Aletho News

1. BBC’s May 14 interview with Gaza aid chief was shameful

By Jonathan Cook | May 14, 2025

There was yet more shameful reporting by BBC News at Ten last night, with international editor Jeremy Bowen the chief culprit this time.

He prefaced an interview with Philippe Lazzarini, head of United Nations refugee agency UNRWA, with an utterly unwarranted disclaimer – as though he was talking to a terrorist, not a leading human rights advocate who has been desperately trying to keep the last aid life-lines open to the people of Gaza as they are being actively starved to death by Israel.

The only time I can remember Bowen prefacing an interview in such apologetic terms was when he interviewed Hamas' deputy political chief, Khalil al-Hayya, last October.

That was shameful too. But at least on that occasion, Bowen had an excuse: under Britain's draconian Terrorism Act, saying or doing anything that might be viewed as favouring Hamas can land you with a 14-year prison sentence for supporting terrorism.

But why on earth would Bowen imply that Lazzarini's remarks – on the intense suffering of Gaza's population in the third month of a complete Israeli aid blockade – need to be treated with caution, in the same manner as those of a Hamas leader?

For one reason only. Because Israel, quite preposterously and for completely self-serving reasons, claims UNRWA is a front for Hamas. Since January, Israel has outlawed the organisation from operating in the Palestinian territories it continues to illegally occupy. As ever, the BBC is terrified of upsetting the Israelis.

Israel has long wanted UNRWA out of the picture because it is the last significant organisation to uphold the rights of Palestinian refugees enshrined in international law. It is, therefore, a major obstacle to Israel ethnically cleansing Palestinians from what is left of their homeland.

Before airing the interview with Lazzarini, Bowen cautioned: "Israel says he is a liar, and that his organisation has been infiltrated by Hamas. But I felt it was important to talk to him for a number of reasons.

"First off, the British government deals with him, and funds his organisation. Which is the largest dealing with Palestinian refugees. They know a lot of what is going on, so therefore I think it is important to speak to people like him."

Bowen would never consider prefacing an interview with Benjamin Netanyahu in a similar manner, even though the following would actually be truthful and far more deserved:

"The International Criminal Court has issued an arrest warrant for the Israeli prime minister, accusing him of crimes against humanity. But I felt it was important to talk to him for a number of reasons.

"First off, the British government deals with him, and sends weapons to his military to carry out the crimes he is accused of. As its leader, he obviously knows a lot about what Israel is up to, so therefore I think it is important to speak to someone like him."

Can you imagine the BBC ever introducing Netanyahu in that way? Of course, you can't – even though, in journalistic, ethical and legal terms, it would be fully warranted.

But in the case the Lazzarini, there are absolutely no grounds for such a prologue – except to promote an Israeli pro-genocide agenda. Bowen's remarks suggest he needs to explain why, in the midst of an Israeli-engineered famine in Gaza, the BBC would choose to speak to one of the most knowledgeable public figures about that starvation.

Bowen's resort to an explanation instantly paints Lazzarini as problematic and controversial. It aligns with, and reinforces, Israel's entirely bogus conflation of UNRWA and Hamas.

Even were Israel's claims about UNRWA true of local staff in Gaza – and Israel has supplied precisely no evidence they are, as Lazzarini makes clear in a longer edit of the interview that aired on the BBC's Six O'Clock News – that would in no way implicate Lazzarini. His remarks in the interview, on the catastrophic suffering of Gaza, are echoed by all aid agencies.

Bowen's apologetic tone not only served to undercut the power of what Lazzarini was saying, but bolstered Israel's ridiculous smears of UNRWA. That will have delighted Israel, and given it a little bit more leeway to carry on the starvation of Gaza, even as the first establishment voices tentatively start calling time on the genocide – 19 months too late.

Notice this from Bowen too. He asks Lazzarini: 'When people look back on what's been happening in the future, will they see, actually, a big international failure?"

Lazzarini responds: "I think in the coming years we will realise how wrong we have been, how on the wrong side of history we have been. We have, under our watch, let a massive atrocity unfold."

Bowen jumps in: "Would you include the 7th of October in that?"

