EU Chief's texts to pharma boss during pandemic were likely erased, say media reports
Von der Leyen and Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla exchanged the messages as COVID-19 ravaged European communities from Portugal to Finland and the EU scrambled to buy millions of hard to find vaccines. She was under intense scrutiny to deliver.
The U.S. newspaper took the European Union's executive branch to court after it refused to share the messages under the bloc's transparency laws. In May, the court said the commission had failed to provide a credible explanation for declining access.
In a letter to the Times dated July 28, the commission said von der Leyen's head of cabinet, Bjoern Seibert, had last month examined the phone she uses and its Signal app and 'did not find any messages corresponding to the description given' in the newspaper's request.
It said Seibert also checked her phone in 2021 and found the messages only helped to ensure that calls between von der Leyen and Bourla could be arranged as needed, so they were not kept as official documents.
The commission insists text messages and other 'ephemeral' electronic communications do not necessarily constitute documents of interest that should be saved or made public.
Von der Leyen herself was responsible for deciding whether the texts constituted documents of value and worth keeping.
The commission also noted in its letter that her phone has been replaced 'several times' since the messages were exchanged, the last time in mid-2024. Her cabinet said the old messages were not saved and the phones were 'formatted and recycled.' Critics accuse von der Leyen and Seibert of centralizing power in the EU's powerful executive branch, tightly controlling who works in the cabinets of the various policy commissioners and vetting communications.
Von der Leyen survived a July 10 no-confidence vote in the European Parliament, the first against a commission president in over a decade, which was called in part over the text messaging scandal dubbed Pfizergate, the alledged misuse of EU funds and doubtful allegations about election interference.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
30 minutes ago
- Time of India
126 packages, six countries: Israel airdrops aid in Gaza; dismisses 'starving' Palestinians claims
Israel on Friday said that it air-dropped humanitarian aid into the Gaza Strip, in partnership with six countries, including three European nations. The Israel defence forces (IDF) claimed the operation delivered 126 aid packages containing food to residents in both northern and southern Gaza. The joint airdrop involved the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Egypt, Spain, France, and Germany, according to an IDF statement cited by the Jerusalem Post. This marked the first time the IDF coordinated such a relief effort with the three European countries. The move comes amid increasing global criticism over the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. IDF chief of staff lieutenant general Eyal Zamir rejected global claims that Israel is starving children in Gaza. Responding to the accusations, Zamir said, "The false campaign about starvation these days is a deliberate, coordinated, and deceitful attempt aimed at accusing the IDF—a moral army—of war crimes." "The party responsible for the killing and suffering of Gaza's residents is Hamas. IDF soldiers and commanders act with morality and integrity, in accordance with the IDF's spirit and international law," Zamir added. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Unsold 2021 Cars Now Almost Free - Prices May Surprise You Unsold Cars | Search Ads Learn More Undo Commenting on the ongoing hostage negotiations, Zamir indicated that military operations would continue regardless of diplomatic developments. "I estimate that in the coming days we will know whether we can reach a partial deal for the release of our hostages," he told commanders, according to the Jerusalem Post. "If not, the fighting will continue without pause." Since the nearly three-year war between Hamas and Israel began, over 58,000 Palestinians have been killed, according to Gaza's health ministry. Several ceasefires have been attempted, but none have held. Israel has continued military action in Gaza and the West Bank, with consistent backing from US President Donald Trump. At least 91 people were killed and 600 wounded in Gaza over the past 24 hours while waiting for aid, amid ongoing ceasefire discussions and inspections of food distribution, according to the Guardian.
