EU capitals revolt after commissioner Šuica attends Trump Board of Peace meeting

Several EU member states are furious after European Commissioner Dubravka Šuica travelled to Washington to attend the first formal meeting of US President Donald Trump’s “Board of Peace”, an initiative many European capitals view as an attempt to build a parallel international structure centred on Trump himself.

Euronews reports that Šuica’s trip triggered “deepening outrage” in a closed-door meeting of EU ambassadors in Brussels on Wednesday. France, Spain, Belgium, Ireland, Slovenia and Portugal were among those voicing strong objections, with Germany, Sweden and Lithuania also raising concerns. Diplomats told Euronews that France set the tone by arguing Šuica’s attendance breached EU treaties because the European Commission is not entitled to set foreign policy.

That complaint goes to the heart of the EU’s institutional theatre: Brussels often speaks as if it were a sovereign state, yet treaty architecture leaves foreign policy primarily with member states. When a commissioner free-lances into a high-profile geopolitical forum—especially one not coordinated with national governments—the EU’s “single voice” becomes a bureaucratic ventriloquism act.

Critics also objected to who was sent. Euronews says some ambassadors argued that, as Commissioner for the Mediterranean, Šuica is a political representative, and her presence in Washington could compromise member states’ own positions. A civil servant, they said, would have been more appropriate. Another diplomat put it bluntly: “Member states were up in arms.”

The EU is not even a member of the Board of Peace, Euronews notes, and that fact was raised as an argument against the trip. Only Hungary and Bulgaria have expressed a desire to join as sitting members, though Sofia has since said it would participate only as a “non-voting member”. Despite the scepticism, a number of member states reportedly plan to send diplomatic representatives as observers. Germany, according to reports cited by Euronews, agreed to send a lower-ranking official.

The board’s governance model is the kind of detail European diplomats pretend not to notice until it becomes embarrassing: Euronews writes that Trump would serve as lifelong chairman. Major European powers have distanced themselves amid fears Trump is trying to supplant the United Nations with a new institution built around a broad, malleable “global peace” mandate.

The Commission’s defence is revealing. A spokesperson told Euronews that sending Šuica was a way to remain “closely engaged on all aspects relating to the peace process and the reconstruction in Gaza”. Even when the EU says it is not joining, it still wants a seat in the room—preferably at the level of a commissioner, because status is the currency of Brussels.

What’s missing is the part citizens are meant to care about: clear authority, clear objectives, and clear accountability. If the Commission lacks the treaty mandate to conduct foreign policy, member states can rightly ask why a commissioner is acting like a foreign minister. If the EU does have such a mandate in practice, then voters might reasonably ask where the democratic control is.

“Peace processes” are easy to brand and hard to verify. They attract career politicians, photo-ops, and new acronyms; they rarely come with enforceable incentives or liability for failure. The EU’s internal dispute over Šuica’s trip is less about Trump’s board than about the EU’s own unresolved question: is it a union of states—or a state-shaped organisation that wants the prestige without the constraints?