Lazzarini answers: "I would definitely include the 7th of October."

But the set-up from Bowen is entirely unfair. He asks Lazzarini a question about "international failure" in relation to Gaza, and Lazzarini responds about the failure by the West to do anything to stop an atrocity – more properly a genocide – unfold over the past 19 months.

The events of 7 October 2023 are irrelevant to that discussion. There has been no "international failure" to support Israel. The West has armed it to the hilt and prioritised the suffering caused to Israelis by Hamas' one-day attack over the incomparably greater suffering caused to Palestinians by 19 months of Israel's slaughter and starvation.

Bowen's interjected question about 7 October is a nonsense. It is levered in simply to cast further doubt on Lazzarini's good faith in the hope of placating Israel, or at least providing the BBC with a defence when Israel goes on the offensive against Bowen for speaking to UNRWA.

The atrocities carried out on October 7 occurred in the context of decades of brutal and illegal Israeli military occupation of the Palestinian territories, of settlement expansion and apartheid rule, and of a 16-year siege of Gaza.

The international community was certainly on the "wrong side of history", but not in the sense Bowen intends or Lazzarini infers from Bowen's question. The West failed because it did precisely nothing to stop Israel's brutalisation of the Palestinian people over those many decades – in fact, the West assisted Israel – and thereby guaranteed that Palestinians in Gaza would seek to break out of their concentration camp sooner or later.

Lazzarini's remarks on the catastrophe in Gaza should be seen as self-evident. But Bowen and the BBC undermined his message by framing him and his organisation as suspect – and all because Israel, a criminal state starving the people of Gaza, has made an entirely unfounded allegation against the organisation trying to stop its crimes against humanity.

This is the same pattern of smears from Israel that has claimed all 36 hospitals in Gaza are Hamas "command and control centres" – again without a shred of evidence – to justify it bombing them all, leaving Gaza's population without any meaningful health care system as malnutrition and starvation take hold.

Israel struck another hospital yesterday, the European Hospital in Khan Younis, as medics there were waiting to evacuate sick and injured children. The attack killed at least 28 people and injured many more, including a BBC freelance journalist who was conducting an interview there as the missiles hit.

Notably, BBC News at Ten blanked out its journalist's face, adding: "For his safety, we are not revealing his name." The BBC did not explain who the journalist needed protecting from, or why.

That is because the BBC rarely mentions that Israel has assassinated more than 200 Palestinian journalists in Gaza, as well as banning all foreign correspondents from entering the enclave, in its attempts to limit news coverage and smear what does come out as Hamas propaganda. Israel understands it is easier to commit genocide in the dark.

You might assume a major news organisation like the BBC would wish to be seen showing at least some solidarity with those being murdered for doing journalism – some of them while working to provide the BBC with news. You would be wrong.

We shouldn't pretend that it was Bowen's choice to attach such a disgraceful disclaimer to his interview. We all understand that he is under enormous pressure, both from within the BBC and outside.

BBC executives have appointed and protected Raffi Berg, a man who publicly counts a former senior figure in Israel's spy agency Mossad as a friend, to oversee the corporation's Middle East coverage.

And as the late Greg Philo reported in his 2011 book More Bad News from Israel, a BBC News editor told him at that time: "We wait in fear for the telephone call from the Israelis". Things are far, far worse 14 years on.

Excuses won't wash any longer. We are 19 months into a genocide. Helping Israel to launder its crimes is to become complicit in them. No journalist should be allowing themselves to be pressured into this kind of moral and professional failure.

2. Netanyahu: Israel is destroying Gaza so Palestinians are forced to leave

MEMO | May 14, 2025

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told members of the Knesset's Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee on Sunday that Tel Aviv is "destroying more and more houses [in Gaza] so the Palestinians will have nowhere to return," according to quotes from the session leaked to the media.

"The only obvious result will be Gazans choosing to emigrate outside of the Strip," Netanyahu continued, adding that Israel's "main problem is finding countries to take them in."

"I know I will disappoint some people here, but we are not talking about Israeli settlements in the Gaza Strip right now," Netanyahu told lawmakers.

