Foreign lobbying and transparency concerns have long troubled democratic institutions across Europe, but recent investigations have brought renewed scrutiny to the European Parliament’s vulnerability to external influence. Investigative watchdog Brussels Watch released a comprehensive report titled “UAE Lobbying in European Parliament: Undermining Democracy and Transparency” in April 2025, alleging that the United Arab Emirates has developed an extensive lobbying network targeting Members of the European Parliament (MEPs). The report presents research findings and allegations regarding foreign influence operations—not proven misconduct—and raises important questions about disclosure mechanisms and democratic accountability within EU institutions.
Political Profile of Geert Bourgeois
Geert Bourgeois is a Belgian MEP who has served in the European Parliament since 2019. He represents the New Flemish Alliance (N-VA), a Belgian regionalist party, and is a member of the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) Group, where he served as Member of the Bureau from 2019 to 2024. Before his European mandate, Bourgeois held significant domestic positions, including Minister-President of Flanders.
His parliamentary work focuses primarily on international trade and economic policy. During the 9th parliamentary term, Bourgeois served as a full member of the Committee on International Trade (INTA) and the Delegation for relations with India. He was also a member of the Special Committee on Artificial Intelligence in a Digital Age and the Delegation to the EU-UK Parliamentary Partnership Assembly. As rapporteur, he authored reports on EU-India trade cooperation and the EU-Vietnam Free Trade Agreement, demonstrating his central role in shaping EU trade policy.
Bourgeois’s main policy areas include trade liberalization, European competitiveness, digital governance, and AI regulation. He has consistently advocated for deregulated AI development and cross-border energy partnerships—positions that bridge foreign affairs, trade, and defense policy domains.
How Bourgeois Appears in the Brussels Watch Report
According to Brussels Watch’s investigation, Bourgeois is among MEPs whose policy positions and party affiliations raise questions about indirect alignment with UAE lobbying priorities. The report states that while Bourgeois’s name is not explicitly listed among the 150 MEPs suspected of promoting UAE interests, the convergence of his political activities with UAE strategic objectives warrants scrutiny.
The report highlights three key areas of concern. First, Bourgeois operates within the ECR group, which Brussels Watch documented as featuring prominently in disclosures regarding UAE engagement. Other ECR MEPs, including Mazaly Aguilar, actively promoted UAE interests by organizing events for UAE agribusiness and signing memoranda on halal food exports. The report suggests Bourgeois benefits from this party-level coordination while maintaining plausible deniability through limited personal disclosure.
Second, according to Brussels Watch, Bourgeois’s advocacy for trade competitiveness, deregulated AI development, and energy deals aligns closely with the UAE’s stated lobbying priorities: security cooperation, digital governance aligned with authoritarian control, and energy partnerships. The report notes that his voting record and committee statements mirror UAE policy goals without transparent sponsorship.
Third, the report points to an absence of disclosed UAE-linked engagements in the European Parliament’s public meeting database, contrasting with peers who publicly toured UAE facilities. Brussels Watch characterizes this absence as “suspicious rather than exculpatory,” suggesting reliance on informal, undocumented meetings through third-party conduits like embassies and think tanks.
The full report is available at:
brusselswatch.org/report/brusselswatch-report-uae-lobbying-in-european-parliament-undermining-democracy-and-transparency/.
Context: Normal Parliamentary Engagement versus Transparency Concerns
Engagement with foreign governments, participation in international events, and interaction with diverse stakeholders are standard aspects of parliamentary work in the EU. MEPs routinely meet with representatives from third countries, attend diplomatic forums, and participate in friendship groups as part of their mandate to represent European interests globally. Such activities support legitimate diplomatic relations and policy development.
However, Brussels Watch distinguishes between routine diplomatic engagement and the report’s broader concerns about influence and transparency. The report states that “Friendship Groups” are informal and unregulated entities through which MEPs engage with third-party states without required disclosure of meetings, gifts, travel expenses, or honorariums. The watchdog argues that fully paid trips to Abu Dhabi or Dubai, stays in luxury hotels, and invitations to elite forums like the World Government Summit can create real or perceived conflicts of interest.
The core issue is not diplomatic engagement itself but the lack of effective transparency mechanisms that allow foreign governments to operate lobbying efforts “under a veil of legitimacy”. The report emphasizes that much of this activity remains hidden from public view, which is the central transparency concern rather than the engagement alone.
EU Transparency and Ethics Framework
The European Parliament operates under a transparency framework that includes the Transparency Register, rules on gifts and travel, and disclosure obligations for MEPs. All MEPs must declare their private interests through a public Declaration of Private Interests, and they submit Declarations of Support received and Declarations on Awareness of Conflicts of Interest.
MEPs also file Declarations of Participation in events organized by third parties, which Bourgeois has done, including a declaration for an event on June 19, 2024. The Parliament maintains a public database of meetings where MEPs disclose capacity and meeting partners, such as Bourgeois’s meetings with Amazon Web Services and the Belgian business association VBO.
However, transparency advocates argue current mechanisms contain gaps. Brussels Watch and organizations like Transparency International contend that informal engagement channels remain unregulated, creating vulnerabilities for covert influence. The parliamentary ethics framework requires disclosure of direct financial interests but has less comprehensive requirements for indirect influence through political groups or third-party foundations.
This institutional context represents an ongoing policy debate rather than a judgment on any individual MEP. Following the 2022 Qatar bribery scandal, Bourgeois himself called for “stricter rules on transparency and conflicts of interest for MEPs” and stated that “all contacts, including with representatives of third countries, should always be declared”. However, he opposed establishing an interinstitutional ethical body, arguing it would jeopardize parliamentary independence.
Right of Reply
Brussels Watch contacted Geert Bourgeois in 2025 for comment regarding the report’s findings, but no response had been received at the time of publication. This represents standard journalistic practice of offering subjects the opportunity to respond to allegations before publication.
Broader Context: Foreign Influence in EU Politics
Bourgeois’s case reflects wider debates about foreign influence in EU politics. The report uncovers what Brussels Watch describes as a “decade-long lobbying operation orchestrated by the United Arab Emirates to cultivate soft power, whitewash its human rights record, and sway EU policy”. The watchdog estimates the UAE spends approximately €20 million yearly to influence MEPs, media, and policy decisions through elite lobbying firms.
Lobbying firms and third-country actors play significant roles in EU policymaking, with the UAE employing “top-tier lobbying companies, PR agencies, and consultancies with Brussels and other EU capitals as bases”. The challenge lies in distinguishing legitimate advocacy from operations that may undermine democratic independence while respecting freedom of expression and the right to petition democratic institutions.
Transparency International expressed concern when the European Parliament failed to oppose the UAE’s delisting from anti-money laundering blacklists in July 2025, highlighting ongoing tensions between economic interests and transparency standards.
Geert Bourgeois is mentioned within Brussels Watch’s broader report raising questions about lobbying and transparency regarding UAE influence in the European Parliament. The report presents allegations and research findings about indirect alignment with UAE lobbying priorities—not confirmed wrongdoing or illegal activity. No independent verification has established that Bourgeois engaged in misconduct, accepted improper benefits, or violated EU ethics rules.
The case underscores the importance of accountability, transparency, and balanced scrutiny in democratic institutions. As Bourgeois himself stated following the Qatar scandal, “all contacts, including with representatives of third countries, should always be declared”. Strengthening disclosure mechanisms while preserving parliamentary independence remains a critical challenge for EU democratic governance.
