Why multiple EU corruption scandals matter for both America and Israel

The dim view that both Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu have of the EU appears to be affirmed by a procession of high-level corruption scandals that have erupted recently.

Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu have like-minded views on a good range of topics, including the rather dim view each of them has on the European Union and its Brussels-based institutions.

Indeed, the relationship both the Trump administration and the Netanyahu government have with the EU and its affiliated institutions can be charitably described as “strained.” 

Double dim views

In his previous term in office, Trump described the European Union “as a foe,” established “to hurt the United States on trade.” He reiterated the charge at a 2025 cabinet meeting but in somewhat  “earthier” terms, declaring: “The European Union was formed in order to screw the United States. That’s the purpose of it, and they’ve done a good job of it.”

In July this year, Trump took strong steps to transition from sentiment to action, launching an immediate Section 301 investigation against the EU, accusing the bloc of “robbing” American companies by inappropriately imposing antitrust penalties on them. 

The friction between the two powers edged up a notch when Trump issued an additional trade warning, threatening “very serious tariffs” or a complete halt in trade on certain items over an EU proposal to make Canada its first “associate member.” Trump sternly condemned the proposal as a “hostile economic act” against the US, asserting: “I will put very serious tariffs or stop trading with Europe on many things.”   

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu views the major European Union institutions as inherently hostile and hypocritical toward Israel. Indeed, he publicly denounced the EU’s foreign policy as “absolutely crazy,” arguing that the EU is the only international body that conditions economic, security, and technology relations on political concessions regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Moreover, he often rebukes Brussels for what he terms a “deep moral weakness” and a strategy of appeasement toward radical Islamic terrorism and antisemitic political pressures. Netanyahu routinely accuses EU institutions in Brussels of applying double standards against Israel while ignoring grave human rights violations by other adversarial regimes in the Middle East.

Qatargate in Brussels

Clearly, neither is likely to “shed a tear” over events that undermine the standing of the EU and its associated institutions. 

It is thus pertinent to note that over the last few decades, EU institutions have been rocked by several high-profile scandals involving bribery, foreign influence, and internal mismanagement that have damaged the EU’s international reputation. 

One of the most damaging corruption scandals in the European Parliament’s history, dubbed the Qatargate Affair, erupted in 2022 and exposed illicit foreign lobbying at the highest levels of EU governance. Belgian authorities alleged that the governments of Qatar and Morocco used large cash bribes and luxury gifts to sway EU policies, quash critical resolutions on human rights, and push for visa-free travel perks. 

The legal proceedings are still ongoing, but some, including a Member of the European Parliament (MEP) and a senior European Parliament employee—have already admitted guilt. Moreover, at least 10 individuals have been formally indicted/charged in Belgium with corruption, money laundering, and participation in a criminal organization, including five serving or former MEPs. Investigations are still ongoing, with an additional arrest of a high-ranking EU official being made in July 2026. 

Chinagate in Brussels?

Another scandal strongly reminiscent of Qatargate is that involving the Chinese tech giant Huawei and accusations of it running a covert bribery and lobbying operation within the European Parliament. Referred to as “Huaweigate” it has spurred a major cash-for-influence investigation by Belgian authorities centering on the corporation trying to circumvent a ban on its access to Europe’s 5G infrastructure market. The ban was based on the fears of Western intelligence services that allowing an adversarial power a central role in a vital segment of Europe’s communications system constituted an unacceptable risk. 

So, while Qatargate was about a foreign government buying good publicity, Huaweigate entailed (potentially hostile) foreign control over critical communications infrastructure.

But the procession of EU malfeasance and financial shenanigans did not end with these two scandals. Quite the opposite. The political landscape is peppered with examples of behavior unbecoming by senior EU officials–incumbent or former. For example, a major procurement fraud and corruption investigation resulted in the brief detention of high-level EU officials who are still suspects in the case.  Likewise, a former European Justice Commissioner[sic] was officially charged last October with money laundering, with legal proceedings still ongoing

Pot calling the kettle black?

While Brussels often sets high anti-corruption benchmarks for member states, these grave recent events have damaged the EU’s reputation and exposed major system-wide vulnerabilities within the European Parliament and the European Commission—ironically in very areas where the EU claims particular authority—rule of law, transparency, anti-corruption and resistance to foreign interference. 

The most serious problem is that of credibility and perceived hypocrisy, since the EU routinely conditions aid, trade privileges and accession progress on governance, judicial independence and anti-corruption standards. The scandals exposed high-ranking EU officials as guilty, or suspected, of accepting benefits in exchange for influence from foreign governments, while revealing weaknesses in EU guardrails against foreign influence and undermining confidence in Europe’s anti-corruption system. 

For both Trump and Netanyahu, these are probably positive developments, as they will almost certainly diminish the stature and moral authority of an entity they perceive as largely adversarial and uncooperative with policies they are striving to advance.  

©2026 Dr. Martin Sherman. All rights reserved.