By LORNE COOK, Associated Press

BRUSSELS (AP) — European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen comfortably survived a vote of no confidence on Thursday, as an overwhelming number of European Union lawmakers rejected a censure motion against her.

The motion contained a mix of allegations against von der Leyen, including text messaging privately with the chief executive of vaccine maker Pfizer during the COVID-19 pandemic, misuse of EU funds and interference in elections in Germany and Romania.

The motion was defeated in a 360-175 vote against it, with 18 lawmakers choosing to abstain during a plenary session at the European Parliament in Strasbourg, France.

European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen delivers her speech during a statement on the preparation for the EU–China Summit, Tuesday, July 8, 2025 at the European Parliament in Strasbourg, eastern France. (AP Photo/Pascal Bastien)

Von der Leyen wasn’t present for the vote, but taking to social media, she posted: “As external forces seek to destabilize and divide us, it is our duty to respond in line with our values. Thank you, and long live Europe.”

The vote has been a lightning rod for criticism of Von der Leyen — who led the EU drive to find vaccines for around 450 million citizens during the pandemic — and her European People’s Party, or EPP, which is the largest political family in the assembly.

They’re accused of cozying up to the hard right to push through their agenda and sidestepping mainstream pro-European parties when it’s difficult or inconvenient to form a majority. The European Parliament shifted perceptibly to the political right after Europe-wide elections a year ago.

“We won’t vote with the far-right and we do not support this motion. This vote was little more than a far-right PR stunt from Putin-loving populists,” Greens group President Terry Reintke said in a statement after the poll, referring to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

However, she added: “We are ready to build pro-European majorities, but we will not be played by the EPP in their desperate deregulation agenda and their desire to consistently form anti-European majorities with the far-right.”

Iratxe García Pérez, the leader of the No. 2 bloc in parliament, the Socialists and Democrats, said that “our vote doesn’t mean that we are not critical of the European Commission. The recent shifts by von der Leyen towards far-right pledges are a major cause for alarm.”

After voting against, Valerie Hayer, the leader of the pro-business Renew group, insisted in a social media post that von der Leyen must “take control of her political family to put an end to alliances with the far right.”

Related Articles

UN says if US funding for HIV programs is not replaced, millions more will die by 2029

Today in History: July 10, the Battle of Britain begins in World War II

US issues sanctions against UN investigator probing abuses in Gaza

South Korean court approves new arrest of former President Yoon Suk Yeol over martial law decree

Ship attacked by Yemen’s Houthi rebels sinks in the Red Sea, 6 of 25 aboard rescued

The EPP has notably worked with the hard right to fix the agenda for hearing von der Leyen’s new commissioners when they were questioned for their suitability for their posts last year, and to reject an ethics body meant to combat corruption.

The censure motion, the first at the European Parliament in over a decade, was brought against the European Commission president by a group of hard-right lawmakers.

On the eve of the vote, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán said on Facebook that it would “be the moment of truth: on one side the imperial elite in Brussels, on the other patriots and common sense. There is no getting out of it, it is essential to make a choice.”

He posted: “Madam President, the essence of leadership is responsibility. Time to go!” Von der Leyen’s commission has frequently clashed with Orbán over his staunchly nationalist government’s moves to roll back democracy. The European Commission has frozen Hungary’s access to billions of euros in EU funds.

Justin Spike contributed to this report from Budapest, Hungary.

Whether U.S. bombers recently “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear capability (President Donald Trump’s preferred wording) or “severely damaged” it (per the CIA) matters so much to Trump that he’s threatened to sue news outlets reporting the CIA’s terminology.

The common presidential desire to shape the narrative has been especially noticeable lately, especially with matters regarding tariff-induced inflation.

It may even be generating a particular form of presidentially corrected economic speech reminiscent of Jimmy Carter’s tenure.

