Ursula von der Leyen’s presidency is facing a double crisis, both political and communicative. As European consensus unravels, the head of the European Commission finds herself at the epicenter of a dilemma she cannot resolve. What began as a questioning of her policies has also turned into a credibility problem: her discourse no longer convinces even her own allies.
On the one hand, von der Leyen tries to maintain the support of the left by defending a narrative marked by climate radicalism and Brussels’ centralization. On the other hand, she introduces timid relaxations in the decarbonization agenda to appease business sectors and part of the moderate right. The result is a hybrid that satisfies no one. The Greens accuse her of betraying the energy transition, while conservatives view her changes as nothing more than empty and insufficient gestures.
The gap between her messages and her actions is becoming a constant. She promises more ‘social justice’ and more ‘climate commitment,’ but the reality faced by farmers, the automotive industry, and millions of families hit by astronomical energy costs tells a different story. The corrections announced on emissions policies or agricultural regulations come late and poorly, sounding more like improvisation than leadership.
This inconsistency fuels the perception that von der Leyen governs with her eye on the internal balances of the European People’s Party rather than on the real interests of the citizens. The ‘hollow center’ she embodies turns into an empty formula: too progressive for the right and too timid for the left.
On top of this comes a communication problem that in Brussels is already recognized as structural. The Commission has centralized its discourse so much that it has become opaque and contradictory. Spokespersons fail to respond clearly, journalists denounce a lack of transparency, and the president herself seems shielded behind an information-control wall that undermines her credibility. The handling of the tech cases and freedom of speech, the contradictions on Russia, and the lack of coordination on climate issues are examples of a communication apparatus overwhelmed and lacking coherence. And this happens mainly when the true intentions are being concealed under a torrent of well-sounding words.
The root of the problem is not technical but political: communication fails because the project lacks a solid narrative. One cannot simultaneously defend Brussels’ centralization and the sovereignty of the member states, nor sustain both green radicalism and adjustments in favor of industry. That inconsistency ends up filtering into every press conference, every official note, and every improvised statement before the media.
Von der Leyen continues to appeal to a ‘strong and united’ Europe, but her leadership weakens as Euroscepticism grows and governments defending national sovereignty consolidate. The centralizing drift of Brussels, driven by the president, encounters increasing resistance not only in Hungary or Poland, but also in founding countries such as France and Italy.
Sooner or later, von der Leyen will have to choose: either give in to the demands for greater integration, at the risk of further fracturing the Union, or accept limiting the centralizing ambitions of the Commission to save what remains of consensus (and of the EU itself). What seems clear is that the ‘hollow center’ she clings to today leads nowhere.
