Swedish MEP Hanna Gedin has responded to a policy inquiry on Russian interference, highlighting shortcomings in current European Parliament transparency rules and calling for targeted reforms.
Her response emphasises stronger accountability mechanisms, enhanced oversight, and the need to balance transparency with the protection of civil society and democratic freedoms.
MEP Response Highlights Structural Gaps in EU Transparency Framework
Brussels — In a detailed written response to an inquiry by Brussels Watch dated 29 January 2026, Hanna Gedin has outlined her position on foreign interference within European Union institutions, offering a comprehensive perspective on transparency, accountability, and democratic resilience.
Addressing concerns regarding Russian influence in EU policymaking, Gedin stated that current European Parliament rules governing transparency and ethics are “not sufficient,” pointing to repeated corruption scandals as evidence of systemic weaknesses.
She noted that the Parliament’s “open-door approach to lobbying firms” raises legitimate concerns about whether some elected representatives may prioritise private interests over the public good.
Transparency Rules and Oversight Mechanisms
Limitations in Current Disclosure Systems
In her response, Gedin highlighted specific procedural gaps within existing transparency frameworks. She explained that Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) currently retain the ability to edit or potentially delete records of reported meetings with lobbyists, which could undermine accountability.st
According to Gedin, introducing a limited time frame for editing such records would improve oversight and allow for more effective follow-up. She further emphasised that the absence of consistent reporting remains a core issue, stating that it is “difficult to monitor” whether all relevant meetings are disclosed.
Disconnect Between Monitoring Systems
Gedin also drew attention to a lack of integration between different monitoring mechanisms within the Parliament. She observed that systems such as parcel screening, visitor logs, and transparency disclosures are not systematically linked, creating potential blind spots in oversight.
Additionally, she pointed out that lobbyists may access Parliament buildings using badges without necessarily linking their visit to a specific MEP or official engagement. She suggested that mandatory linkage of such visits could enable cross-checking with the EU Transparency Register, thereby strengthening accountability.
Safeguards Against Foreign Influence
Office-Level Measures
In response to questions regarding safeguards within her own office, Gedin stated that she and her team do not engage with organisations or representatives that appear to have direct or indirect links to the Russian state.
She clarified that this policy applies to both formal and informal interactions, indicating a strict approach to avoiding potential foreign influence.
While this reflects a clear political stance, Gedin did not elaborate on specific procedural mechanisms or internal verification processes used to assess such links.
Reform Proposals for Strengthening EU Resilience
Emphasis on Transparency and Democratic Accountability
Gedin outlined a series of reform proposals aimed at enhancing the European Union’s resilience to foreign interference. Central to her approach is the prioritisation of transparency and democratic accountability.
She expressed support for EU-wide disclosure requirements covering major donors, lobbying organisations, and think tanks, particularly in cases involving funding from authoritarian governments or oligarchic networks.
Importantly, she advocated for the establishment of an independent EU transparency authority to oversee such measures, rather than placing responsibility within security agencies. According to Gedin, this would help prevent politicisation and maintain institutional neutrality.
Balanced Approach to Monitoring NGOs and Civil Society
Addressing the regulation of NGOs and consultancies, Gedin emphasised the need for proportionate, risk-based monitoring mechanisms. She stated that oversight should focus on entities engaged in lobbying, strategic communications, or political campaigning.
At the same time, she stressed that humanitarian, environmental, and social justice organisations should not be adversely affected. Gedin warned against the potential misuse of national security frameworks in ways that could restrict civil society or undermine democratic freedoms.
Media Oversight and Information Integrity
On the issue of media and research platforms, Gedin expressed support for public-interest oversight mechanisms, including independent fact-checking bodies and transparency requirements for funding sources.
She also called for stronger obligations on platforms to clearly label state-backed media outlets. However, she underscored the importance of safeguarding academic freedom and journalistic independence, noting that these are essential components of a functioning democracy.
Parliamentary Scrutiny and Accountability Measures
Support for Formal Inquiries
Gedin confirmed her support for enhanced parliamentary scrutiny and formal investigations into foreign-linked organisations operating within EU policymaking environments.
She stated that such inquiries must be transparent and produce tangible outcomes where evidence of foreign influence is identified.
Proposed Consequences for Misconduct
Among the measures she outlined were:
- Suspension of access to Parliament premises
- Automatic security screening of parcels
- Suspension of voting rights for implicated MEPs
- Waiver of parliamentary immunity where appropriate
- Suspension of financial allowances
Gedin emphasised that accountability must affect what she described as the “three Ps”: pocket, public image, and power.
Institutional Reform Options
At the institutional level, she suggested exploring the creation of an independent EU transparency authority or expanding the mandates of existing bodies such as the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) and the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF).
She also highlighted structural challenges in enforcing accountability, including limitation periods and insufficient minimum penalties for corruption-related offences.
Democratic Resilience and Public Trust
Role of Elected Representatives
Reflecting on her role as an elected official, Gedin stated that rebuilding public trust requires consistency between political rhetoric and actual conduct.
She argued that elected representatives must apply the same standards to themselves that they advocate for others, reinforcing credibility and accountability within democratic institutions.
Broader Structural Concerns
Gedin expanded the discussion beyond foreign interference, pointing to the broader influence of oligarchs, lobbyists, and corporate interests within political systems.
She noted that “power and profit often reinforce one another,” creating structural vulnerabilities that can be exploited by both domestic and foreign actors.
According to Gedin, addressing these underlying dynamics is essential for strengthening democratic resilience across the European Union.
Context of the Inquiry
The response follows an inquiry from Brussels Watch, an independent investigative platform focusing on foreign interference and institutional integrity within the EU. The organisation’s request referenced findings from its October 2025 report, which examined alleged strategies used by Russian state actors and affiliated networks to influence EU policymaking.
The inquiry posed five key questions covering transparency rules, internal safeguards, reform proposals, parliamentary scrutiny, and the broader role of MEPs in defending democratic systems.
The response from Hanna Gedin provides a detailed perspective on the challenges facing EU institutions in addressing foreign interference. By highlighting gaps in transparency mechanisms, proposing targeted reforms, and emphasising the importance of democratic accountability, Gedin’s remarks contribute to ongoing discussions about safeguarding the integrity of European governance.
Her position underscores a dual approach: strengthening oversight and transparency while ensuring that measures do not undermine civil liberties or the role of civil society.