In 1978, Carter, worried about America’s sagging economy, ordered cabinet members to refrain from alarming the country with the word “recession.” Minding his boss’ instruction but facing a direct question, economic advisor Fred Kahn famously responded, “We’re in danger of having the worst banana in 45 years.”

With U.S. first quarter GDP growth now charting -0.50% and more than one respected forecaster looking at paltry growth later this year, will we see officials dancing around the same word in the near future? Trump’s preference for political happy talk has already reframed conversations about his economic agenda.

Trump recently chastised Walmart executives when they announced that China tariffs would force the retailer to raise prices. He angrily called for Walmart to “eat” the tariffs and reminded them in less-than-gentle terms that he would be watching.

In another example, toymaker Mattel indicated that it too would be raising prices because of tariffs. Outraged, Trump threatened to impose a 100% tariff on its products, promising the firm “won’t sell one toy in the United States.”

Since then, business leaders have been avoiding speaking about the price increases and other disruptions that Americans are quite obviously experiencing due to White House tariffs. As Neil Saunders, director of Global Data Retail, warned: ”The White House has decided it should aim its tanks at companies that do speak out.”

So, when offering investor guidance, some retailers speak of “adjusting” prices, others address the elephant in the room “gently and sparingly,” and still others refer to their pricing policies with words like “surgical.”

Above all, linking price changes to tariffs is a no-no. Denise Dahlhoff, director of marketing and communications research at the Conference Board, advises executives to use more neutral terms like “sourcing cost” or “input cost” or “supply chain cost,” which “are not as incendiary as ‘tariff.”

After all, Trump is serious about language. In February, the White House banned an Associated Press reporter from press conferences and Air Force One over the news agency’s refusal to re-term the Gulf of Mexico as the “Gulf of America” in its influential style manual (at least until cries over First Amendment rights turned the tide).

Trump and Carter are hardly the first pair of presidents to pour rhetorical oil on troubled waters, but the historical results, as with today, are mixed at best.

In Harry Truman’s time, the Korean War became known as a “police action.” Somehow the phrase softened the perceived scale of the situation and suggested the conflict would end quickly. But mid-century Americans knew a war when they saw it. Losing political patience, voters turned away from Truman’s party and chose Dwight Eisenhower to bring the action to an end.

In later wars, mostly undeclared, political speech began to deny the use of the word “retreat” in favor of terms like “an orderly withdrawal of troops.” Observers may view Vietnam or Afghanistan as the former, but leaders prefer less dramatic and more positive language.

Perhaps the most audacious and enduring effort by a Western leader to alter political speech came in 1604 when newly installed King James I of England ordered 47 leading Biblical scholars to develop a new Bible translation. The resulting King James Authorized Version is thought to be one of the most beautifully written volumes of the age. By the king’s order, it also removed certain references to kings as tyrants which had been present in an earlier English Bible.

Kings, democratically elected presidents, and holders of lesser offices will always frame things as they see fit, especially if they feel that their power or wisdom is being questioned. We the people may sometimes respond pragmatically by altering our own language. These things can be weathered so long as Americans retain our reverence for freedom of speech. Otherwise, only the bravest will have the gumption to call a spade a spade.

Bruce Yandle is a distinguished adjunct fellow with the Mercatus Center at George Mason University and former executive director of the Federal Trade Commission. He wrote this column for Tribune Content Agency.

Related Articles

F. Willis Johnson: Prophets, not spectators — the class of 2025 and the work of repair

Allison Schrager: America’s broken politics is breaking economics, too

Ross Douthat: Conservatives are prisoners of their own tax cuts

Barnett, Kristof: It isn’t freedom if it’s not for everyone

Thomas Friedman: How Trump’s ‘big beautiful bill’ will make China great again

As Christianity declines in the West, the faith is flourishing in sub-Saharan Africa, which is seeing the fastest growth in Christianity the world over. By 2060, more than 4 in 10 Christians worldwide are expected to live in sub-Saharan Africa, compared with just 1 in 10 in 1970, according to Pew Research.