News18
an hour ago
- News18
Trump Has Crossed The Line—But India Has Options That Can Flip The Game
With his erratic and irresponsible behaviour, President Trump has effectively vetoed the spirit of India-US ties A fresh wave of hostility is emanating from the Trump camp—25 per cent tariffs on India, mocking jibes about 'Pakistani oil", the taunt that India's economy is 'dead", and a threat that India and Russia can sink together. This messaging signals a deeper frustration within the Trump team over India's refusal to bend. Trump's tariff attack reeks of sour grapes. India has proven to be a tough negotiator, clear in its red lines and unwilling to compromise on core interests. Trump's tactics of shifting goalposts, last-minute bait-and-switches, and playing the bully have hit a wall. The tariff announcement came just as India successfully launched NISAR, the largest joint mission between ISRO and NASA. Instead of celebrating a milestone in India-US cooperation, Trump responded with a blistering blow. The move was not without precedent; similar tactics were used with Japan and the EU. But the sudden pivot to threatening to penalise India for its oil trade with Russia while having praised and sweet-talked Putin throughout his own campaign and after marks a particularly cynical turn. By mockingly offering 'Pakistani oil" after making a shoddy deal with Pakistan to drill out its oil reserves, and branding India as a 'dead economy", Trump has crossed a diplomatic redline. He seems determined to bait India into a bad deal. But New Delhi hasn't taken the bait. Trump has fundamentally misread India—from claiming he resolved the India-Pakistan conflict to underestimating India's economic trajectory. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has made it clear in Parliament: no foreign leader advised him to 'stop the war". That statement closed the door on Trump's attempt to insert himself into South Asia's conflict dynamics. As for India's economy: far from 'dead", it is the world's fastest-growing major economy and the fourth largest overall. Trade with the US alone stands at $132 billion, with India exporting $77.5 billion and the US exporting almost $55 billion, as much as its exports to Germany, in the last fiscal year. When Trump claims the US does 'very little business" with India, the numbers prove otherwise. With such erratic and irresponsible behaviour, Trump has effectively vetoed the spirit of India-US ties. India cannot incentivise this pattern with capitulation. So far, New Delhi's calm, measured response reflects a deliberate strategy: ignore the provocations, keep focus on India's long-term interests, and avoid any knee-jerk concessions. Modi is simply playing the long game. Trump Playing Russia Card Out of Ukraine Desperation India had negotiated in good faith and was ready to offer substantial trade concessions—something Trump could've claimed as a win. Instead, he targeted India's agriculture and dairy sectors—an unacceptable move in a country where more than half the population depends on farming. Worse still, he kept shifting goalposts, and ultimately, he injected Russia into the mix at the eleventh hour, demanding that India halt oil purchases or face unspecified penalties. His abrasive tactics go beyond just the trade deal and have inflicted long-term damage on trust in the India-US relationship. From playing the Pakistan card, to inserting the Russia angle, to threatening India's economy, Trump's bullying is counterproductive. It's bad diplomacy. The real issue might be Trump's own failure to come through. He promised to end the Russia-Ukraine war. That hasn't happened. Neither Putin nor Zelenskyy has come to the table, and Putin continues to defy US efforts. Frustrated, Trump appears to be pivoting—resuming weapons support to Ukraine and looking for new pressure points. One of them, apparently, is India. Senator Lindsey Graham is already floating ideas of secondary sanctions, tariffs of 100 per cent to 500 per cent, to punish India and China for continuing Russian oil imports. But instead of admitting failure and seeking India's help to broker peace, Trump has chosen to antagonise a key US partner. This is overreach—and it risks turning the clock back on the relationship. On India's part, there are reports that state refiners have ceased purchases of Russian oil, although a majority of it is bought by private refiners. Trump has taken note, claiming with uncertainty that India will stop purchases. India shunning Russian oil in its entirety will instantly raise global oil prices from an added $10 at first to as high as $140 a barrel if sustained, and raise its own import bill to $14 billion. No one wants that, including Trump, who may be going for optics to push forth with a trade deal. India's Options Can Flip The Game Although retaliation is not being considered mid-negotiation, India has a broad spectrum of options should tensions escalate. On trade, retaliatory tariffs, especially