The European Commission, led by President Ursula von der Leyen, has sparked significant controversy with its proposal to fast-track a €150 billion financial instrument for defense by bypassing the European Parliament. This move, justified under Article 122 of the EU treaty, allows the proposal to go directly to the Council for negotiation and adoption, effectively sidelining the Parliament. While von der Leyen argues that the urgency of Europe’s defense needs justifies this approach, critics have condemned it as an anti-democratic maneuver that undermines the role of the EU’s only directly elected institution.

The proposal aims to address Europe’s growing defense concerns following a potential U.S. withdrawal as a military ally. However, the decision to bypass the Parliament has drawn sharp criticism from across the political spectrum. Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) have questioned the alleged urgency, noting that the proposed investments would yield results only in five to six years. Sandro Ruotolo of the S&D group called the move “a slap in the face to parliamentary democracy,” while Marc Botenga of The Left emphasized that excluding the Parliament from such a significant decision undermines democratic accountability.

Even within von der Leyen’s own political family, the European People’s Party (EPP), there is dissent. EPP leader Manfred Weber described the move as “a mistake,” stressing that Europe’s democracy relies on both its citizens and member states. Critics argue that invoking emergency procedures for long-term investments sets a dangerous precedent, eroding democratic norms and sidelining the Parliament’s oversight role. This growing frustration highlights the tension between expediency and democratic legitimacy, raising concerns about the erosion of transparency and accountability in EU decision-making.