In October 2025, the European Parliament held two separate votes of no confidence against European Commission President Ursula Von der Leyen. Both attempts failed, and Von der Leyen was able to continue in her role. However, this situation clearly exposed the deepening polarization and leadership crisis in the European Union’s (EU) domestic politics. In the votes, far-right and far-left groups questioned Von der Leyen’s leadership on various grounds, and both motions were rejected because they lacked the necessary majority. For example, 179 members supported the motion submitted by the far-right groups, while 133 members supported the motion submitted by the far-left groups.[i] While this result allowed Von der Leyen to continue in her role, it clearly demonstrates the extent of political polarization and distrust in the EU’s leadership. In this context, votes of confidence can be considered not only a test of individual leadership but also a key indicator of the EU’s institutional resilience and the effectiveness of its political mechanisms.
The main arguments of the opposition have shown considerable variety. Far-right groups especially made criticisms based on migration management and environmental policies, accusing Von der Leyen’s policies of not responding enough to the demands of EU citizens. These criticisms can be understood in the context of both the increasing anti-immigrant rhetoric within the EU and the effects of environmental policies on local economies. On the other hand, far-left groups made criticisms through trade agreements and international issues, especially the decisions taken in the context of Middle East policies and Gaza. This situation shows that the EU’s internal and external politics are not independent from each other but are areas that directly affect one another.[ii] Von der Leyen’s policies have been found controversial both in environmental and economic terms, and these discussions have shown themselves in the forms of support and opposition among different ideological blocs in the parliament. In such crisis periods of the EU, the transparency of decision-making processes and democratic accountability stand out as a critical element in terms of the trust in leadership.
The coalition dynamics in the parliament have also been decisive in this process. Although Von der Leyen received support from the center-right European People’s Party and other centrist parties, some members of these parties supported the proposals.[iii] This situation shows the fragile structure of coalitions within the EU and the deepening of political polarization. The influence of rising far-right and far-left groups outside the traditional blocs in the parliament makes leadership strategies increasingly complex and cautious. Such criticisms toward von der Leyen’s leadership mean not only a personal test but also a test of the balance of power and political stability among EU institutions. In this context, the votes of confidence show how effectively the EU’s democratic mechanisms work and how different ideological approaches can influence decision-making processes.
Von der Leyen’s leadership strategy has been based on a conciliatory and balanced approach during times of crisis. Especially in foreign policy and security matters, she has tried to bring together different opinions and focused on maintaining stability in the EU’s common policy areas. This approach has gained importance particularly in a period when the EU’s collective decision-making capacity has been tested by security issues affecting the European continent, such as the Russia-Ukraine conflict. However, this conciliatory approach has been seen as insufficient and criticized by some groups. This situation within the EU shows that the understanding of leadership must be based on a balance that is both flexible and demanding. The Commission President’s need to balance the expectations of different stakeholders in both domestic and foreign policy is of critical importance for the effectiveness of the institution.
The votes of confidence reveal not only the current opposition to Von der Leyen’s leadership but also the expectations for the future. The EU’s decisions in areas such as environmental policies, trade agreements, and foreign policy will have to be handled more carefully and in a more balanced way from now on. The votes not only questioned the success or failure of a leader but also showed the fragility of the political balance and decision-making mechanisms among EU institutions. Such initiatives in the European Parliament, especially considering new election periods and ideological changes within the EU, may occur more frequently and create an environment that constantly tests the quality of leadership. In this context, Von der Leyen’s leadership has become not only a political figure but also a symbol of the EU’s institutional resilience and integration process.
Von der Leyen’s success in passing both votes of confidence has been an important step in maintaining the political stability of the European Commission, but at the same time, it has shown that these leadership tests did not hide the deepening political polarization within the EU.[iv] The EU, especially in a period when the influence of far-right and far-left elements is increasing, must strengthen the unifying and guiding role of leadership in both domestic and foreign policy. In this context, Von der Leyen’s leadership represents a critical test for the EU’s integration process and political stability. Moreover, this process has also shown how the EU balances the challenges it faces as a global actor with the fragilities in its domestic politics.
In conclusion, Ursula Von der Leyen’s continuation as President of the European Commission does not only mean that an individual continues in office; it is also considered a reflection of political polarization within the EU, the leadership crisis, and the balance of power among institutions. The votes of confidence have revealed the complexity and variability of political dynamics within the EU and have emphasized again the importance of leadership flexibility and the capacity for compromise. The EU’s future policies will be shaped depending on leaders’ ability to manage such crises, and Von der Leyen’s experience will serve both as an example and an indicator of this process. This process has allowed for long-term inferences regarding the EU’s institutional resilience, the functioning of its democratic mechanisms, and the effectiveness of leadership strategies.
[i] Jorge Liboreiro & Vincenzo Genovese, “Von der Leyen’s Commission survives far-right and far-left no-confidence motions”, Euronews, https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2025/10/09/von-der-leyens-commission-survives-far-right-and-far-left-no-confidence-motions, (Access Date: 10.10.2025).
[ii] Vincenzo Genovese, “High noon for Von der Leyen as she faces Strasbourg standoff”, Euronews, https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2025/10/09/high-noon-for-von-der-leyen-as-she-faces-strasbourg-standoff, (Access Date: 10.10. 2025).
[iii] Paula Soler & Vincenzo Genovese, “Von der Leyen emerged ‘strengthened’ from motions of censure — for now”, Euronews, https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2025/10/09/von-der-leyen-emerged-strengthened-from-motions-of-censure-for-now, (Access Date: 10.10. 2025).
[iv] “EU’s Von der Leyen survives two no-confidence votes”, The Daily Guardian, https://thedailyguardian.com/world/eus-von-der-leyen-survives-two-no-confidence-votes-669840/, (Access Date: 10.10. 2025).
