What were our technocratic, pro-EU elites thinking when they decided to award the Charlemagne Prize of Aachen to Commission President Ursula von der Leyen? Even accounting for an elite that has long distanced itself from the needs and opinions of ever-larger sections of the population, this awards ceremony from last Thursday seems almost surreal in its detachment from reality.
“Having just been sentenced to disclose her Pfizer text messages, the ailing Ursula von der Leyen has been honoured with the Charlemagne Prize,” writes journalist Friedrich Pürner in Tichy’s Einblick. “While trust, prosperity and security in Europe are crumbling, a hermetically sealed circle of power is celebrating its own downfall.”
While Tichy is admittedly one of Germany’s best-known counter-culture publications, a sense of embarrassment was discernible even in mainstream German media reports. “Charlemagne Prize for von der Leyen: Perhaps the right person at the right time,” ran the defensively titled commentary from ARD, the staunchly pro-EU and pro-government public broadcaster.
The prize, according to an official statement from the Charlemagne Prize board, was awarded to honour “an outstanding leader who is guiding the EU through a period of profound transformation with vision, courage, strength and foresight.” Yet within hours, board member Armin Laschet (CDU), a leading German politician, felt compelled to defend the decision, arguing that while one could “weigh up the pros and cons of every politician,” von der Leyen is the person “holding institutional Europe together these days.”
A pattern of technocratic self-confirmation
It’s not all too rare that embattled institutions attempt to demonstrate strength and unity in light of decline (one of the best examples of this being the late Stalinist East German establishment, defiantly celebrating its 40th anniversary in October 1989, just days before its republic collapsed under the popular pressure of its citizens).
For many EU critics, the un-elected von der Leyen has long served as one of their strongest arguments against the Brussels establishment. This begins with how she secured the Commission presidency itself. In the 2019 EU elections, voters were led to believe the next president would be the candidate leading the electoral bloc with the most parliamentary seats—candidates even participated in televised debates. Yet when the votes were counted, von der Leyen was suddenly appointed in what the British online magazine spiked rightly termed a “coronation” and an “insult to democracy.”
Even then, von der Leyen carried the dubious distinction of being “Germany’s most permanently unpopular politician.” She had cultivated a reputation for dishonesty and power obsession. Her “call” to Brussels came precisely as she was embroiled in a massive sleaze scandal involving questionable consultancy and procurement contracts for the German army—costing taxpayers millions while the military’s inefficiencies mounted. As with today’s Pfizer scandal, it involved private mobile phone data that von der Leyen refused to provide to a parliamentary inquiry committee. The committee concluded by documenting her “de facto complete failure.”
The end of democratic pretense
Today, as in 2019, democratic pretense within the EU elite has been abandoned entirely. There’s no serious attempt to lead public conversation, let alone convince majorities. Von der Leyen was appointed Commission President because she was the candidate the elites could best agree upon among themselves. As the “face” of the EU, she has been largely spared, despite the scandals that have characterized her career. (The German mainstream media has given the Brussels scandals very little attention, and many Germans will know little to nothing about the Pfizer scandal). Every technocrat understands that dismissing von der Leyen would prove more disruptive than retaining her. Following this same logic, she has now been honoured by an EU bubble desperate to encourage and confirm itself.
The notion that the Charlemagne Prize reflects laureates’ genuine achievements represents a fundamental misunderstanding anyway. Its purpose is to send political signals—which explains why German Chancellor Merz’s speech wasn’t about von der Leyen at all. Instead, in what Reuters described as “an explicit riposte to the Trump administration’s repeated criticisms of the European Union,” Merz emphasized Europe’s commitment to fighting for its core values of freedom and democracy. Far from laudatory, Merz’s address—which also mentioned tariff disputes—served as a public statement preparing for his Washington trip a week later.
Defensive elites in a changing world
The Charlemagne Prize, awarded by the German city of Aachen, has functioned as propaganda accompanied by public disputes for years. In 2007, it went to Javier Solana, the former NATO General Secretary who played a key role in the Belgrade bombings. In 2002, the prize was awarded to the euro currency itself. Angela Merkel received it in 2008 for her handling of the euro crisis. In 2011, as many countries still reeled from austerity and the euro zone debt crisis, it went to ECB President Jean-Claude Trichet. In 2015, amid the EU’s deepening legitimacy crisis, the prize went to former EU Parliament President Martin Schulz—who would fail spectacularly in his 2017 German chancellorship bid, delivering what was then the SPD party’s worst election result. Schulz should never have accepted the prize, wrote Tagesspiegel journalist Moritz Schuller, in light of the deep crisis of the EU even back then.
It’s therefore more than fitting that the prize should go to von der Leyen. This year’s award highlights elite defensiveness more starkly than ever. Recent criticism and populist successes have clearly rattled the establishment. But huddling together won’t save the EU. A day before the prize ceremony, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced visa bans for European politicians involved in censorship. Two days after the ceremony, Donald Tusk’s candidate lost the Polish presidential election to the patriot and EU-sceptic Karol Nawrocki.
The thinking and anti-democratic instincts of our EU elites remain unchanged, but the world moves on around them.
The Charlemagne Prize: A Symbol of Elite Defensiveness
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen (C) reacts holding her medal as she receives an applause from attendees after receiving the International Charlemagne Prize of Aachen 2025 (Karlspreis) on May 29, 2025 in Aachen, western Germany.
Photo: Federico Gambarini / POOL / AFP
You may also like
The LGBT Movement Thinks It Owns Europe
The EU elites ludicrously claim that any opposition to the LGBT agenda constitutes alignment with Moscow, as if the universal, millennia-old belief in natural marriage is somehow Russian.
