Vote of No Confidence Against Ursula von der Leyen: A Look Back at the Vote#

On July 10, 2025, a crucial vote took place in the European Parliament in Strasbourg, where a motion of no confidence against EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen was discussed. This motion, filed by 77 parliamentarians, including 15 German AfD members and politicians from the Rassemblement National (RN) party led by Marine Le Pen, was an expression of growing dissatisfaction with von der Leyen’s leadership during the Corona pandemic.

The Voting Results#

The vote ended with 175 votes in favor of the no-confidence motion, 360 votes against, and 18 abstentions. Thus, the motion clearly failed to achieve the necessary two-thirds majority required for adoption. A total of 553 of the current 719 members of parliament participated in the vote.

Background of the No-Confidence Motion#

The initiators of the no-confidence motion accuse von der Leyen and her team of lack of transparency and mismanagement, particularly regarding Corona policy. A central point of criticism is the lack of transparency in vaccine procurement during the pandemic. It is alleged that von der Leyen negotiated via text message with Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla over the purchase of up to 1.8 billion vaccine doses worth approximately 35 billion euros, without the necessary parliamentary oversight.

Reactions and Consequences#

Ursula von der Leyen herself was not present in Parliament during the vote, but instead attended the EU Commission’s Global Gateway Forum in Brussels. In an emotional speech on Monday evening before the vote, she defended herself against the attacks and accused the initiators of fueling conspiracy theories and not offering constructive solutions themselves.

Despite the failure of the no-confidence motion, the political situation for von der Leyen remains tense. Critics argue that her approach during the pandemic and the lack of disclosure of relevant documents and communications have led to a loss of trust. It is expected that further no-confidence motions could follow, supported by various political camps, including left-wing factions.

Conclusion#

The failed no-confidence motion against Ursula von der Leyen demonstrates the challenges facing the EU Commission President. While she survived the vote, political unrest in Parliament persists. The EU needs leadership based on transparency, accountability, and the welfare of citizens, rather than on personal and financial interests. The future will show whether von der Leyen will be able to restore the trust of EU citizens and ensure the institutional stability of the European Union.

Extended Analysis: Primary Sources and Legal Context#

Background from Primary Sources#

The motion focused on lack of transparency in vaccine deals, particularly SMS communications with Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla. The New York Times first reported on this in 2021, and the European Ombudsman classified the failure to archive these messages as “maladministration” in 2023.

Additional institutional sources:

European Court of Justice (ECJ): In the context of the “Pfizer SMS scandal,” a lawsuit against the Commission for refusing to release documents is ongoing – with partial success for transparency advocates
European Court of Auditors (2024): Criticized over-ordering (billions in excess doses), but found no evidence of corruption
Parliamentary debates (CONT Committee): Previous inquiries from Left/Greens (2022–2024) regarding prices (approx. €19.50/dose – market-rate compared to USA ~$20 USD)

Detailed Reactions from Key Players#

Actor	Position
Von der Leyen	Emotional appearance on July 7, 2025 – accused initiators of “conspiracy theories instead of solutions”. Absent during vote (Global Gateway Forum Brussels)
AfD/RN (Le Pen)	“Proof of systemic corruption” – demanded resignation and full disclosure
Major factions (EPP, S&D, Renew)	United support; spokesperson: “Political show by the right”
Left/Greens	Partial sympathy for transparency criticism, but rejected the right-wing-initiated motion

Long-term Consequences and Open Questions#

Political situation: Von der Leyen remains weakened (2024 re-election was close), further motions not ruled out
Legal consequences: ECJ proceedings increase pressure for document release; ongoing lawsuits
Public perception: 2025 polls show declining trust in EU Commission (transparency: 42% negative rating)

Criticism vs. Exaggeration: A Necessary Distinction#

Aspect	Justified	Unsubstantiated
Lack of transparency	✅ SMS not archived (Ombudsman)	❌ Personal enrichment
Contracts	✅ Mandated by member states, published in Official Journal	❌ “Secret deals” without any oversight
Costs	✅ Excess doses (Court of Auditors)	❌ Pure waste (contextually necessary in 2021)

Failure as a Signal#

Sources confirm a failed vote, initiated by right-wing factions, driven by real transparency deficits (SMS, ECJ). No removal, but sustained pressure.

The EU needs:

Better documentation (new guidelines since 2023)
Independent audits for crisis contracts
Stronger parliamentary oversight in real-time

Trust recovers through facts, not political shows – neither from the initiators nor from the defense.

References:

Vote of No Confidence Against Ursula von der Leyen: A Look Back at the Vote

Table of Contents