The Romanian MEP made the demand on the Gandul.ro program “Ai Aflat,” framing von der Leyen not merely as a contested figure but as a source of the unrest now visible in protests and political friction from one member state to another. In his telling, the problem is no longer a matter of ordinary disagreement over policy. It is a question of whether the Commission’s current leadership can still hold a divided Europe together.

“In my view, keeping Ursula von der Leyen at the helm of the European Commission will lead to ever-increasing tensions,” Bogdan said. “A diplomatic and managerial solution should be found—one that allows Ursula von der Leyen to step aside—because, at this moment, she is one of the individuals fueling these tensions within European society.”

The phrasing is deliberate. Bogdan is not calling for a dramatic public confrontation or a sudden institutional rupture. He is asking for an arranged exit: a negotiated, face-saving path that would remove her from office without turning the Commission’s leadership into an open political battlefield. The implication is clear enough. If no such path is found, he expects the pressure to grow.

That argument places him in an awkward but familiar position in European politics. Calls for a Commission president to go are rare from within the mainstream, and rarer still when they come with an explicit warning that the officeholder has become a catalyst for social and political conflict. Bogdan’s case rests on a simple chain of responsibility: the crises and protests shaking Europe, he says, cannot be separated from the woman who has led the Commission through them. Whether that charge is fair is precisely what makes the intervention combustible. Supporters of von der Leyen can point to a presidency defined by successive emergencies—war, energy shocks, migration disputes, and fights over the Union’s direction—and argue that any leader in that seat would have become a lightning rod. Critics hear something else: an admission that the Commission’s authority is wearing thin, and that continuity at the top may now cost more than change.

Bogdan’s preferred remedy is managerial rather than revolutionary. “A solution must be found for her to step aside,” he said, warning that “tensions will deepen if she doesn’t.” The language leaves room for diplomacy, party negotiation, and an orderly succession. It also leaves little room for delay. In his account, time itself has become part of the problem. Every month she remains, he suggests, the grievances accumulate and the space for a controlled transition narrows.

For Brussels, statements like this are more than commentary. The Commission president depends on a coalition of governments, parliamentary groups, and national parties that can fray without ever formally collapsing. A public call from an MEP for her removal does not, by itself, force her out. It does something quieter and potentially more damaging: it signals that patience inside the political family that once sustained her is no longer guaranteed, and that some of her critics now prefer an exit strategy to another round of damage control.

Von der Leyen has not been quoted responding to the remarks. What Bogdan has put on the table, though, is no longer a private complaint. It is a public argument that Europe’s tensions will not ease while she remains in office—and that the only responsible course is to find a way for her to leave before those tensions harden further. 

By Roberto Casseli