ministers” in Netanyahu’s cabinet. Brussels also suspended EU funding that supports cooperation with Israel, worth a total of around €14 million, and floated freezing participation in parts of the Horizon Europe research program. “We are very, very pleased, as everybody across the world is, to see that we now have a ceasefire, and we want to really see this peace implemented,” the spokesperson said, but cautioned that when it comes to changing planned measures, “we are not there yet.” BALL IN EU MINISTERS’ COURT The Commission said it will now assess whether there is a need to revise its proposals based on how the next stage of the peace process unfolds, and the topic will be raised at the next meeting of EU foreign ministers on Oct. 20. Asked by POLITICO, another Commission spokesperson said that “the ball is now in the [foreign ministers’] court,” and the EU executive will wait until after that discussion before taking any further action on the package. Although the Commission can technically withdraw its own proposal, two EU spokespersons told POLITICO that doing so may now be politically difficult, as the measures were adopted in a formal College meeting and publicly announced by von der Leyen during her State of the Union address — making a unilateral reversal unlikely without first consulting EU ministers. Speaking to POLITICO’s Brussels Playbook, Israel’s newly appointed ambassador to the EU, Avi Nir-Feldklein, said that for a reset of EU–Israel relations, the EU should restore funding for cooperation with Israeli institutions that von der Leyen had suspended, in addition to reconsidering the proposed restrictions on joint projects.

BRUSSELS ― Ursula von der Leyen has a fresh strategy for convincing opponents to back her: Listen more, talk to them, and even give a little ground. Her tactics have been in evidence in the run-up to this week’s two European Parliament no-confidence votes ― and critics from rival parties have already signaled it’s working. The European Commission president “has shown lately more willingness for consultation, cooperation and a stronger commitment to bring people together around the table, including [on] the 2026 [Commission] work program,” Valérie Hayer, the leader of the liberal Renew Europe group, told POLITICO. “It’s a long and overdue step in the right direction.” Von der Leyen will rely on votes from Hayer’s group, as well as from her own center-right European People’s Party and the Socialists and Democrats, when MEPs vote on Thursday. The three centrist parties have traditionally supported the Commission president and voted her into office for a new term that started Dec. 1. But it’s the second time in three months she’s faced a no-confidence vote, and these groups haven’t been happy with her decisions on trade policy, on the EU’s next seven-year budget, and — for the Socialists and liberals in particular — on her drive to cut back on red tape, which they see as dialing back green commitments. No one seriously expects her to fall ― the two motions have been brought by the far left and far right, and even together, their votes aren’t nearly enough to topple her. This time round, her team didn’t even ask Commission staff to carry out an assessment of the likely outcome like they did in July, two Commission officials said. But the numbers do matter, particularly since von der Leyen will rely on support from across the center to push through her agenda in the coming months.  Her approach has now shifted away from the more combative style she demonstrated before the summer and which seemed to alienate many whose support she needs. Her new three-step strategy underscores a more cooperative tone and a willingness to engage rather than confront, according to conversations with five officials from the Commission, von der Leyen’s party and the Parliament, who all spoke to POLITICO on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the deliberations. STEP 1: TALK MORE, LISTEN MORE The shift started before her State of the Union speech in September, two Parliament officials told POLITICO. That was when von der Leyen’s cabinet pushed to wrap up a long-stalled revision of the Framework Agreement — the rulebook defining how the Commission and the Parliament work together. Talks had dragged on for months, bogged down by the Parliament’s demands, which the Commission felt were too ambitious.  In the end, a deal emerged — modest because the two institutions differ greatly on how they should cooperate, but politically useful for them both. The Commission’s main goal was to defuse criticism that von der Leyen wasn’t doing enough to rebuild trust with MEPs. The shift started before Ursula von der Leyen’s State of the Union speech in September, two Parliament officials told POLITICO. | Sebastien Bozon/AFP via Getty Images She has since made visible gestures. In the State of the Union address she made a point of mentioning the horrors in Gaza — a sign she was willing to listen to socialist, green and leftist MEPs. She also slipped in a reference to the Green Deal, once her favorite slogan for the climate rules she wanted to introduce, but largely ignored during last year’s European election campaign. Both moves were aimed squarely at MEPs who felt their calls on these issues had long been ignored. “There’s more contact at different levels since July,” said one Commission official close to von der Leyen’s team, pointing to outreach not just from von der Leyen but also from her top aides, including other commissioners. On Tuesday, the Commission’s executive vice presidents will join the Parliament’s Conference of Committee Chairs — the internal body coordinating committee work. Von der Leyen won’t attend, but the EU executive will be “in listening mode” for the Parliament’s demands, according to the Commission official. “Phone calls, meetings, dinners — there’s talk, negotiation, and finally compromise,” said an official from von der Leyen’s EPP group in the Parliament. “It’s simply politics.”  