The Anti-Israel Tantrum Threatening To Break Eurovision
Four nations have declared they will boycott next year’s song contest over the inclusion of the Jewish State. Good riddance.
One Year After the Fall of Damascus, It Is Time for Syrians in Europe To Go Home
Those Syrians who are fond of Islamist rule can and should be able to enjoy their preferred model of political organisation—in their own homeland.
What were our technocratic, pro-EU elites thinking when they decided to award the Charlemagne Prize of Aachen to Commission President Ursula von der Leyen? Even accounting for an elite that has long distanced itself from the needs and opinions of ever-larger sections of the population, this awards ceremony from last Thursday seems almost surreal in its detachment from reality.
“Having just been sentenced to disclose her Pfizer text messages, the ailing Ursula von der Leyen has been honoured with the Charlemagne Prize,” writes journalist Friedrich Pürner in Tichy’s Einblick. “While trust, prosperity and security in Europe are crumbling, a hermetically sealed circle of power is celebrating its own downfall.”
While Tichy is admittedly one of Germany’s best-known counter-culture publications, a sense of embarrassment was discernible even in mainstream German media reports. “Charlemagne Prize for von der Leyen: Perhaps the right person at the right time,” ran the defensively titled commentary from ARD, the staunchly pro-EU and pro-government public broadcaster.
The prize, according to an official statement from the Charlemagne Prize board, was awarded to honour “an outstanding leader who is guiding the EU through a period of profound transformation with vision, courage, strength and foresight.” Yet within hours, board member Armin Laschet (CDU), a leading German politician, felt compelled to defend the decision, arguing that while one could “weigh up the pros and cons of every politician,” von der Leyen is the person “holding institutional Europe together these days.”
A pattern of technocratic self-confirmation
It’s not all too rare that embattled institutions attempt to demonstrate strength and unity in light of decline (one of the best examples of this being the late Stalinist East German establishment, defiantly celebrating its 40th anniversary in October 1989, just days before its republic collapsed under the popular pressure of its citizens).
For many EU critics, the un-elected von der Leyen has long served as one of their strongest arguments against the Brussels establishment. This begins with how she secured the Commission presidency itself. In the 2019 EU elections, voters were led to believe the next president would be the candidate leading the electoral bloc with the most parliamentary seats—candidates even participated in televised debates. Yet when the votes were counted, von der Leyen was suddenly appointed in what the British online magazine spiked rightly termed a “coronation” and an “insult to democracy.”
Even then, von der Leyen carried the dubious distinction of being “Germany’s most permanently unpopular politician.” She had cultivated a reputation for dishonesty and power obsession. Her “call” to Brussels came precisely as she was embroiled in a massive sleaze scandal involving questionable consultancy and procurement contracts for the German army—costing taxpayers millions while the military’s inefficiencies mounted. As with today’s Pfizer scandal, it involved private mobile phone data that von der Leyen refused to provide to a parliamentary inquiry committee. The committee concluded by documenting her “de facto complete failure.”
The end of democratic pretense
Today, as in 2019, democratic pretense within the EU elite has been abandoned entirely. There’s no serious attempt to lead public conversation, let alone convince majorities. Von der Leyen was appointed Commission President because she was the candidate the elites could best agree upon among themselves. As the “face” of the EU, she has been largely spared, despite the scandals that have characterized her career. (The German mainstream media has given the Brussels scandals very little attention, and many Germans will know little to nothing about the Pfizer scandal). Every technocrat understands that dismissing von der Leyen would prove more disruptive than retaining her. Following this same logic, she has now been honoured by an EU bubble desperate to encourage and confirm itself.
The notion that the Charlemagne Prize reflects laureates’ genuine achievements represents a fundamental misunderstanding anyway. Its purpose is to send political signals—which explains why German Chancellor Merz’s speech wasn’t about von der Leyen at all. Instead, in what Reuters described as “an explicit riposte to the Trump administration’s repeated criticisms of the European Union,” Merz emphasized Europe’s commitment to fighting for its core values of freedom and democracy. Far from laudatory, Merz’s address—which also mentioned tariff disputes—served as a public statement preparing for his Washington trip a week later.
Defensive elites in a changing world
The Charlemagne Prize, awarded by the German city of Aachen, has functioned as propaganda accompanied by public disputes for years. In 2007, it went to Javier Solana, the former NATO General Secretary who played a key role in the Belgrade bombings. In 2002, the prize was awarded to the euro currency itself. Angela Merkel received it in 2008 for her handling of the euro crisis. In 2011, as many countries still reeled from austerity and the euro zone debt crisis, it went to ECB President Jean-Claude Trichet. In 2015, amid the EU’s deepening legitimacy crisis, the prize went to former EU Parliament President Martin Schulz—who would fail spectacularly in his 2017 German chancellorship bid, delivering what was then the SPD party’s worst election result. Schulz should never have accepted the prize, wrote Tagesspiegel journalist Moritz Schuller, in light of the deep crisis of the EU even back then.
It’s therefore more than fitting that the prize should go to von der Leyen. This year’s award highlights elite defensiveness more starkly than ever. Recent criticism and populist successes have clearly rattled the establishment. But huddling together won’t save the EU. A day before the prize ceremony, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced visa bans for European politicians involved in censorship. Two days after the ceremony, Donald Tusk’s candidate lost the Polish presidential election to the patriot and EU-sceptic Karol Nawrocki.
The thinking and anti-democratic instincts of our EU elites remain unchanged, but the world moves on around them.
Our community starts with you
READ NEXT
The Vatican Rejects Female Diaconate, but the Judgment “Is Not Definitive”
This British Government Is Anti-British
A Confused Strasbourg Footballer Scores Globalism’s Own Goal