on steel and aluminium, remain firmly on the table. In defence, Trump may have already undermined any prospects of an F-35 deal with India. Reports say India has already communicated that it is not interested in buying F-35s especially given that technology transfer and co-production is not on the table. Other prospective defence deals could come under trouble as well, especially since India is miffed with delayed deliveries of the order already in place. Though the US shows a $49.5 billion trade deficit with India in goods, it actually has a $35-40 billion overall surplus when earnings from education, digital services, finance, royalties, and arms sales are included. Trump's view is distorted. Putting these factors on the table may change his mind. For Trump, the trade grievance is all about goods and no services, but that's where India can hit back hard: from imposing added duties on US tech giants to tightening anti-trust rules, raising penalties and pushing data sovereignty legislation. Education could also become a powerful lever. India is one of the largest spenders on costly American higher education. Redirecting this investment, either by retaining talent and capital within the country or shifting focus to nations that respect Indian interests would serve India's long-term strategic goals. India can also infuse new energy into PLI schemes, sweetening the industrial subsidies even more. Geopolitically, signals are already emerging: the revival of RIC (Russia-India-China), the strengthening of BRICS, and a more assertive India in the Indo-Pacific. If the current trajectory continues, the Quad may face an untimely and bitter end. While US support has proved transient, the Chinese threat is permanent. India can work with partners like Japan, Australia, Indonesia, and the Philippines without being drawn into a zero-sum great power rivalry. These options go far into the future. From Japan to the EU, the pattern of Trump's trade deals is clear: verbal promises, inflated headline numbers, one-sided tariff concessions, and a generous ego boost for Trump but no signatures, no binding commitments, no deadlines, and plenty of loopholes. These deals serve dual purposes. Trump gets the optics, tariffs on the American side and none on the other, large investment promises, energy and defence buyouts, a 'deal" he can talk up for political mileage, while the other side retains deniability. If Trump quotes these verbal agreements, it becomes politically expensive for his counterpart. But the other side still walks away with lowered tariffs, market stability, and enough ambiguity to keep negotiating behind the scenes. In this context, India has been facing a strategic choice. Is it worth entering into an agreement in principle laced with promises and optical wins for Trump—buying time, securing lower tariffs, and continuing talks in the background? Or should India push for a more formal, legally binding agreement, one that Trump can't arbitrarily tear up later, but which may be harder to land now? It's become increasingly clear that India will follow the former. If the president ultimately climbs down, which is likely given his pattern and style, the 25 per cent rate may be lowered. top videos View all The core realisation across capitals is that, for Trump, tariffs are not just a negotiating tool, they are the goal. He wants tariffs for domestic reasons: to boost revenue, cut trade deficits, bankroll future tax breaks, and revive American industries. His administration openly celebrates tariff collections, viewing them as a cash windfall for the treasury. An amount of $150 billion has already been collected. Japan and the EU may have reached their limits. But India, less reliant on exports, has been more patient—for now. And perhaps that is why Trump has been using larger geopolitical threats and putting strategic pillars of India-US ties at risk. The latest salvos make negotiation tougher. While there's still time for the US President to recalibrate and repair the damage, the mistrust he has seeded will linger well beyond any short-term agreement. About the Author Shubhangi Sharma Shubhangi Sharma is News Editor - Special Projects at News18. She covers foreign affairs and geopolitics, and also keeps a close watch on the national pulse of India. tags : BRICS China donald trump pakistan pm narendra modi RIC tariffs United states view comments Location : New Delhi, India, India First Published: August 02, 2025, 11:54 IST News opinion Opinion | Trump Has Crossed The Line—But India Has Options That Can Flip The Game Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Mint
an hour ago
- Mint
Donald Trump thinks he's winning on trade, but America will lose
