Commissioner for Startups, Research and Innovation Iliana Zaharieva has pushed back against allegations of Commission interference in content moderation, defending the transparency of EU funding for experts cited in Digital Services Act (DSA) enforcement. In a written answer to a parliamentary question from French MEP Virginie Joron (Patriots for Europe), Zaharieva rejected what she called 'unfounded allegations' from a US House Judiciary Committee report of 3 February 2026, which accused the Commission of pressuring platforms to censor conservative content through the EU Code of Practice on Disinformation.
The answer, published on 16 July 2026, provides detailed figures on EU funding to two academics named in the question. Zaharieva confirmed that Dr. Natali Helberger received a European Research Council Starting Grant of EUR 1,479,515 for the project 'Personews', and Dr. Claes de Vreese received a Consolidator Grant of EUR 2 million for 'EUROPINIONS'. The University of Amsterdam, the question's broader target, has received EUR 387.5 million in total from Horizon 2020 and Horizon Europe programmes as of mid-May 2026 — far less than the EUR 1.5 billion alleged by Joron. The Commissioner also noted that under EU Financial Regulation, recipients of funds above EUR 15,000 are listed on the Financial Transparency System, and names of expert evaluators are published on the Funding and Tenders Portal.
On the question of Commission officials attending a DSA Observatory conference at the University of Amsterdam, Zaharieva argued that public conferences do not require organisers to be listed in the EU Transparency Register, and that video recordings of the event, including the intervention by a Commission official in a management position, are publicly available. The answer signals the Commission's determination to defend its DSA enforcement practices against external criticism while maintaining that existing transparency rules are sufficient. No further institutional follow-up is expected, though the exchange highlights ongoing tensions between the Commission and some MEPs over the DSA's impact on content moderation and academic independence.
The answer reassures EU-funded researchers and universities that their funding arrangements are transparent and legitimate, while pushing back against claims of political bias. For US House Judiciary Committee critics, the response offers no concession, reinforcing a transatlantic divide over content regulation. EU taxpayers gain clarity on specific grant amounts, though the broader question of total university funding remains partially addressed. Digital platforms may see the answer as a signal that the Commission will continue to rely on academic expertise in DSA enforcement without yielding to political pressure.