Social media and political messaging have collided in the halls of the European Commission, as Fabio DE MASI, non-attached MEP, probes the boundaries between EU institutional communication and partisan promotion. His parliamentary question scrutinizes the use of Commission resources and official social media by President Ursula von der Leyen, spotlighting the delicate balance between EU duties and political engagement within EU institutions. This inquiry is likely to stir reactions across political parties, civil society watchgroups, EU taxpayers, and communication strategists within the Commission.
This detailed answer comes in response to DE MASI's written question (E-003234/2025) submitted on 13 August 2025, which requested clarification about the Commission President's use of official channels during the 2022 European People's Party (EPP) Congress and whether such posts—such as praising EPP leadership—were supported by Commission staff or resources.
The response, issued by President von der Leyen for the Commission on 27 November 2025, refrains from concrete new policy proposals but cites the Code of Conduct regulating Commissioners’ political activities. It defends the President’s attendance and social media post as part of her official role, citing guidelines introduced in January 2024 regarding Commissioners' conduct during election campaigns. No numeric targets or new institutional structures are proposed; instead, the Commission emphasizes existing normative frameworks.
The policy orientation prioritizes maintaining a strict separation between political party engagements and Commission duties, reinforcing the principle that Commissioners remain available primarily for EU service. However, it allows for some political expression, especially during election periods, thus navigating between increased political visibility and institutional impartiality in communications.
This issue impacts four main stakeholders: the Commission itself must manage the fine line between political messaging and institutional neutrality; political parties like the EPP may benefit from such visibility; EU taxpayers expect transparency and non-partisanship in institutional resources; and civil society groups concerned with EU fairness may demand stricter oversight. While the provision supports the President's right to political participation, it challenges perceptions of the Commission's independence, imposing a moderate reputational risk and operational complexity.
The Commission’s formal answer functions as a significant signal in the ongoing debate about how EU officials engage politically through official communication channels. An official reply typically within 6 weeks of such questions—here delivered after months—will inform member states and parliamentarians about boundaries for political conduct, shaping future rules and expectations around the use of EU institutional social media accounts.