Edit‘The cover-up worse than the crime’ – Watergate vs Pfizergate
Tthe affair demonstrates a willingness by the Commission to ignore foundational EU undertakings on transparency
51 years ago, on 9th August Richard Nixon resigned as President of the United States. The resignation came just 21 months after Nixon’s landslide victory in the November 1972 US Presidential election.
As that election campaign was ‘heating up’, a group from the Nixon campaign were arrested for burglary of the Democratic Party’s National Committee offices at the Watergate complex. The break-in attracted major media cover during the election campaign – most notably from The Washington Post. It featured heavily in the campaign of the Democrat candidate George McGovern, who sought to make it an election issue. Despite the publicity Richard Nixon was re-elected by a landslide winning 49 states and 520 out of 537 electoral college votes.
Initially reaction to the Watergate break-in was ambiguous. Nixon himself felt the issue would ‘go-away’: it didn’t. Things started to go wrong for President Nixon when the US Senate established a committee to investigate the Watergate Affair. The focus quickly changed from the burglary itself to the attempts by Nixon to conceal his administration’s involvement in the affair. A breaking point was reached when the existence of an Oval Office taping system emerged and Nixon refused to hand over tapes to Congress. Henry Kissinger who both served as Nixon’s Secretary of State and National Security Advisor commented “the cover-up (was) worse than the crime”.
The drama that has been playing out over text messages exchanged between Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and the Pfizer CEO, Albert Bourla, has run for longer than the Watergate Affair. While not on the scale of the drama that played out in Washington in 1973-4 the view that the cover up impacted more heavily on President Nixon’s destiny than the Watergate break-in has some salience in considering the possible long term impact of the ‘Pfizergate’ text messages.
The EU Ombudsman’s wake up call
The Ombudsman’s examination of the Commission’s handling of a request from the New York Times (NYT) for access to the text messages between its President and the Pfizer CEO is particularly revealing. When approached by the paper for access to the texts the Commission responded that it could not “not identify any text message falling under the request.” This was an odd response. It had been reported as far back as April 2021 that text messages and calls had been exchanged between the Commission President and the Pfizer CEO. Those reports had never been challenged.
Investigating the Commission’s response to NYT the Ombudsman’s office found that the Commission did not consider text messages as falling within its definition of ‘document’ due to the ‘short-lived’ nature of their content. As a result text messages were not retained as documents. Given the scale and significance of the contracts with Pfizer it is odd that the Commission did not regard it as prudent to retain all records of interactions.
The Ombudsman’s investigation further revealed that in dealing with the access request Commission personnel “did not explicitly ask the Commission’s personal office (cabinet) to look for the text messages”. Instead, the President’s cabinet was asked to “to look for documents that fulfil(ed) the Commission’s internal criteria for recording”. The Ombudsman concluded that the narrow way in which the Commission treated the access request meant in effect that no attempt had been made to establish if any text messages existed. This, the Ombudsman concluded, constituted maladministration.
The Ombudsman recommended that the Commission ask the Commission President’s personal office “to search again for relevant text messages” making it clear that “the search should not be limited to registered documents or documents that fulfil its recording criteria.” The Ombudsman added that if “any text messages were subsequently identified — public access could be granted.” Bizarrely, in responding to this recommendation the Commission, in the words of the Ombudsman, “failed to say whether it had looked directly and correctly for the text messages and if not, why not.”
Against that background, the Ombudsman confirmed her finding of maladministration and set out a series of recommendations as to how work-related text messages should be treated. Confirming that her investigation on the Commission Presidents’ text messages was now closed, the Ombudsman, Emily O’Reilly, did not mince her words. Labelling the case a ‘wake-up call for the EU’, the Ombudsman concluded that “The handling of this access to documents request leaves the regrettable impression of an EU institution that is not forthcoming on matters of significant public interest.”.
A damning criticism which if levelled at the administration in most EU member states would have significant repercussions – but not in Brussels.
The decision by the EU General Court
On 14 May the Commission’s handling of the request for access received a substantial rebuff when the EU General Court annulled the Commission’s decision to refuse access to the text messages.
Referring to the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the right of access to documents which it confers, the Court demolished the Commission’s efforts to justify its failure to meet the access request from the NYT. The Court systematically dismissed virtually all arguments put forward by the European Commission. It rejected the Commission’s attempts to challenge the standing of the New York Times legal action. In adjudicating on the question of the existence of the text messages the Court raised a fundamental question as to the Commission’s truthfulness.
