This report keeps track of how the public profile of Commissioners, MEPs and national political leaders evolves over time. At a time of heavy rotation of the political elites, at EUmatrix we have started analysing the media reporting in the EU's member states and other international countries (as well as public opinion polls) to measure the popularity capital of political leaders. This allows us to spot early who are the (potentially) rising and falling stars who shape (or will shape) European policy. 

We use a representative sample of media sources with a wide range of political orientations in order to understand the broader picture. In total, we have analysed media reporting by 134 sources during the period 01-04-2025 to 30-04-2025. To this purpose, we employ our human expertise and proprietary state-of-the-art AI tools to collect data and capture media-propagated sentiment towards the domestic readership. 

The "Impact" indicator is calculated taking into account the number of mentions, the average sentiment propagated by each media source (critical/supportive, on a scale from -100 to 100) and the importance of each source in the national media landscape (on a scale from 0 to 100). 

Main findings 

Among the Commissioners, President Ursula von der Leyen and Foreign Affairs Head Kaja Kallas are by far the most reported about across the continent. Trade relations with the US and the war in Ukraine were particularly prominent topics, although other activities, such as von der Leyen's participation in the EU-Central Asia summit also drew media coverage. 

The media seems to prefer staying factual and, overall, presents their activity in a neutral-towards-slightly-positive manner. Notably, the Commissioner with the biggest positive media boost in April was Marta Kos (in her own country), which is linked to the local optimism for the enlargement process. No commissioner has, overall, received net negative media exposure in April, except for in one (unsurprising) country: Russia (where Commissioners such as Ursula von der Leyen and Kaja Kallas are reported negatively). 

However, this overall positive picture might change in our upcoming update for the month of May (for example, due to the coverage of Court judgment on the Pfizergate). 

Compared to Commissioners, MEPs find it difficult to have their activities adequately represented in national media. 

At EUmatrix.eu, we highlight MEPs’ work in our Influence Index, which we will update before the summer holidays.

The table below shows the MEPs whose public image has benefitted from significant positive media exposure (targetting specific audience) during the reporting period:

For example, Negrescu drew media coverage for promoting bigger budget for cohesion and defence, which resonates with Romania's interests. Other MEPs, such as Muresan, are under the spotlight for their activities on EU-US trade relations, a particularly critical topic at the moment. In other cases, such as Vannacci or Montserrat, their appointment to prominent positions within national parties or European Parliament groups attracts substantial media coverage. 

Differently than Commissioners, media reporting on MEPs tends to be more polarized, with some Members drawing more critical media coverage, especially with regards to MEPs from the right-wing nationalist camp. This is also one of the reasons why these MEPs increasingly rely on social media to reach out to supporters and voters. MEPs' social media presence will be assessed in an upcoming study.

The table below showes the MEPs whose public image has suffered from significant negative media exposure (targeting specific audience) during the reporting period:

The media coverage of national leaders—such as ministers, presidents, and party leaders— is, in some cases polarised. The public image of some leaders remains relatively positive or neutral, especially for those from the centre-to-right camp, though there are exceptions (such as Pistorius in Germany). We also observe relatively positive coverage of countries’ presidents, as—unlike prime ministers—they are often better positioned to steer clear of controversies related to the day-to-day management of the country. With our upcoming updates, we will track how media perceptions of national leaders shift—highlighting who gains influence, who loses ground, and the implications for the overall balance of power.

The table below shows the national leaders whose public image has benefitted from significant positive media exposure (targeting specific audience) during the reporting period:

Conversely, other leaders receive more negative media exposure. Nationalist figures such as Viktor Orbán and Marine Le Pen are often subject to critical coverage in Brussels-based and international media—and, to some extent, in their home countries as well. The public image of ministers and prime ministers can also be strained, although it tends to fluctuate over time depending on whether specific controversies arise or fade away. 

National leaders whose public image has suffered from significant negative media exposure (targeting specific audience) during the reporting period:

When it comes to foreign leaders, the new Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney stands out as receiving a substantially positive media exposure in the context of the Canadian 2025 elections. Other leaders from the centre-left camp, such as Obama and Starmer tend to be seen positively or neutrally, while nationalist leaders such as Trump and Netanyahu are more critically exposed (especially in Western and Northern Europe). From the current US administration, Marco Rubio is seen more positively, although JD Vance also received a somewhat balanced media representation. We will keep track of the evolving image of the new US administration as a way to anticipate future trends in the transatlantic relationship. 

Foreign leaders media exposure:** 

Reporting on foreign countries is generally neutral or negative, depending on bilateral relations. Canada is viewed more positively across the EU, while perceptions of the United States and Israel vary significantly, with coverage being slightly critical overall. 

Foreign countries media exposure:** 

The United States is perceived more neutrally in conservative countries where Donald Trump is viewed more favorably, such as Hungary, Romania, and India, while it is seen more critically in Spain and much of Western Europe. Similarly, Israel’s image is strained in countries that tend to have a more conflictual relationship with the Middle-Eastern country, whereas reporting is more neutral in Germany and the United States. 

In contrast to Israel and the United States, coverage of China and Russia is less polarized. China is generally viewed somewhat critically, while negative sentiment toward Russia remains strong among EU and broader Western media. Our new media monitoring tool will track whether differences will emerge or subside in the future, thus affecting the approach and cohesion of EU leaders on key geopolitical challenges such as security cooperation, trade policy, and conflict resolution.

Note: at EUmatrix we track a wide range of metrics, including the public image of MEPs, Commissioners, and national politicians. 

Furthermore, on our www.eumatrix.eu platform you are able to find the full historic database of MEPs', Governments' and Commissioners' statements and actions (e.g. votes, amendments, meetings) in searchable and exportable format, as well as analysed policy documents, in-depth analysis of the socio-political trends across the EU and much more (*accessible with a premium account - contact us at [email protected]).