According to partial transcripts from the meeting leaked to the Israeli Maariv newspaper, Member of the Knesset Limor Son Har-Melech replied: "Bring the Jews of the United States [to settle Gaza]. That way, we can kill two birds with one stone."

Netanyahu also claimed that the US "remains interested in the plan to take over the Strip's administration" but the Times of Israel quoted sources familiar with the matter as saying that the Trump administration has put minimal effort into actually advancing Trump's Gaza takeover plan since it was announced in early February following the massive pushback it received from Arab allies.

The Israeli military has destroyed most of the Gaza Strip during the ongoing military operations, displacing 1.9 million Palestinians multiple times within the Strip, amid deteriorating humanitarian conditions.

Israel has also imposed a complete blockade on the Strip, preventing the entry of food, water, fuel, medicines and all humanitarian aid since early March, exacerbating the suffering of the besieged population.

3. US court hits Israeli spyware firm NSO with $167m fine over Pegasus abuses

MEMO | May 14, 2025

A federal jury in California has ordered Israeli surveillance firm NSO Group to pay Meta $167 million in punitive damages, marking the first time a court has imposed financial liability on a spyware vendor for abuses linked to its software.

The ruling sends a strong signal that private firms profiting from invasive surveillance technology will not be shielded by their association with government clients. After a single day of deliberation, jurors found that NSO had acted with "malice, oppression or fraud" in deploying its Pegasus spyware against 1,400 WhatsApp users.

Pegasus, which grants near-total access to a target's device, including microphones, cameras and encrypted messages, was used not against criminals, but journalists, human rights defenders and political dissidents. Meta, which owns WhatsApp, described the hacking as "despicable" and a clear violation of privacy rights.

NSO has long claimed that its spyware is sold only to vetted state clients for national security purposes. However, investigations have shown Pegasus being deployed to facilitate transnational repression by authoritarian regimes.

The previous US administration blacklisted NSO over its role in such abuses, making it the first company added to the US entity list for enabling state surveillance. The jury's decision is expected to add pressure on Washington to further regulate the commercial spyware sector.

While the financial penalty may prove difficult to collect, the judgement itself sets a precedent: spyware firms can be held directly accountable in US courts, regardless of the state affiliations of their customers.

In doing so, the case reframes digital privacy not merely as a user expectation, but as a civil right  and signals that the impunity long enjoyed by private surveillance actors is coming to an end.

4. F-35 near-misses over Yemen signal new risks for ‘Israel’

Al Mayadeen | May 14, 2025

US F-16 and F-35 fighter jets encountered heavy close-range fire from Ansar Allah air defenses during Operation Rough Rider, the two-month US aggression against Ansar Allah that was launched by President Donald Trump in mid-March, according to Forbes.

According to a Monday report by The New York Times, unspecified Ansar Allah air defenses came dangerously close to striking US fourth-generation F-16s and fifth-generation F-35s during the initial 30 days of Operation Rough Rider, raising concerns about potential American casualties. During the same period, Ansar Allah forces successfully shot down seven MQ-9 Reaper drones.

The potential downing of a US fighter jet and the resulting capture of a pilot by Ansar Allah forces presented a scenario that the current administration was determined to avoid, Forbes stated.

The loss of one of America's exclusively exported stealth fighters to Ansar Allah air defenses, which had previously been considered largely improvised and relatively rudimentary, would have dealt a severe blow to US fighter jet prestige while potentially jeopardizing future arms export agreements.

'Israel' faces similar risks

Forbes highlighted that the near-misses involving US F-35s during operations over Yemen carry significant consequences for "Israel" as well, particularly since the Israeli Air Force initiated its first long-range strikes against Ansar Allah in July 2024 following a successful drone attack by the group that reached Tel Aviv. In March, shortly after initiating Operation Rough Rider, the US advised "Israel" against carrying out further attacks.

Trump declared the Yemen ceasefire shortly after "Israel" conducted strikes following an Ansar Allah missile attack that had successfully hit its major airport near Tel Aviv.

While US Marine Corps F-35Bs conduct operations from amphibious assault ships and Navy F-35Cs launch from supercarriers positioned near Yemen's coast, "Israel" lacks comparable forward deployment capabilities for its F-35Is, forcing them to rely on aerial refueling to cover the more than 1,000-mile flight distance and severely limiting their available loiter time over Yemeni airspace during missions.