More than 100 days after President Donald Trump's 'Liberation Day", the new global trading order is becoming clear. It is a system of imperial preference. Canada has angered the president, partly by planning to recognise Palestine as a state, and so it faces a duty of 35%. Because Mr Trump reckons that exporters unfairly cheat America, on July 31st he said he would impose 'reciprocal" tariffs on many trading partners, ranging from 10% to 41%. Meanwhile, in order to ward off tariff threats the European Union, Japan and South Korea have all struck deals with Mr Trump, where they promise to open their markets and invest hundreds of billions of dollars in America, in return for levies on their exports of 15%. A seductive idea is settling in that America is winning from all this. The president has, after all, got his biggest trading partners to make deals that are closer to his demands than theirs. Financial markets have shrugged off higher duties, the real economy shows little sign of damage and all the time tariff revenues are rolling in. But that thinking is deeply misguided. The game is not over. And it is one that America cannot win. For all the crowing about how Trump Always Chickens Out, the president has pressed forward with tariffs. America's effective tariff rate is due to rise to 18% on August 7th, according to the Yale Budget Lab, nearly eight times the prevailing rate last year, and back to levels last seen in the Depression. The way MAGA paints it, this is a triumph for Mr Trump, because America's trading partners are eating higher tariffs, helping US Customs rake in nigh on $30bn in revenues a month. Unfortunately, that idea is gaining currency even outside America. Soon after the EU struck its deal with Mr Trump, opponents in European capitals lamented the fact that the bloc would have to pay. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of trade economics. Years of experience show that tariffs do not harm the sellers of goods as much as they harm the buyers. The more the president raises tariffs, the more his own compatriots will be deprived of choice at low prices. Even though foreign suppliers are lowering their prices more steeply than after Mr Trump's first-term tariffs, analysts at Goldman Sachs reckon that fully four-fifths of tariff costs have so far been borne by American firms and consumers. Just ask Ford, or GM: the carmakers reckon they paid $800m and $1.1bn in tariff costs, respectively, in the second quarter of this year alone. What of the muted economic and financial market reaction so far? The IMF has raised its projections for both global and American economic growth this year, compared with forecasts it made in April. Although it has fallen since Mr Trump signed his order, the S&P 500 remains nearly 12% higher than it was on Liberation Day; the dollar, though down, has strengthened in recent weeks. The answer is that the economy is being buffeted by various forces, including heavy stockpiling before tariffs came into effect—delaying the pain, but not eliminating it—as well as an extraordinary boom in artificial-intelligence-based capital spending. According to Renaissance Macro Research, capital investments in AI have contributed more to America's gdp growth in the past two quarters than all of consumer spending. Partly propelled by this, stockmarkets have gone from strength to strength. Perhaps, too, investors believe that companies will adapt to higher tariffs. The incentive to route trade through places with relatively low duties will be strong—even though Mr Trump has vowed to punish such 'trans-shipment" with tariffs of 40%. An uncomfortable dynamic has also set in: because investors think that the president will eventually chicken out, they are emboldening him to press ahead. As he does so, however, the long-term costs to the economy will mount. In the name of fairness Mr Trump is discarding a multilateral system in which tariffs were charged on the same goods, regardless of where they came from. In its place is a bilateral system where products can face differential rates depending on their origin. These new rates are not just higher; they are subject to ceaseless bargaining over almost any issue. Just this week, those issues included the Brazilian courts' pursuit of a Trump ally and a border war between Thailand and Cambodia. Because tariff policy is set by one man alone, the bargaining will be subject to lobbying and presidential whim. Because of who he is, Mr Trump will consider exemptions when he is next flattered, and threaten duties when he is next displeased. American shoppers will pay the price. Once they were spoilt for choice, as both domestic and foreign producers competed to sell to them. Now the companies that succeed will do so not only because they are the most innovative, but also because they are the cleverest at playing the system. And remember that a ratchet effect is at work here. When—or rather, if—future presidents want to restore tariffs to their original level, they will be met by furious lobbying from American firms that got used to sheltering behind tariff barriers and have thereby become uncompetitive in world markets. Everything about this is harmful. And, whatever Mr Trump says, nothing about it is fair.