But this growth is coming at a cost. Unlike their counterparts in the U.S., African Christians increasingly risk violent death for their beliefs.

Nigeria, home to one of Africa’s largest and fastest-growing Christian populations, has also become one of the world’s deadliest places to practice the faith. On June 13, about 200 Christians were massacred by a group of jihadists in Yelwata, a town located in Benue State, which is almost entirely Christian. Most of the victims were internally displaced people sheltering at a nearby Catholic mission, many of them women and children.

This tragically is not unusual in Nigeria. During Holy Week, more than 150 Christians were killed in targeted attacks across central Nigeria. Some watchdog groups estimate that more than 50,000 Nigerian Christians have been killed by Islamist extremists since 2009. The State Department reports that fatal attacks in Nigeria are ongoing.

Moreover, in this violent region, the atrocities aren’t limited to Christians. Innocents of all faiths fall victim to militants, including members of the Muslim faith, which is also growing rapidly in sub-Saharan Africa. Some reports estimate that tens of thousands of moderate Muslims also have been killed by extremists in Nigeria, reflecting the broader toll of militant violence.

Bishop Wilfred Chikpa Anagbe, a Catholic leader in Benue State where the atrocities occurred, testified in March before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, pleading with officials to take notice of what’s happening. He described his home as “one of the most dangerous and insecure places for Christians,” and his testimony came months before the June 13 attack. He noted that villagers sometimes are warned in advance of attacks and that even if they contact police for protection, no help comes and the slaughters happen anyway.

“Constitutionally, we are a secular country, but our unity has been fragile,” he said. “We live in fear because at any point, it can be our turn to be killed. But to remain silent is to die twice, so I have chosen to speak.”

Pope Leo offered a timely prayer for Nigeria during a June 15 address in St. Peter’s Square. “I pray that security, justice and peace prevail in Nigeria, a beloved country that has suffered various forms of violence,” he said.

We do not know the sort of fear of which Bishop Anagbe spoke because we live in a country that believes in the right to religious freedom.

It’s why we find alleged hate crimes such as the May slaying of a young Jewish couple, Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Milgrim, in Washington, D.C., so devastating. We feel as if we are shielded from the sectarian violence that afflicts other parts of the globe by virtue simply of being American and when hate-based violence occurs here, that confidence is undermined.

The First Amendment protects all our religious freedoms, hardly limited to the three great Abrahamic religions, but it doesn’t guarantee them. We write this not only to spotlight the horrors others face for expressing their faith, but to remind ourselves that America’s religious liberty is rare, fragile and worth protecting.

— The Chicago Tribune

Related Articles

A surprise IRS move on political endorsements leaves faith leaders and legal experts divided

Pope prays for world to recognize urgency of climate crisis as he celebrates Mass’ using new rite

Pastors who endorse political candidates shouldn’t lose tax-exempt status, IRS says in filing

Pioneer Press covered a local girl’s quinceañera in 1985. Now it’s her granddaughter’s turn.

Tibetans in exile wonder: Will the next Dalai Lama be as charismatic as this one?

Extraordinarily narrow and unstable House and Senate majorities have become routine in modern American politics. The frantic, final maneuvering last week before Congress approved President Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act shows why that’s likely to persist for some time. And that means business, local governments, non-profits and ordinary Americans need to buckle up for more hairpin turns in national policy that make it almost impossible to plan for the long term.

Political parity has become a defining feature of our times. Neither party has won a House majority greater than 10 seats in each of the past three congressional sessions. That hasn’t happened since the formation of the modern party system in 1828. Likewise, one or the other party has reached 55 or more Senate seats in only three of the 13 congressional sessions since 2000, compared to 17 of the final 20 sessions of the 20th century.

With narrower margins, partisan control is flipping more frequently. Since 1980, for instance, neither party has controlled the Senate for more than eight consecutive years; never has the Senate changed hands so often over such a long period. No president has gone into a midterm election with unified control of the White House and Congress and successfully defended it since Jimmy Carter in 1978.