Given that Ansar Allah's air defenses have already posed risks to US F-35s, Israeli F-35Is conducting long-range missions could also face similar threats, and if one were to be shot down over Yemen, it would provide Ansar Allah with an unprecedented image of a victory, according to the US magazine.

Future Israeli F-35I sorties over Yemen will likely avoid operating at maximum combat capability to minimize risk exposure.

5. UNIFIL Raises Alarm Over Israeli Aggression Near Blue Line

Al-Manar | May 14, 2025

The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) expressed serious concern over what it described as "recent hostile actions" by the Israeli occupation forces targeting UN peacekeepers and UN property near the Blue Line, including a direct fire incident on Monday.

Direct Hit on UNIFIL Base

In an official statement, UNIFIL reported that around 7:20 PM on Monday, peacekeepers observed two gunshots fired from the so-called "Israeli side" of the Blue Line. One of the bullets directly struck a UNIFIL base near the southern Lebanese village of Kfar Shouba.

"This marks the first direct hit on a UNIFIL site since the cessation of hostilities agreement on November 27, 2024," the statement noted.

UNIFIL also documented at least four other incidents in recent days involving Israeli fire near its positions along the Blue Line. The mission cited additional "hostile behavior" by the Israeli occupation forces targeting peacekeepers conducting operational activities in line with UN Security Council Resolution 1701.

Laser Targeting and Drone Harassment

The statement detailed several other troubling encounters. On Monday, UN peacekeepers patrolling with the Lebanese Army near Maroun Al-Ras reported being targeted with a laser beam from an Israeli occupation army position.

A similar incident occurred on May 7 near Alma Al-Shaab, when a UNIFIL patrol was illuminated with laser beams from two Israeli Merkava tanks.

As the patrol moved, a drone flew overhead at a low altitude of approximately five meters and followed it for nearly a kilometer. In a separate incident the same day, a reconnaissance drone repeatedly circled a UNIFIL site near the town of Houla.

UNIFIL Lodges Protest

UNIFIL strongly condemned these actions, reaffirming its protest and urging all parties to uphold their responsibility to ensure the safety and security of UN personnel and property.

"The sanctity of UN premises, personnel, and assets must be respected at all times," the mission emphasized.

6. India, Pakistan, and the future of the Indus Waters Treaty

By Amin Noorafkan | Press TV | May 14, 2025

On April 22, 2025, militants carried out a brutal attack on tourists at a hill resort in Indian-administered Kashmir, leaving 26 people dead. Indian authorities swiftly blamed Pakistan, responding by downgrading diplomatic ties and initiating a series of escalatory measures.

Among these measures, one that took many observers by surprise was India's decision to suspend the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) – a landmark water-sharing agreement signed in Karachi in September 1960.

Despite decades of hostilities and multiple wars, the treaty had long endured as a rare symbol of cooperation between the two estranged neighbors.

As tensions surged, India launched a military operation on the morning of May 7, firing a barrage of missiles deep inside Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir, reportedly killing dozens.

In retaliation, Pakistan struck several Indian cities, including key military installations, three days later.

A ceasefire was brokered just hours after Pakistan's attack, halting the escalation between the two nuclear-armed nations. However, underlying tensions remain high.

A key point of contention is the continued suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty. Pakistan's Deputy Prime Minister Ishaq Dar, in remarks on Monday, warned that the fragile ceasefire could unravel if the treaty is not reinstated.

Indus Waters Treaty: Status, India's stance and Pakistan's response

India's cabinet committee on security announced the Indus Waters Treaty – long seen as a symbol of "water for peace" – would be held "in abeyance" until Pakistan ends its support for cross-border terrorism.

India's Foreign Secretary confirmed the suspension, stating it would remain in place until Pakistan "credibly and irrevocably abjures" terror support.

On the ground, India backed up its announcement with action. It briefly restricted flows on the Chenab River, and then released large volumes of water from the Baglihar and Salal dams as levels rose.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi vowed that "India's water will flow only in India," emphasizing that water previously shared with Pakistan would now be conserved for domestic use.