While accepting that the ‘presumption of truthfulness’ applied to the Commission’s defence that the text messages being sought did not exist, The Court concluded “ the applicants have succeeded in rebutting the presumption of non-existence and — non possession of the requested documents.”
This put the Commission on the ‘back foot’. It reopened the questions that the Ombudsman had raised as to how methodical the Commission had been in its efforts to find the texts that the New York Times was seeking. The court’s unequivocal conclusion that “the explanations given by the Commission … do not suffice to provide a credible explanation of why those documents could not be found”, aligning as it the did with the scepticism expressed by the Ombudsman, put in question the Commission’s credibility further into question.
Following the Court ruling Teresa Anjinho, who replaced Emily O’Reilly as EU Ombudsman in February, issued a statement, essentially picking up the line taken by her predecessor, Anjinho noted that that the Commission’s handling of the NYT access request breached the principles of good administration as set out in the EU Charter of fundamental rights and indicated that she expected the Commission to “draw the necessary conclusions” from the judgment and ensure that the right of public access to documents be given its full effect.
The Commission’s response
The Commission itself responded with a short, 179-word pro forma statement. Referencing the Court’s finding that it “should have provided a more detailed explanation in its decision that it does not hold documents of the requested type”, it said it would “closely study the General Court’s decision, decide on next steps. and adopt a new decision providing a more detailed explanation.” It noted that the “Court does not put into question the Commission’s registration policy regarding access to documents” continuing “ these rules aim to ensure the integrity of the Commission’s records and full transparency by making sure that important documents drafted or received by the Commission, are easily made accessible to interested EU citizens”. Sidestepping the fact that it had just received of a hammering from the Court and from the Ombudsman the statement closed with an assurance that “transparency has always been of paramount importance for the Commission and President von der Leyen.”
The Commission allowed the deadline for an appeal against the judgement of the General Court to run out at the end of July without taking action.
Another response to the New York Times
The Commission also wrote to the NYT. In a letter issued on 28 July, it indicated that the head of President von der Leyen’s cabinet had checked the President’s phone in June 2025 and, unsurprisingly, “did not find any messages corresponding to the description given” in the newspaper’s request.
It indicated the same official had checked the President’s phone in 2021. Essentially echoing a line it put to the General Court the Commission indicated that messages found on that occasion were focused on ensuring that calls between von der Leyen and Bourla could be arranged as needed and were not kept as official documents, as text messages and other ephemeral electronic communications do not necessarily constitute documents of interest that should be saved or made public.
The letter also indicated that President Von der Leyen was personally responsible for deciding whether the texts constituted documents of value and were worth keeping, an interesting clarification that provides some ‘cover’ for the staff of the President’s office going forward.
The end of the road?
The drama surrounding the messages exchanged between President von der Leyen and the Pfizer CEO has now been running for four years – significantly longer than the Watergate Affair. The actions of the Commission in the case demonstrates a failure of the EU’s highest echelons to learn from history.
Since the revelations about the text messages emerged there has been damaging speculation as to the nature of the exchanges, about “what was being hidden’, the EU Ombudsman has been highly critical of the Commission’s failure to be forthcoming and the EU General Court has issued a scathing judgement. None of this reflects credit on the Commission.
Most troublingly, the affair demonstrates a willingness by the Commission to ignore foundational EU undertakings on transparency, a willingness to ignore the EU Ombudsman and a lack of urgency when it comes to falling in line with the EU Court.
After all of the drama it is still not clear why text messages were used during the course of a multi-billion Euro contract process, how many texts that were exchanged , why the Commission President and the Pfizer CEO, and not office staff, were making ‘diary arrangements’, what the messages actually contained and why the ‘ephemeral’ exchanges was not divulged when the access request was lodged by NYT.
While there is no reason to question the Commission statements as to the content of the texts, one thing is clear: if it emerges that they were about anything other than scheduling calls, heads will have to roll.
EUalive’s columnist Dick Roche is a former Irish Minister of State for European Affairs. His columns can be found here.
Caption: European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen walks ahead of a European Commission College meeting in Brussels, Belgium, 14 May 2025. The European Court of Justice in Luxembourg judges on May 14 are set to rule on ‘Pfizergate’, a major transparency case, on whether von der Leyen was wrong to withhold text messages exchanged with the Pfizer CEO during key vaccine contract talks. The case, sparked by a 2022 New York Times lawsuit, challenges von der Leyen’s leadership style and her commitment to transparency. EPA/OLIVIER HOSLET
Updated: August 6, 2025 - 14:09
