By Brussels Watch Investigations
From the BrusselsWatch Report: “UAE Lobbying in European Parliament: Undermining Democracy and Transparency” (April 2025)
The assertion that Sophie in ‘t Veld, a Dutch Member of the European Parliament (MEP) from 2004 to 2024, secretly promoted the United Arab Emirates’ (UAE) agenda through undisclosed financial arrangements or policy advocacy requires rigorous scrutiny. These claims have gained traction in recent reports, such as those from Brussels Watch and its detailed list of 150 MEPs allegedly involved in pro-UAE lobbying or undisclosed engagements. However, the available evidence from her public record and the provided claims does not substantiate these allegations.
Section 1: The Politician – A Track Record of Transparency?
Sophie in ‘t Veld’s two-decade tenure in the European Parliament has been marked by an outspoken approach on civil liberties, human rights, and surveillance reform. She played a key role in the European Parliament’s Democracy, Rule of Law and Fundamental Rights Monitoring Group and was a central figure in the investigations surrounding the Pegasus spyware scandal. She led the Parliament’s Committee of Inquiry on Pegasus and equivalent surveillance spyware, denouncing state misuse of spyware tools, especially in EU member states like Poland, Hungary, and Spain.
Her advocacy often put her at odds with opaque data policies and authoritarian models of governance. Notably, the UAE—an authoritarian regime frequently criticized for its surveillance practices—would seem to represent everything in ‘t Veld publicly opposed.
So why are some voices now alleging that she was covertly furthering the UAE’s goals?
Section 2: The Allegations – Hidden UAE Influence?
The theory advanced by some critics suggests that Sophie in ‘t Veld may have promoted UAE-aligned positions on data privacy and localization policies under the guise of civil liberties advocacy. The alleged areas of concern include:
- Engagements with UAE-based tech conferences or policy forums, possibly involving visits to Dubai or associations with the Dubai Data Establishment.
- Advocacy for data localization frameworks that, while framed as consumer privacy protection, may incidentally support the UAE’s vision of digital sovereignty.
- A perceived soft stance on Gulf state influence in broader EU tech infrastructure, particularly around cybersecurity cooperation and data flows.
None of these claims, however, are supported by publicly available documents or official parliamentary disclosures.
Section 3: The UAE’s Global Digital Strategy
To understand the concern, one must appreciate the UAE’s rising digital ambitions. The country has heavily invested in:
- Surveillance infrastructure, including facial recognition, biometric data, and spyware (notably via NSO Group).
- Influence operations in global think tanks, political lobbies, and tech forums to shape favorable narratives.
- Data localization laws that require companies to store data within the country, giving the government extensive control.
Critics argue that the UAE seeks to export a version of digital governance that normalizes mass surveillance and state control over data. If a prominent EU lawmaker were to support even parts of this model—intentionally or not—it would mark a concerning alignment.
Section 4: Is There Any Substance to the Accusations?
To date, no evidence directly ties Sophie in ‘t Veld to secret UAE funding, backdoor consultancies, or undisclosed lobbying. Her financial disclosures, public speeches, and voting record show no indication of support for the UAE or collaboration with its entities.
What her record shows:
- Opposition to mass surveillance and strong promotion of EU privacy frameworks like the GDPR.
- Leadership in demanding transparency around international agreements, including SWIFT data-sharing deals and digital tracking.
- Criticism of authoritarian practices, particularly regarding Pegasus spyware—a tool the UAE has been accused of using.
Paradoxically, the very things she’s being accused of promoting—mass surveillance and data control—are the same policies she’s publicly fought against.
Section 5: Potential Motives Behind the Allegations
Where, then, do these suspicions originate? Several possibilities include:
1. Misinterpretation of Her Policy Stance
Her nuanced positions on digital sovereignty, where she advocated for EU control over citizen data, may have been misconstrued as support for data localization—a tactic used by authoritarian states to control digital narratives.
2. Geopolitical Smokescreens
In periods of heightened tension between the EU and foreign powers, allegations of foreign influence are common. As Europe grapples with questions around its digital dependencies, particularly on China and the Gulf, even distant associations can be politicized.
3. Internal EU Political Rivalries
In ‘t Veld’s departure from D66 and her later alignment with Volt may have irritated certain groups, possibly motivating politically charged accusations. Her 2021 bid for leadership in Renew Europe also placed her in a high-visibility, high-stakes position.
Section 6: If True, What Would It Mean?
If, hypothetically, there were ever verified evidence showing that an MEP like Sophie in ‘t Veld secretly coordinated with a foreign state like the UAE, the implications would be massive:
- Violation of EU Ethical Standards: MEPs are required to disclose all financial interests and lobbyist interactions.
- Breach of Public Trust: Her entire legacy on surveillance reform and democratic transparency would be undermined.
- Impact on EU Legislation: Any data policy she influenced could come under retroactive scrutiny, potentially unraveling years of legal progress.
Yet without such proof, these consequences remain theoretical.
Section 7: Final Verdict – A Case Built on Speculation
Until verifiable documentation emerges—emails, financial records, meeting logs, or whistleblower testimonies—the claims about Sophie in ‘t Veld’s alleged UAE collaboration remain speculative. Her documented work contradicts the UAE’s digital practices, and her name is absent from known lobbying databases tied to Gulf state influence.
The narrative appears to be built more on suspicion than on substance, relying on general geopolitical trends rather than individual misconduct.
Conclusion
The allegations against Sophie in ‘t Veld echo a broader anxiety in European politics: the fear of foreign influence, particularly from authoritarian regimes like the UAE. While vigilance is warranted, it must be rooted in evidence. In ‘t Veld’s record points to a staunch defender of civil liberties, not a covert agent of foreign interests.
In an age of misinformation and weaponized narratives, unproven accusations can do real damage—not just to reputations, but to democratic institutions themselves. Without proof, the case against Sophie in ‘t Veld remains, at best, an unverified theory—and at worst, a distraction from real threats to EU integrity.