STEP 2: GIVE (A LITTLE BIT) MORE The contacts between von der Leyen’s team and those of the EPP, Socialist and liberal chairs are ramping up ahead of the presentation of the Commission’s annual work program for 2026 — the document that lays out the EU’s legislative priorities. The program is being used by centrist parties to stabilize the situation over the year to come, by signing off on a common program they can all support. It also doubles as a bargaining chip because it means von der Leyen can more likely count on better support from MEPs when legislation is proposed next year. By Thursday, when MEPs hold the no-confidence vote in Strasbourg, von der Leyen will be back in Brussels to speak at the Global Gateway Forum — an annual event organized by the EU executive to boost secure infrastructure investments worldwide. It’s notable that she won’t be in the room when the votes are being cast ― so all the horse-trading will have to happen in the next few hours before she leaves Strasbourg. Von der Leyen has packed her Strasbourg schedule with meetings with political groups, a Commission official said. “The aim is to discuss the Commission work program, and these meetings will also be an enabler ahead of the vote, as groups will likely ask for political wins,” the official explained. Another Commission official, however, played down the idea of last-minute giveaways. “There’s a lot of communication between the Commission and Parliament in the run-up to the work program — but it’s the same every year,” they said. STEP 3: CLASH LESS If in July her counter-attack was blunt ― anyone voting against her was essentially doing Russia’s work ― then three months on it’s clear she’s decided that the side-with-me-or-side-with-Moscow approach doesn’t work. “I know there are some of you who are still unsure how to vote later this week,” she told MEPs during Monday night’s parliamentary debate. “This is why I want to renew my pledge that this College [of the 27 commissioners] will engage with you in whatever format is needed to try to find the answers together.”  Her tone throughout was noticeably more measured. “This is a trap, and we must not fall for it,” she said, referring to those she said were trying to divide the EU. She even acknowledged that many criticisms “come from a place of genuine and legitimate concern,” citing Gaza, Ukraine, trade, and U.S. relations. Even the delivery was lighter. She spoke for just seven minutes — less than half her speaking time in July. And while the debate was still going on, she checked with Parliament President Roberta Metsola whether it was OK to leave the chamber with a thumbs-up sign. Metsola allowed it ― in stark contrast to when von der Leyen walked out midway through a Parliamentary debate in January on her controversial decision to disburse billions of euros in EU funds to Hungary, drawing the ire of lawmakers on all sides. It was a subtle change of approach. But it didn’t go unnoticed.

BRUSSELS ― Ursula von der Leyen can’t get too comfortable. Around every corner there will be another referendum on her leadership. When she appears before the European Parliament on Monday evening ― to defend her reputation three days ahead of a second set of no-confidence votes in three months ― it’s in the knowledge that even if her centrist opponents are keeping her in post for now, there’s always a next time. From trade deals and the bloc’s looming seven-year budget to questions about the European Commission’s commitment to transparency or even how she navigates the EU’s place in an increasingly competitive world, opportunities that allow members of the Parliament to pass judgement on von der Leyen’s performance will keep on coming. This week ― according to POLITICO research ― she’s almost certainly safe. But beyond that? “We will judge her against her implementation efforts but that won’t be in October,” said René Repasi, head of the German set of MEPs in the Socialists and Democrats, the second-largest group in the Parliament after von der Leyen’s. She “has made clear that she has understood where Europe’s problems lie. Now she must implement her proposals.” With European Council President António Costa playing second fiddle to von der Leyen on the world stage as she burnishes her relationship with U.S. President Donald Trump, and the leaders of France and Germany struggling to be as powerful as their predecessors, the Commission chief’s role is coming under the microscope more than it ever used to. The days of consensual EU politics seem over. The S&D, the liberal Renew group, the Greens and even some of von der Leyen’s center-right European People’s Party are dismayed at her record. None are ready to move against her in any meaningful way right now, but few rule out the possibility of challenges down the line. “We don’t exclude” playing the censure card “if we see the need,” a spokesperson for Iratxe García, chair of the S&D group, told Brussels Playbook, on condition of anonymity in line