­Who aced (and flunked) the commissioner hearings? Here’s what our insiders have to say.

It’s showtime, baby!
Over the next week, the EU’s 26 wannabe commissioners will each face a three-hour grilling from the European Parliament’s specialist committees that will probe (in theory, at least) their credentials for overseeing EU policymaking.
While their success will partly be determined by political machinations beyond their control, the Parliament will also be poised to reject anyone who delivers a poor performance — and Brussels policy wonks will be watching closely for any hints of what the next five years have in store.
In one sense, the recipe for success is simple: Show off your language skills, be respectful to the Parliament, and above all don’t make any spending promises.
But it’s also a trial by fire for the commissioners-in-waiting, who’ve had seven weeks to beef up their understandings of the portfolios bestowed on them by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen.
Will they be able to talk eloquently about the nitty-gritty of the issues on their patch, or will the Parliament’s lawmakers — many of whom have spent years deep in Europe’s policy weeds — expose major gaps in the candidates’ knowledge?
Here’s POLITICO’s snap insider take on how well each commissioner hopeful fared, which will be updated after each hearing.
Nobody expected a poor performance from Kaja Kallas, who comes across as the best student in the class. And she didn’t disappoint, leaving lawmakers broadly satisfied that she had answered specific questions ranging from Ukraine to China and Iran.
She struck a largely optimistic message about the EU’s potential power in the world, remained hawkish on Ukraine — saying clearly that it must win its war against Russia — and described China as a “systemic rival” that is trying to undermine the international order, along with countries like North Korea and Iran.
Kallas rebuffed a personal question from a far-right lawmaker about a scandal involving her husband’s business activities in Russia, and zinged another when he questioned her stance on Ukraine.
There were areas where she was less bullish, though. On Israel’s war against Hamas in Gaza, she stuck rigidly to European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s stance, calling for a cease-fire, the release of hostages and a two-state solution, and referred only to the humanitarian crisis in Gaza by saying she regretted attacks on civilians in all current conflicts. She also refused to say, despite repeated probes, that she would list Iran’s Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist group.
There were also lighter moments, in a room that was well-disposed to her from the off. She joked with Estonian MEPs about having a “secret language,” and bantered with other MEPs.
“How am I different from my predecessors? I’m just different,” she said. The next five years will tell.
— Eddy Wax, Hanne Cokelaere and Nicholas Vinocur
This was the hearing that was supposed to be full of political fireworks. But in the end, Fitto stayed true to his image as a subtle and mild-mannered politician, ensuring his three-hour-plus grilling with lawmakers probably disappointed those who were expecting grand announcements on regional funding and aggressive replies.
Nonetheless, the session was still higher on drama than other hearings, with left-leaning lawmakers grilling Fitto over his links to Italy’s right-wing Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni. As expected, Fitto stressed that he would not act in Italy’s interest but would remain committed to the EU as a whole. The influence of his Christian Democrat background was also on show, helping him keep his cool even when his critics got personal.
Despite his composure, the performance is unlikely to quell concerns from socialist, green and liberal lawmakers, who would prefer to withhold the position of Commission vice president from him.
Politics aside, the bulk of questions focused on nerdy topics such as how best to support the outermost regions of the EU while speeding up payments of cohesion cash. Fitto skilfully deployed all the right buzzwords to please members of the regional affairs committee, most of whom are focused on the local dimension of the EU’s investments.
Even so, his past record overseeing such funds proved, as expected, somewhat of a liability in certain circumstances. He was, for example, quizzed over his alleged centralization of cohesion funds in Italy — something he rejected — and his abstention on a crucial vote on setting up the EU’s post-pandemic fund.
Overall, Fitto’s hearing will do little to soothe the concerns of MEPs who oppose him because of his ties to Meloni. Critics will also point to a lack of new commitments, while arguing that his right-wing credentials make him unfit for the job.
Given the sensitivities, horse-trading among party chiefs will be more important to secure his future than this hearing.