Echoing this, Jal Shakti Minister C.R. Patil said, "We will ensure that not even a drop of water from the Indus River goes to Pakistan."

In Islamabad, the reaction was defiant and dramatic. Pakistani leaders condemned India's suspension of the treaty as "an act of war".

Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar and military officials publicly warned that blocking Pakistan's water share would trigger a full response. Pakistan also announced it would pursue international legal action.

The government is reportedly preparing cases before the World Bank (the treaty's broker), the Hague's arbitration tribunals and even the International Court of Justice.

This escalation is particularly notable given the treaty's durability. The Indus Waters Treaty remained intact through the wars of 1965, 1971, and 1999.

What is clear is that water has moved to the center of the current standoff. India's handling of dam flows appears to serve more as a signal of power than a direct retaliation; a message to Pakistan that New Delhi can, at will, alter the course of shared rivers.

The Indus basin dams underpin Pakistan's food and energy security. A recent report showed that over 80% of Pakistan's irrigation and nearly 50% of its GDP depend on the Indus water.

But there is another player that needs to be factored into the equation.

China's role and upstream developments

Adding complexity to the dispute is the growing role of China. In January 2023, satellite imagery revealed extensive dam construction by China on the Indus headwaters in Tibet and on the Brahmaputra (Yarlung Zangbo).

Images also show China building a dam on the Mabja Zangbo (which is a tributary flowing toward Nepal and India) and planning a mega-dam on the lower Brahmaputra.

The Brahmaputra provides about 30% of India's freshwater and 44% of its hydropower potential, giving Beijing strategic leverage.

Some analysts warn that India's current use of the IWT as a geopolitical tool could set a precedent, encouraging China to do the same against India downstream.

China's involvement also has a strategic aspect. Under the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), Beijing has poured billions into Pakistan's hydropower sector, co-developing large dams like Diamer-Bhasha, Dasu, and Mohmand. These projects are central to Pakistan's water and energy plans, and China's investment makes it a key stakeholder.

As a result, any dramatic shift in Indus water flows or treaty dynamics is unlikely to remain a bilateral issue. China could respond directly, especially on the Brahmaputra, or through its partnership with Pakistan, by accelerating joint hydropower projects.

A fragile equilibrium

India's moves risk triggering a "double-edged sword." By choking Indus flows, it could prompt Beijing to tighten its grip on Himalayan rivers flowing into India.

In effect, the water dispute now entangles three powers: India, Pakistan, and China, each competing for control over critical transboundary rivers.

However, not all leverage is equal. While China's upstream position on the Brahmaputra is significant, its practical impact is more limited. The Brahmaputra's flow through India is largely driven by monsoons, with only 7–10% originating in Tibet.

Even a theoretical full diversion (which remains unlikely due to technical and geopolitical constraints) would reduce India's national freshwater by 10–15%, impacting less than 1% of GDP. India's more diversified economy and lower dependence on agriculture (13.5% of GDP) offer some buffer.

Still, China's dam-building project signals its intent to assert hydro-hegemony in the region.

And as tensions mount, rivers are no longer just a source of sustenance; they are emerging as instruments of strategy and power.

Future scenarios for water diplomacy and conflict

The coming months will reveal whether the current crisis can be resolved through diplomacy or whether tensions will spiral further.

Pakistan appears determined to internationalize the dispute. It has signaled intentions to pursue legal action through the World Bank – the designated facilitator of the Indus Waters Treaty – as well as the Permanent Court of Arbitration and potentially the International Court of Justice.

However, the World Bank has already sought to distance itself. President Ajay Banga stated that the institution has "no role to play beyond a facilitator," casting doubt on its capacity to mediate a meaningful resolution.