with policy. BECOMING ROUTINE The two motions of no confidence this week and the one von der Leyen fought in July were proposed separately by groups on the relative fringes. The far-right Patriots and The Left are following a path trodden by the right-wing European Conservatives and Reformists. There’s little evidence they will stop trying. With only 72 signatures out of 720 MEPs required, no-confidence motions might start becoming routine. The tool isn’t new in the EU treaty, it’s just that lawmakers seem to have woken up to using it. While The Left said there was no plan to keep coming with ever more motions to challenge her position, right-wing lawmakers remain noncommittal, saying they’re waiting to assess how this week’s vote unfolds. In any case, it’s not just the formal confidence votes. Other prominent issues in von der Leyen’s second term could well end up as referendums on her leadership. Even if the Parliament votes don’t remove her from office, they could hamstring her. These include trade deals with the U.S. and Latin America and the Commission’s first “simplification” package aimed at removing red tape, which has been plagued by disagreements between von der Leyen’s EPP and the S&D. The two motions of no confidence this week and the one von der Leyen fought in July were proposed separately by groups on the relative fringes. The far-right Patriots and The Left are following a path trodden by the right-wing European Conservatives and Reformists. | Philipp von Ditfurth/picture alliance via Getty Images And last week, those two largest political groups in the Parliament signaled they are ready to topple the EU’s proposed long-term budget as they oppose a change that von der Leyen pushed for. “There are many other votes coming that will test her leadership,” said an EPP MEP granted anonymity to speak candidly about their party’s most senior figure. The MEP pointed at “the U.S. trade deal, which is directly associated with her after Scotland [where she signed it at Trump’s Turnberry golf course], the budget, which everyone in Parliament seems to dislike, and the Mercosur [Latin America trade] deal.” CHANGE THE RULES? The Parliament does have the right to change its rules to demand a higher number of signatures to force a no-confidence vote. “It would be great if they raised the threshold and bring the dignity back for the motion,” an official from the Commission said on condition of anonymity to allow discussion of confidential matters, suggesting that the more the Parliament uses the tool, the less impact it would have. The official said there had been no talks with the Parliament, however, and it remained “a Parliament prerogative.” “There is a clear frustration in Parliament toward this Commission, to von der Leyen namely, you never know when the political tides will change,” the official said.

BRUSSELS ― Ursula von der Leyen faces her second round of no-confidence votes in less than three months next week. Opposition is mounting, but centrist lawmakers are expected to choose stability over ousting her. While MEPs ― including some from her center-right European People’s Party ― are increasingly critical of the Commission president’s leadership, they are more likely to use Monday’s European Parliament debate to air their grievances than join with the extremes of right and left to fire her in Thursday’s votes. “There are many good reasons to criticize Ursula von der Leyen,” said the Parliament’s German Greens chief, Erik Marquardt. But “we do not believe that a successor would necessarily be any better than the current Commission president.”  It’s unprecedented for the EU’s leadership to be faced with no-confidence votes in such quick succession. (The last one was in July.) As well as underscoring how the Parliament contains, for the first time, sizable blocs from the political extremes that have found calling such motions a useful tool to make noise, it reveals the increasing unease ― in Brussels and across Europe ― about the direction of von der Leyen’s Commission.  There will be two separate no-confidence votes on Oct. 9, one submitted by the far-right Patriots for Europe group and another by The Left (which is further to the left than the mainstream Socialists & Democrats).  The Parliament is made up of 719 MEPs. Two-thirds of the MEPs who cast a vote have to vote against von der Leyen for her to fall. Combined, the Patriots, The Left and the ESN (a separate far-right group) have 158 lawmakers — so they would still need a sizable number from the center to move against her.  While there is some evidence that the center is turning against von der Leyen, it’s not anywhere serious enough to bring about her downfall, according to POLITICO’s conversations with  11  lawmakers and parliamentary officials. The two groups that have called the no-confidence vote — held in Strasbourg — accuse her variously of weakening the EU, lack of transparency, poor judgement in trade agreements with the U.S. and Latin America, her stance on Gaza, abandoning farmers and weakening climate rules.   The S&D, the liberal Renew group, the Greens and even the EPP ― all of whom voted her into office ― all have their pet peeves. Many in her own party are still sore about her announcement that the EU would cut ties with Israel and propose sanctions in response to its invasion of Gaza, which was not communicated ahead of time. “Sometimes her actions are hard to stomach,” said an EPP official who, like others in this piece, was granted anonymity to be candid about their own party. An EPP lawmaker said von der Leyen faces “growing opposition” within national delegations of her party.  