— Gregorio Sorgi
Poland’s Piotr Serafin displayed a strong political nous, charm and public speaking skills in his hearing before the European Parliament, which was perhaps surprising given his past as a backroom fixer. Overall, the session was high on substance and relatively low on political drama.
Unlike many previous commissioner-designate hearings, Serafin made several headline-friendly statements: The European Commission’s budget must exceed 1 percent of the EU’s gross domestic product; rolling over the post-Covid debt is not a great idea; Brussels must instead push capitals to budge on so-called own resources; handing taxpayers’ money to big consultancies can be wasteful.
Serafin, however, was tight-lipped on defense funding — likely the most controversial topic in the new budget negotiations that goes beyond his pay-grade — and shied away from giving specific spending figures.
The Polish commissioner-designate came out as a no-nonsense politician who knows the budget inside-out and is able to soothe disgruntled MEPs. In a concession to many lawmakers, he hammered the message that local bodies are central to the EU budget, and that the post-Covid recovery model should be adapted to keep local bodies and social partners on board.
— Gregorio Sorgi and Aitor Hernández-Morales
EP committee verdict: Yes
For Latvian Valdis Dombrovskis, an EU veteran, it was a familiar dance, but still one to be taken seriously. The mission entrusted to him by Ursula von der Leyen may be less prestigious than previous roles but it is no easier.
The commissioner-designate for the Economy and Productivity, Implementation, and Simplification is set to take on the job of investment coordinator-in-chief, with key responsibilities focused on aligning funds distributed at the national and EU levels, and cutting bureaucracy.
Dombrovskis handled the more than three-hour hearing like a pro, flexing his knowledge of the field, but also his ability to evade the trickiest questions – an art perfected over a long political career.
He reiterated frequently his commitment to making it easier for small firms to do business by reducing red tape without skewering the bloc’s social and environmental standards. At the same time he pledged to widen the number of players designated to stress test existing regulatory burden.
Still, no one — and many tried — managed to eke out what he really thought about the issuance of common debt as a way to raise the “massive investment” the EU needs to close the productivity gap with its key competitors.
Dombrovskis told the room he supported the EU budget undertaking a bigger role, but stopped short of stepping on the red lines imposed by his boss Ursula von der Leyen, or the competencies of his colleagues. “I am not leading on that,” he said when asked about funding.
The only small loss of composure came when – a day after Donald Trump was reelected to the White House – he made his feelings about the Ukraine war clear, highlighting the importance of keeping funds flowing to the aspiring EU member state.
As expected, his approval came quickly. And overall, his performance was as solid as you would expect from a Commission veteran.
— Giovanna Faggionato
EP committee verdict: Yes
When it came to it, the parliamentary hearing of Marta Kos, Slovenia’s nominee for the European Commission, was less dramatic than the build-up.
Her road to Brussels was among the most politically explosive of all the commissioner hopefuls, after Slovenia’s first pick, Tomaž Vesel, withdrew under pressure from European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen for more women in her top team. There was then a protracted delay as the Slovenian parliament refused to complete the nomination process.
But Kos clearly showed she was on top of her subject matter, talking ably about countries from Albania to North Macedonia during a closely watched hearing in the European Parliament, where ambassadors from Ukraine and Turkey were in the room.
She repeatedly stressed the “merit-based” approach she would take to enlarging the bloc to include new countries, promised a new communication strategy to sing the praises of enlargement and pledged to support Ukraine’s efforts to join the EU. 
At times, national Slovenian politics overshadowed the hearing, with David McAllister, the German MEP chairing the foreign affairs panel, stepping in to calm things down. The main attack line from the far-right Patriots group and also parts of the Slovenian EPP (linked to former PM Janez Janša) was the allegation that Kos spied for the Yugsolav secret service — something she forcefully and repeatedly denied.
Kos also cleared up some outstanding issues regarding possible conflicts of interest. For example, she said that she had earned less than €5,000 from her work as a consultant; and also promised to sell her own boutique consultancy based in Switzerland if she was confirmed.