As last week’s debate on the sprawling GOP budget bill demonstrated, the two parties have refused to downsize their legislative ambitions to these systematically smaller and more ephemeral majorities. “Both political parties are more ideologically homogeneous than they used to be, they have big goals, they want to do a lot of things,” said Vanderbilt University political scientist John Sides. “We are not in an era where either political party comes into power and says, ‘Let’s make a few tweaks.’”

If anything, each new president seems to have internalized the likelihood that he will lose unified control of government after two years and has front-loaded his ambitions in response. Even with very small congressional margins, both Joe Biden and Trump styled themselves as transformative presidents and set out during their first year to pass a massive omnibus statute — Biden’s Build Back Better plan and Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill. Both parties have forgotten, or rejected, the advice of Thomas Jefferson, who wrote in 1808 “that great innovations should not be forced on a slender majority.”

Republicans attuned to Jefferson’s admonition might have drafted a more fiscally and politically balanced bill that exposed their marginal members to less risk. Instead, they assembled a polarizing grab-bag of MAGA priorities that ensured an intense backlash — and pressured their marginal members to accept it anyway by conspicuously threatening primary challenges against those who balked.

In the immediate sense, that strategy worked: Just one Republican representative and two GOP senators in vulnerable seats voted against the bill. (One other in each chamber opposed it from the right.) But one cost of that strong-arm approach quickly became apparent when Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina announced his retirement right after after Trump attacked him for opposing the bill, creating an open seat that will become Democrats’ best Senate opportunity in 2026.

Next year’s midterm election could bring more consequences. Polling has shown the bill facing enormous public opposition, particularly to its cornerstone feature of cutting federal health care programs for average families by more than $1 trillion to fund tax cuts for the wealthy.

The districts that will get hurt most by the bill are primarily non-urban, culturally conservative places where Democrats don’t expect to compete. But opposition to the principle of cutting health care for people who need it to fund tax cuts for people who don’t will likely prove a powerful Democratic argument. There are easily enough districts where white-collar suburban voters will be offended by the Medicaid cuts, even if they’re not directly affected by them, to cost the GOP the House majority next year.

The legislative contortions over the bill demonstrated how the parties have trapped themselves in a self-perpetuating cycle of instability. Because Republicans have such small House and Senate majorities, they could not give vulnerable members in either chamber a “hall pass” to vote against the measure. But because they could not grant such exemptions, Republicans increased the odds that some of those vulnerable members will lose next year and sink their majority, at least in the House. Passing a highly partisan and deeply unpopular bill with coercive demands for party loyalty isn’t a recipe for constructing durable congressional majorities.

The mismatch between the parties’ reach and their grasp makes it reasonable to expect that Congress will remain on a rollercoaster of narrow margins and frequent shifts in control. That’s not good news for any institution that needs stability from public policy, which is all of them. This bill erases Biden policies that prompted billions in investments from clean energy companies and medical providers. But if Democrats control the White House and Congress in 2029, it’s easy to imagine a different set of industries — oil companies, electric utilities, drug makers — facing equally disruptive swerves from Washington.

All American institutions would benefit from federal policies that attract support broad enough to outlast a single presidential term. The Republican choice to muscle through the most sweeping of innovations on the most slender of majorities shows why we’re unlikely to see many of those any time soon.

Ronald Brownstein is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering politics and policy. He is also a CNN analyst and previously worked for The Atlantic, The National Journal and the Los Angeles Times. He has won multiple professional awards and is the author or editor of seven books.

Related Articles

F. Willis Johnson: Prophets, not spectators — the class of 2025 and the work of repair

Allison Schrager: America’s broken politics is breaking economics, too

Ross Douthat: Conservatives are prisoners of their own tax cuts

Barnett, Kristof: It isn’t freedom if it’s not for everyone

Thomas Friedman: How Trump’s ‘big beautiful bill’ will make China great again