What some in all political groups share is a feeling that von der Leyen is pushing through an agenda with national capitals that circumvents the European Parliament.  POLITICO research suggests that the growing opposition is likely to be reflected in the final numbers. But MEPs from von der Leyen’s centrist allies say there’s so far no appetite for the nuclear option of voting her out of office.   The no-confidence motion before the summer, submitted by the Polish and Romanian delegations of the right-wing European Conservatives and Reformists group, fell short of the two-thirds majority needed to pass but highlighted the lukewarm support for the Commission: Only 553 of the Parliament’s 719 lawmakers cast a vote, with 175 of them voting against von der Leyen.   In July, though many centrist lawmakers expressed frustration at von der Leyen’s leadership, they either did not show up to vote (86, counting EPP, S&D, Renew and Greens), abstained (11) or voted in her favor (355) because they believed the no-confidence vote was a far-right plot to create chaos. Only two from the centrist groups voted against her. This time, however, a greater number of MEPs feel comfortable voting against von der Leyen on the motion put forward by The Left, according to POLITICO’s conversations. That even includes MEPs from the Patriots, whose leader Jordan Bardella, a protegé of France’s Marine Le Pen, has said his group would support it despite ideological divides.    Relying on the positions of lawmakers in the previous censure vote and early signals from MEP delegations, POLITICO’s projection for the next vote also assumes the support of a significant share of the right-wing European Conservatives and Reformists group for the motion.    What could be von der Leyen’s worst-case scenario also includes Socialist, Renew and Greens lawmakers who didn’t cast a vote in support of the Commission in July ending up in the pool of MEPs who could now bolster the anti-von der Leyen camp.   Under this scenario, von der Leyen would see up to 305 votes against her ― still short of the  480 needed for the two-thirds majority to topple her, if all lawmakers were to turn up and vote.  GREEN AND SOCIALIST DISMAY An example of the shifting sands is the French section of MEPs in the Greens group. They did not show up to the July vote but this time around will vote in favor of bringing the Commission down, its head, Marie Toussaint, told POLITICO. For them the complaint is von der Leyen’s approach to trade deals with the U.S. and Latin American countries, which the Greens say runs counter to protecting the environment.  “We absolutely must find a way to stop this policy that is being pursued, which involves both the abandonment of sovereignty and major ecological setbacks,” said Toussaint.  Among the Socialists, too, there is wide discontent. Despite a statement by the group that it would stand behind von der Leyen, some national delegations ― or individual MEPs ― could break ranks and move against the Commission over von der Leyen’s handling of trade policy, the Gaza conflict, and backtracking on the so-called Green Deal because of “simplification” plans they say are watering down climate laws.   “When it comes to the motion coming from The Left, there are some issues that were heavily debated in the European Parliament,” Socialist Parliament vice-president Victor Negrescu said. “Some of them could mobilize and convince some of the S&D members to vote for that respective motion.”  POLITICO contacted many of the Socialists national delegation chairs to ask what they would vote for and received no response. After the last motion, in which the S&D leadership pressured von der Leyen up to the last minute, this time around they have already signaled they will stand behind her more than a week in advance. ‘DESTABILIZING GAMES’  Many lawmakers believe that if von der Leyen were to be pushed out, EU governments would likely settle on, in their view, a worse candidate.   For the liberals and Socialists, removing von der Leyen from office would also mean bringing down their own commissioners, potentially reducing their own influence. While the Commission is dominated by the center right, those commissioners work with four from the Socialists and  five  from the liberals.    That’s why some parts of the liberal Renew Europe group  that openly dislike von der Leyen, such as the German FDP, which opposed her second term, will vote in her favor for the sake of stability.   “We will not participate in such deliberately destabilizing games,” the head of the FDP in the Parliament and defense committee chair Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmerman told POLITICO.   “Despite all the mistakes she has made, her continued misguided trade and economic policies, and her failure to reduce bureaucracy as she promised, we will not support such attempts in the current climate.” At odds with von der Leyen is also the Irish liberal delegation, some of whose lawmakers abstained or voted against von der Leyen. This time they will only take a final decision during the week of the vote, said MEP Barry Andrews.  The German Socialist delegation head, René Repasi , told POLITICO they will vote in favor of von der Leyen and criticized the use of no-confidence motions by the extremes of the Parliament “in an inflammatory manner.”