As of now, there are no reports of substantive diplomatic progress. This vacuum raises the risk that the ceasefire may falter, potentially reigniting conflict. Looking ahead, several possible scenarios emerge:

• Legal/diplomatic resolution: Pakistan could formally invoke treaty mechanisms, filing for arbitration and launching protests under international law. A mediated renegotiation might follow, potentially involving updated water allocations or enhanced confidence-building measures. India has long advocated for revisions to the treaty. Under international pressure, New Delhi might seek new security guarantees, while Islamabad could push for a more robust monitoring framework to ensure compliance.
• Escalation: If India persists in withholding water flows or damming key rivers in Kashmir, Pakistan's response may not remain confined to legal avenues. Officials have warned of potential covert retaliation, including cyberattacks or sabotage targeting Indian water infrastructure. Military confrontation cannot be ruled out either. Pakistani leadership has labeled water denial as an existential threat, with some officials mentioning the possibility of a "last resort response."
• International mediation/coercion: While the World Bank has signaled a limited role, other global actors may step in. The United States, which helped broker the current ceasefire, could take further steps to mediate the water dispute. Other states – including China, Iran, and Saudi Arabia – may offer to facilitate negotiations or introduce incentives for cooperation. Thus far, however, India has resisted most third-party involvement, making an exception only for US-led efforts.

Amin Noorafkahn is a student of regional studies at Allamah Tabatabai University, Tehran. He is interested in political science, literature, and sociology.

7. Florida Rejects Controversial Encryption Backdoor Bill

By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | May 13, 2025

Legislators in the US state of Florida have shot down a bid to introduce a law that would have mandated encryption backdoors.

The outcome of the effort – known as SB 868: Social Media Use by Minors – means that the backdoors would have allowed encryption to be weakened in this fundamental way affecting all platforms where minors might choose to open an account.

As the fear-mongering campaign against encryption is being reiterated over and over again, it's worth repeating – there is no known way of undermining encryption for any one category of users, without leaving the entire internet open and at the mercy of anything from government spies, to plain criminals.

And that affects both people's communications and transactions.

Not to mention that while framing such radical proposals as needed for a declaratively equally large goal to achieve – the safety of youth online – in reality, by shuttering encryption, young people and everyone else are negatively affected.

If anything, it would make everyone online less secure, and, by nature of the world –  young people more so than others.

And so, Florida's Senate on announced that SB 868 is now "indefinitely postponed and withdrawn from consideration."

The idea behind the proposal was to allow law enforcement access to communications on a social platform – by forcing a company to build in backdoors any time law enforcement came up either with a warrant – or merely a subpoena.

The focus of the bill was "ephemeral" messages – as in, preventing those defined as minors from using the associated features. At the same time, their parents or guardians would have "full access" to their online activities.

"Dangerous and dumb" – is how the digital rights groups Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) earlier summed up and alliterated the proposal.

The US, and its individual states, are not the only ones attempting to create a chink in the armor of global online security by repeatedly attacking online encryption.

Thus far, cooler heads seem to be prevailing, but the battle is far from over, as this fundamental piece of online security continues to be in the crosshairs of, most of the time, authorities hungry for ever-easier ways to conduct ever more invasive mass surveillance.

More: UK's iCloud Encryption Crackdown Explained: Your Questions Answered on Apple's Decision and How it Affects You

8. Iran’s Bold Nuclear Deal 2.0?

By Oleg Burunov – Sputnik – 14.05.2025

After the US unilaterally withdrew from the 2015 Iran nucleal deal in May 2018, subsequent efforts to revive the agreement have largely stalled.

Iran has suggested a joint nuclear enrichment project with US investments and regional Arab nations – Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

Iranian FM Abbas Araghchi offered the idea as an alternative to US demand for the dismantling of Iran's nuclear program during the recent talks with US Special Envoy Steve Witkoff in Oman, the New York Times reports.

Iran would use the venture to enrich uranium to a low grade, beneath the levels needed for nuclear weapons.

Representatives from other countries, including the US, will be on the ground to provide "oversight and involvement."

9. EU Council pushes overhaul to expand speech regulation, target influencers, and tighten control over online platforms

By Dan Frieth | Reclaim The Net | May 14, 2025

As the European Union lays the groundwork for a sweeping overhaul of its audiovisual media regulations, the European Council is doubling down on its campaign to police online speech, draped in the familiar language of "safety" and "harm reduction."