— Eddy Wax, Max Griera and Elisa Braun
EP committee verdict: Yes
Returning climate chief Wopke Hoekstra breezed through his confirmation hearing, skillfully dodging thorny questions and earning applause for slapping down climate-denying questions from far-right lawmakers.
While he had a few clear messages for MEPs — notably pledging no backtracking on existing green policies and reiterating his support for a 2040 climate target of 90 percent — Hoekstra strenuously avoided going into detail on trickier topics.
He spent more time on explaining why the green transition needs to be socially fair than on how he plans to ensure that it is, didn’t spell out how to achieve the 2040 target, declined to say whether he’d include removals in the EU’s carbon markets, and didn’t specify how he intends to prepare Europe for climate disasters. (He could propose legislation on climate resilience, he said, but only if needed.) Occasionally, he outright ignored questions.
We knew Olivér Várhelyi’s hearing was going to be a tough one. The commissioner-designate for animal welfare and health came into a room packed with MEPs who were bound to hold a grudge over his ties to Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and, of course, his having called them “idiots” not so long ago.
But despite the poor prospects, it wasn’t a disastrous hearing: “Better than expected” is the feedback we received from several MEPs afterwards. Over the three-and-a-half-hour hearing, Várhelyi explored some of his commitments for the next mandate, including working on a revision of the Medical Devices Regulation, delivering a Critical Medicines Act within the first 100 days and moving forward with a ban on cage farming.
Two-time Lithuanian Prime Minister Andrius Kubilius deployed humor, a raft of EU defense acronyms and real talk on Russia’s military ramp-up to get through his three-hour hearing in the European Parliament on Wednesday.
The vision he outlined, just hours after the victory of Donald Trump in Tuesday’s U.S. presidential election, was a stark one: Russia will spend more on defense in 2025 than the entire EU27, while the U.S. will inevitably be distracted by China and less concerned with European security.
That means it’s time for the EU to tool up, and quick.
In light of that threat environment, Kubilius urged that the EU budget be leveraged to spend more on defense, and that the bloc prefer cross-border, multicountry projects over purely national initiatives. Lithuania alone needs some €10 billion by 2028, he said, but only around €1.5 billion has been allocated in total EU extra spending.
The EU and NATO, Kubilius warned, need to brace for Russia to test their “resolve” by the end of this decade by “ bringing a genuine European Defense Union to life.”
“Not to wage a war,” he cautioned, “but to maintain peace.”
To pay for it all, Kubilius told MEPs he expected “substantially larger spending lines for defense and space in the next [EU budget],” and said he was hopeful, after speaking with officials from the European Investment Bank (EIB), that “we can … open the door” for the EIB to invest in defense.
Kubilius’ space program, meanwhile, will be centered on boosting private rocket companies and finding ways to get more out of the bloc’s existing satellite programs.
Despite a sometimes tentative performance, Jozef Síkela received enough support from European lawmakers to be confirmed as the bloc’s next chief for development cooperation. The center-left Socialists and Democrats group said it would throw its weight behind him.
It was by no means a stellar hearing for the Czech politician, who displayed a shallow knowledge of development issues and sometimes struggled to find the right words to make his points. He also missed the mark in answering some of the most burning questions posed by lawmakers — for instance on the European Parliament’s involvement in the Global Gateway infrastructure initiative, or on gender issues.
Síkela did shine when asked about money, funding and investments, however, thanks to his background in investment banking. A one-liner he repeated a few times summed up his pitch: “I was selected to turn the Global Gateway from a startup into a scale-up.”
He answered most questions in English, but clearly felt more comfortable speaking German whenever a German-speaking lawmaker threw him a query. He only responded to one question in his native Czech.