COPENHAGEN ― The presidents of the European Commission and the European Council have one thing in common ― their ideas aren’t flying. That much became pretty obvious even before a summit of EU leaders in Copenhagen on Wednesday stretched beyond its scheduled finishing time. Presidents and prime ministers used the platform to insist that something must be done about Russian aggression, but without really coming to much consensus on exactly what it should be. The proposals of both Commission boss Ursula von der Leyen and António Costa, president of the European Council, faced strong resistance. Von der Leyen from the biggest and most powerful EU countries like Germany, France and Italy, which are naturally cautious about Commission overreach, and Costa from Hungary, underscoring that, when it comes down to it, the bloc’s 27 nations still pull the strings. Von der Leyen, increasingly the face of the EU ― at least as far as Donald Trump is concerned ― made a push to get support in Copenhagen on the establishment of a “drone wall” that would detect and shoot down drones flying across Europe’s eastern flank. But the concept as such was rejected by the biggest countries. “I’m wary,” said French President Emmanuel Macron, adding “things [need to be] a little more sophisticated.” German Chancellor Friedrich Merz expressed his opposition in the summit room too, three officials said. The anti-drone idea is expected to morph into something else, very likely with a different name. The president of the European Council, which is made up of the bloc’s 27 governments, wanted to use the summit to push for agreement on scrapping the need for all members to assent to new countries joining the EU. The idea was to make it easier for Ukraine’s and Moldova’s accession, getting past countries like Hungary who want to stop it happening. But that didn’t get far off the ground either. In the summit room, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán shot down the idea, according to three diplomats with knowledge of the discussions in Copenhagen. Expectations are not high that much will change on voting rules any time soon, they said. Leaders did decide they should continue their work on finding a way to use €140 billion worth of Russian assets frozen in Europe since Moscow’s invasion in 2022 to fund Ukraine. They also reiterated their determination to find a way to tackle Russian drone incursions in European airspace ― but neither of those ideas found concrete solutions. LEADERSHIP ROLE One of the reasons the two presidents wanted to make a splash was because they are vying for relevancy, and to make the point that they, personally, are doing everything they can to help Ukraine, according to the three diplomats. While von der Leyen has made many proposals to boost EU defense, this remains a core part of national governments’ individual powers. The bloc’s biggest countries don’t want the Commission to take away their authority. Smaller countries are more sanguine, particularly those in the East, because they feel more vulnerable to the Russian threat. Costa wanted to show that he, too, could play a leadership part, two diplomats said. Up until now he’s played mainly a supporting role, leaving von der Leyen to bask in the spotlight. As a center-left chief presiding over a group of leaders, most of whom are center-right, that’s meant Costa has had to pick his battles. Yet, officials were still unclear why the enlargement issue was a hill he wanted to die on, given the low chances of success. There’s still the likelihood he has a plan B, one official with knowledge of EU discussions said. SOUNDS LIKE POPULISM Officials rejected criticism that von der Leyen and Costa were pushing for badly conceived proposals. “It’s just called leadership,” said another EU official, implying that ideas are floated and gradually get pushed and evolve before they become real. The “drone wall” didn’t muster enough support. “I’m wary,” said French President Emmanuel Macron. | Emil Helms/Ritzau Scanpix/AFP via Getty Images The summit showed that Europe’s most powerful national leaders still have the final word. That sometimes can be unsettling for those who operate the bloc’s machinery in Brussels — particularly when they hear a leader like Germany’s Merz start talking like there’s political capital in criticizing the EU. In recent days he has attacked the Commission for an excess of red tape and bureaucracy. EU officials and diplomats think that sounds like populism. They also think they know what lies beneath it: He’s telling them to get back in their box. For von der Leyen and Costa, it means they still have an uphill battle. Nette Nöstlinger, Giorgio Leali, Gerardo Fortuna and Gabriel Gavin contributed to this article.