Brussels (Brussels Morning Newspaper) – On Thursday, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen withstood two no-confidence votes in the European Parliament.
The motion of censure put forward by the far-right Patriots for Europe group was rejected, with 378 EU lawmakers voting against it and 179 in favour. The second motion of censure put forward by the parliament’s hard left group was rejected, with 383 EU lawmakers voting against it and 133 voting in favour.
Last month, the Patriots and The Left formally submitted motions, representing opposing sides of the political spectrum.
What concerns unite the far-right and hard-left groups?
A common factor linking the two bids was the opposition to the EU-US trade deal and the very unfavourable terms it has set for European exporters. The agreement, which also features non-binding commitments to invest €750 billion in US energy projects and €600 billion in the American market, continues to face strong criticism from across the political spectrum.
The Patriots and The Left once again expressed a shared grievance regarding the EU-Mercosur free trade deal, which von der Leyen finalised in December last year and is now awaiting adoption of its legal texts.
Both political groups express concerns over the potential harmful effects on European farmers, a key theme in French politics. They also strongly criticise von der Leyen’s lack of transparency.
The Patriots also complained about the Commission‘s handling of irregular migration and “misguided” green policies, whereas The Left assailed its “failure” to address the climate and social crisis, and Israel’s offensive in Gaza.
When did von der Leyen previously face votes of no confidence?
Previously, Ursula von der Leyen was subject to a first no-confidence vote in the European Parliament on July 10, 2025, which she faced during her presidency at the request of largely far-right members of parliament.
The vote accused her and her government of undermining trust in the European Union with, among other things, illegal activities and a lack of transparency, particularly in regard to her communication with the CEO of Pfizer during the negotiation of a vaccine contract for COVID-19.