In a set of draft conclusions ahead of the 2026 review of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD), the Council is urging the European Commission to expand regulatory oversight over video-sharing platforms like YouTube and TikTok, demanding stricter measures to counter what it vaguely labels "disinformation" and "societal risks."

We obtained a copy of the draft conclusions for you here.

Under the surface of these bureaucratic formulations lies an unmistakable effort to entrench centralized control over online speech across the EU. While dressed as a protective measure, especially toward children and young people, the Council's recommendations represent a coordinated push to tighten the screws on independent voices, alternative narratives, and the chaotic, open nature of internet communication.

Wrapped in vague definitions and bolstered by expanding EU digital legislation, these proposals are paving the way for a more surveilled, less spontaneous digital public sphere.

Particularly troubling is the call for the Commission to "engage regularly with Member States" to assess how very large online platforms (VLOPs) comply with self-regulatory codes meant to eliminate what the EU designates as "harmful content."

This not only formalizes political pressure on private platforms to suppress speech but does so under a self-justifying cycle where the same institutions define both the problem and the acceptable solution.

The Council also throws its weight behind efforts to classify influencers and independent content creators as formal audiovisual media providers. If adopted, such a move would bring an entire ecosystem of decentralized communication under a regulatory regime designed for legacy broadcasters. This is not about leveling the playing field. It is about reining in anyone who communicates outside the narrow channels of state-sanctioned media.

"In an ever-changing media landscape, we need rules that are both robust and adaptable," stated Hanna Wróblewska, Polish Minister for Culture and National Heritage.

"Today's conclusions highlight the most pressing challenges facing the EU's audiovisual media sector and call for an approach that will ensure all our citizens are protected from harmful content for years to come." The sentiment may sound benign, but in practice, "robust" rules often translate into bureaucratic tools for censorship, and "adaptability" into a blank check for regulators to constantly redraw the boundaries of permissible expression.

The Council's emphasis on combating "foreign information manipulation and interference" (FIMI) also deserves scrutiny. While it invokes threats from abroad, the solutions offered inevitably point inward, toward greater institutional control over speech flows within Europe. The specter of "foreign influence" has long served as a justification to erode civil liberties, and in this context, it becomes a pretext to further entangle state actors in decisions about what citizens can see, share, and say.

The AVMSD was never intended to be a speech-regulating weapon. It was built to coordinate standards across media markets, not dictate what truths may circulate. Yet the Council's conclusions betray a shift away from this principle, echoing a broader authoritarian drift in the EU's digital policymaking. Initiatives like the Digital Services Act and the European Media Freedom Act are increasingly being used to empower unelected bodies to interfere in editorial processes and curate public discourse under the banner of safety.

Calls for "media literacy," "pluralism," and "support for journalistic standards" now serve as euphemisms for state-aligned narratives. Rather than equipping citizens to think critically, these measures promote compliance with officially approved information streams while marginalizing dissent, satire, and counter-establishment viewpoints.

10. EU court overturns Commission’s denial of access to von der Leyen-Pfizer text messages

(Photo by Thierry Monasse/Getty Images)

By Thomas Brooke | Remix News | May 14, 2025

The General Court of the European Union on Wednesday annulled the European Commission's refusal to grant a New York Times journalist access to text messages exchanged between Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla.

According to a communication published on Wednesday, the judgment concluded that the Commission failed to provide a credible explanation for its claim that it no longer holds the requested messages, which were allegedly sent during Covid-19 vaccine procurement negotiations.

The ruling comes in response to a 2022 request by Matina Stevi, a Brussels-based journalist with The New York Times, who sought access to all text messages exchanged between von der Leyen and Bourla between Jan. 1, 2021, and May 11, 2022. The Commission denied the request, stating that it possessed no such documents. Stevi and The New York Times challenged that decision before the EU's General Court.

The full transcript of the Court's ruling was published on its website.

On May 11, 2022, Stevi submitted a formal request to the European Commission seeking access to the text messages. The request was registered by the Commission the following day, on May 12. When the Commission failed to respond within the time frame set by EU transparency rules, Stevi's legal representative filed an initial confirmatory application on June 28, 2022, reiterating the request for access.