A tricky moment for Síkela came on the European Union’s memorandum with Rwanda on building up sustainable supply chains for raw materials. Grilled by several French MEPs, he was told the deal is leading to smuggling from Rwanda’s war-torn neighbor, the Democratic Republic of the Congo. In an awkward response to Greens MEP Mounir Satouri, Síkela claimed “my level of information is not as dramatic as you told me.”
With the European Union facing increasing challenges from falling fish stocks, fishing quota fights with the United Kingdom, and Russia’s shadow fleet cruising its waters despite sanctions, Costas Kadis promised MEPs he would steer a steady course.
The Cypriot commissioner-designate for fisheries and oceans did well in his three-hour faceoff with lawmakers during his European Parliament hearing, proving he had expertise on some of the key issues that occupy the fisheries committee.
Throughout the hearing, Kadis insisted he was committed to supporting small-scale fishers amid international competition and that he valued the role of fisheries and aquaculture in European food security. Kadis said he would work to “secure more support [for] this very important part of our sector,” emphasizing his academic background in conservation biology and his recent experience as environment minister in Cyprus.
That’s not to say the biologist by trade passed with flying colors, however. Kadis dodged several of the trickier questions posed by MEPs, including on the revision of the strategy for the Baltic Sea and on whether the European Commission should revise the Common Fisheries Policy.
Of the European Oceans Pact, Kadis said it should remain soft law, something that didn’t go down well with S&D and Greens MEPs in particular. He also left MEPs in the dark over whether they should expect more funding as part of the next budget. 
Belgian Foreign Minister Hadja Lahbib exceeded all expectations in her hearing, in terms of both performance and familiarity with her portfolio. 
Despite her controversial reputation in Belgium, she remained calm and decisive throughout her hearing, fending off sensitive questions about her political past — whether the scandal concerning visas for Iranian officials or her visit to Crimea — in a politically adroit manner.
During the 3.5-hour hearing, MEPs mostly focused on her equality portfolio, asking about gender equality, sexual reproductive health, abortion and women’s rights, but occasionally delved into preparedness, challenging the commissioner-designate on her plans to prepare Europe to face future crises. 
Through it all, Lahbib demonstrated a clear grasp of her files and jumped with ease from one question and topic to the next, listing off various commitments and plans for her mandate as commissioner. 
Style-wise, Albuquerque sailed through Wednesday’s three-hour hearing, which happened to coincide with Donald Trump’s being confirmed as the winner of the U.S. election. 
The political news from across the pond, however, didn’t fluster the former Portuguese finance minister. Albuquerque stayed focused throughout, handling technical questions without breaking a sweat while politely fending off provocative jibes about conflicts of interest. While she chose to speak mostly in English, demonstrating a good command of the language, she happily addressed questions from Portuguese colleagues in her native tongue. 
The slick performance enhanced her already good chances of being confirmed, even though her reluctance to be drawn on specific policy points was noted.
Throughout the hearing, Albuquerque focused mostly on talking points already stressed in her mission letter and in her written replies to MEPs’ questions.
When pressed for specifics she was evasive, deferring commitments on policy until her position was secure. She also repeatedly sidestepped questions about her tenure as finance minister in post-crisis Portugal, while downplaying concerns over her frequent shifts between public-sector roles and the finance industry.
But it wasn’t all dodgeball. Albuquerque reassured the room that she was open to various approaches to breaking the deadlocks currently plaguing the sector, such as how to deepen the EU’s private investment pool and how to move ahead with establishing an EU insurance scheme for bank deposits.
She also provided some concrete thoughts on already-decided rules for banking and green finance, noting the EU should stay the course because it was important to focus on financial stability to avoid another economic crash.
Overall, the substance of the meeting set the scene for many of the conflicts that will define Albuquerque’s first months in the job. 
As expected, all parties voted in favor of the Portuguese nominee except The Left and the far-right Europe of Sovereign Nations group, according to two people in the room. 
