by Our Diplomatic Affairs Editor
A widening institutional rivalry at the heart of Brussels is exposing deep strains in the European Union’s diplomatic architecture, as competing centres of authority challenge the coherence of its foreign policy at a moment of heightened global instability. The growing tension between the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, and the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Kaja Kallas, has moved from internal corridors of power into public view, drawing attention to unresolved questions over who ultimately steers the EU’s external action.
In Brussels, diplomats and officials describe an environment increasingly defined by competition over influence, agenda-setting, and institutional reach. The dispute is not framed around formal breakdowns of procedure, but rather around overlapping responsibilities that have gradually intensified since von der Leyen began her second mandate in 2024 and expanded the Commission’s internal structure. At the same time, Kallas has sought to assert the authority of her post, which under EU treaties is designed to coordinate foreign policy and represent the bloc externally.
The friction has been sharpened by recent reporting and political interpretations that circulated through the EU capital. A Financial Times article on possible plans linked to Germany and France regarding the future of Europe’s foreign policy architecture was read in Brussels as indirectly targeting Kallas. Some officials interpreted the debate as reflecting broader efforts by von der Leyen to consolidate influence not only within the European Commission but also over the European External Action Service, the diplomatic arm of the EU that formally reports to the High Representative.
Although speculation has grown around institutional ambitions, the legal framework of the European Union remains clearly defined in the treaties. The High Representative is tasked with leading foreign and security policy, making proposals in that domain, and executing decisions taken by member states, which retain ultimate control. The role also includes coordinating the EU’s external action across institutions, a design intended to balance national sovereignty with collective European representation.
However, the practical operation of these arrangements has evolved significantly under successive crises. The pandemic, Russia’s war in Ukraine, the deterioration of relations with the United States, and intensifying competition with China have all pushed the European Commission into a more prominent international role. Von der Leyen, in particular, has expanded the Commission’s external profile, reshaping its internal organisation and placing portfolios with indirect foreign policy implications under her authority.
This gradual shift has contributed to perceptions among diplomats that parallel structures of influence have emerged within the Commission. New directorates and specialised units focused on strategic foresight and coordination have been established, while additional functions linked to security and international cooperation have broadened the Commission’s reach into areas traditionally associated with the European External Action Service. Critics within diplomatic circles argue that this evolution has created duplication and blurred institutional boundaries at a sensitive geopolitical moment.
The tensions between von der Leyen and Kallas became more visible following an episode in the previous autumn involving personnel decisions within the EU diplomatic service. Kallas had sought to appoint Martyn Selmayr, a senior figure with previous experience at the highest levels of the Commission, to a position within the External Action Service. The move ultimately did not proceed, as he was instead assigned a different role as special envoy for religious freedom, effectively removing him from the contested appointment.
Following the escalation of public discussion, Kallas addressed her staff in an internal email, emphasising that the relationship between the External Action Service, the Commission, and member states has been debated since the service was created. She noted that current geopolitical pressures naturally intensify such debates and reiterated that the responsibilities of each institution are clearly established in the treaties. She also acknowledged concerns over duplication within Brussels, reflecting internal awareness of structural inefficiencies.
From the Commission’s side, a spokesperson stressed that the External Action Service forms part of the EU institutions responsible for implementing Union policies, and that the Commission supports its work. The statement was intended to ease concerns about institutional discord, although it did little to dispel the broader perception of friction between the two leadership structures.
Among EU member states, reactions have been mixed and at times critical. Some diplomats have expressed discomfort with what they describe as an increasingly assertive approach by von der Leyen in foreign policy matters, including high-profile initiatives that have drawn scrutiny in national capitals. Others have voiced frustration with Kallas’s approach, describing her focus as overly concentrated on Russia-related policy, while also noting perceived inconsistencies in positions on China and the Middle East.
These differing assessments reflect broader unease over coherence in EU external messaging. While some governments emphasise the need for a more unified and forceful European diplomatic presence, others are wary of institutional overreach and unclear division of responsibilities between Brussels-based actors.
Academic observers argue that the current tensions are rooted not only in personal or institutional rivalry, but also in the structural design of the EU’s foreign policy system. Alberto Alemanno, professor of EU law at HEC Paris, describes the High Representative role as an intentionally hybrid position created under the Treaty of Lisbon to reconcile competing demands from member states and pro-integration advocates. This design, he notes, has carried inherent ambiguities since its creation and has been tested by successive officeholders since 2009.
The current phase, however, appears to have brought these ambiguities into sharper relief. With global geopolitics becoming more confrontational, the balance between Commission authority, member state control, and the External Action Service has become increasingly difficult to maintain without friction.
Political voices within the European Parliament have also raised concerns about the impact of institutional competition on the EU’s external effectiveness. Socialist MEP Javi López has argued that tensions in Brussels have contributed to coordination problems and fragmented messaging in foreign policy. He has emphasised that while reforms and shared leadership could address structural weaknesses, the fragmentation of authority risks undermining the EU’s strategic capacity at a time of global uncertainty.
Underlying these institutional disputes is a broader concern shared across European capitals: that structures designed for an era of consensus-based integration may be struggling to adapt to a world defined by rivalry among major powers. As responsibilities overlap and leadership roles intersect, the contest between von der Leyen and Kallas has come to symbolise a wider question about how the European Union intends to project power and coherence beyond its borders.
For now, the tensions remain contained within institutional and diplomatic channels, but they continue to shape perceptions of the EU’s ability to speak and act with a unified voice. The outcome of this internal balancing act remains closely watched in Brussels, where the architecture of European diplomacy is still being tested by the pressures of a rapidly changing international environment.