On July 20, 2022, the Commission responded to the initial application, stating that it did not possess any documents corresponding to the request. In response, Stevi's representative submitted a second confirmatory application on Aug. 9, 2022, which was formally registered the same day. Later that month, on Aug. 31, the Commission notified Stevi that the deadline for its response would be extended by 15 working days, setting a new target date of Sept. 21.

On Sept. 21, the Commission informed Stevi that the assessment of her application had been completed but that the draft decision still required approval from its Legal Service. Nearly two months later, on Nov. 16, 2022, the Commission issued its final decision, reiterating that it did not hold any of the requested text messages and therefore could not grant access.

The Court found that the Commission's justification was insufficient and that Stevi and The New York Times had provided "relevant and consistent evidence" showing that such messages had existed. The Commission, it said, failed to meet its obligations under the Access to Documents Regulation and the principle of good administration as enshrined in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

The judgment scrutinized the Commission's procedural conduct, noting that it relied on assumptions and imprecise information throughout the request process. It also emphasized that public institutions must document and retain information related to their activities in a "non-arbitrary and predictable manner."

In its decision, the Court stated that "despite those imprecisions, [the Commission] maintains that it does not possess the requested documents, with the result that it is for the applicants to produce relevant and consistent evidence capable of rebutting the presumption of non-possession of those documents."

That presumption was indeed rebutted, the Court held, by a New York Times article and transcripts of interviews conducted by Stevi with both von der Leyen and Bourla in April 2021. The article reported that for a month during vaccine talks, von der Leyen and Bourla "had been exchanging texts and telephone calls." In the interview transcript, Bourla said that "[the Commission President and I] exchanged text messages, if there was something that we needed to discuss," and that von der Leyen had "sent me her phone [number]." These statements provided sufficient grounds for the Court to determine that the text messages likely existed at some point.

The Commission, by contrast, was found to have offered no credible detail about the searches it had conducted for the messages or about their fate. "It remains impossible to know with certainty," the Court wrote, "whether the requested text messages still exist or whether they have been deleted and, if so, whether such a deletion took place deliberately or automatically." The Commission also failed to clarify whether von der Leyen's mobile phone had been replaced, and if so, what happened to the previous device and its data.

"The Commission did not provide in the contested decision any plausible explanation as to why it had not been able to find the requested documents," the Court held.

Furthermore, the Court rejected the Commission's argument that the messages did not constitute official documents because they were allegedly short-lived or lacked policy significance. Even if the messages were not registered in its document system, the Commission was still obligated to retain and account for them under EU transparency rules. "Institutions cannot deprive of all substance the right of access to documents which they hold by failing to register the documentation relating to their activities," the Court held.

The Commission's handling of the request, the Court concluded, "breached the principle of good administration laid down in Article 41 of the Charter."

As a result, it annulled the Commission's decision and ordered the institution to pay the applicants' legal costs.

The judgment has led to calls for greater transparency within EU institutions and among the bloc's leaders.

Rob Roos, a former Dutch MEP who was vice-president of the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) group in the European Parliament during the now-dubbed "Pfizergate scandal," wrote how his legal challenge against the Commission was dismissed at the time.

"My case as an MEP was ruled inadmissible, while a foreign newspaper was accepted. Transparency isn't optional. Democracy demands it. Back to court," he wrote on X.

Hungarian MEP András László slammed the corruption scandals at the highest level in Brussels, which he claimed keep piling up. "Europeans want change in Brussels. We deserve better leadership! Qatargate, Pfizergate, Hololei, Reynders and money laundering, Green Deal and Timmermans, fake NGOs… The interests of Europeans are being sold out. Enough is enough!"

Several other European lawmakers demanded that the text messages now finally be released to see what agreements were reached over Covid-19 vaccines between von der Leyen and Bourla.

"She should have made her text messages in the Pfizergate affair public," said Dutch MEP Marieke Ehlers. "This proves the need for the parliamentary commission of inquiry into transparency proposed by the Patriots for Europe [parliamentary group]."

Anna Bryłka, Polish MEP for the right-wing Confederation, and Spanish MEP Hermann Tertsch of Vox, went further, calling on von der Leyen to resign following the judgment.

The European Commission is yet to formally respond to the judgment.