Albuquerque will now be expected to offer concrete ideas about how to create a “savings and investments union,” by getting savers investing and by helping money to flow more easily within the bloc. She will also be under pressure to cut red tape across the industry, which is fed up with five years of dense rulemaking by the outgoing Commission. Finally, she will need to decide whether to extend the EU’s recognition of U.K. clearing, in areas where the EU still depends on the U.K., in what could prove a politically awkward post-Brexit hangover. 
Overall, a strong performance from Albuquerque — but the ghosts of her past, and the entrenched conflicts blocking the EU’s progress on finance issues, may still return to haunt her.
In his parting words to MEPs, Brunner said he had been warned against the migration and internal affairs portfolio as a “mission impossible” that is “politically highly charged.” Clearly he took those warnings to heart, delivering a cautious and at times dull performance, revealing little to the assembled MEPs.
Legislators saw a commissioner-hopeful who knew what not to say — he didn’t slam Italian PM Giorgia Meloni’s plan to detain asylum seekers in Albania, for example — but nor did he give his audience much to get excited about, even when pressed. His safe performance served him well, as enough political group whips waved his appointment through.
Brunner did commit to a new deportations directive, but told lawmakers they should not expect a proposal before June 2025 and only after broad consultations with stakeholders. He also pledged that, as a guardian of the treaty, he’d trigger “necessary proceedings” if countries don’t implement the asylum and migration pact. And he repeatedly said he’d insist on an approach that’s “fair and firm” (without explaining how.)
Asked several times whether he would support EU cash to finance physical barriers on the bloc’s external borders, Brunner said “physical infrastructure such as fences and walls could be financed by European funding, in terms of legality. But we do not have funds in place for now.” However, he vowed to have funding for border management “reflected” in the next EU budget.
He paid homage to the importance of boosting the EU’s internal security, and despite frequent prodding by lawmakers failed to take a strong stance against EU countries that have reinstated checks on borders in the free-travel Schengen zone. (The list includes his own country, Austria.)
He also dodged questions on search-and-rescue operations, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the Hamas militant group and anti-Christian hatred.
Brunner did, however, commit to launching a new strategy for internal security; to an action plan against drug trafficking; to a port strategy; and to enhancing Europol capacities.
Sweden’s Jessika Roswall doesn’t have the longest track record in environmental policymaking — and that showed during her hearing.
The Commissioner-designate for the environment, water and the circular economy faced tough questions on virtually every single topic relevant to her extensive portfolio, from encouraging farmers to decarbonize their businesses and to protect biodiversity, to harmonizing the management of waste by EU countries and creating a single market for secondary materials. In light of the disastrous floods that hit Valencia, Spain last week, the Commissioner-designate was grilled on her plans to ensure the EU was better prepared for increasingly frequent climate events, flood risks and water scarcity.
Just as she had done in her written answers to MEP questions, Roswall tried to thread the needle between lawmakers asking for an unwavering defender of the EU’s green agenda, and those who want her to protect European businesses at all cost. “A competitive economy and a clean transition goes hand in hand,” Roswall said.
Overall, however, the 51-year old lawyer gave a disappointing performance. Appearing increasingly less confident as the hearing went on, Roswall repeatedly dodged questions from MEPs on whether she would back the creation of a new biodiversity fund, which product groups would be covered by the Ecodesign regulation, or when MEPs could expect a timeframe for her proposed ban on PFAS in consumer products.
MEPs were not impressed.
No stranger to the European Parliament after serving as an MEP for almost a decade, Dan Jørgensen clearly knew how to please the crowd. The Danish commissioner-designate cleanly navigated difficult questions on affordable housing, energy costs and renewables during his hearing — while drawing repeated laughs from MEPs.
Jørgensen faces a mammoth task: bringing down energy prices in the EU, which is essential to the bloc’s plans to remain competitive with the United States and China. In pursuit of that aim he vowed to focus on renewables and energy efficiency, better grid infrastructure, increased digitalization, faster permitting and new technologies such as carbon capture and green hydrogen.
Still, there was one area where the former Danish climate minister struggled to please everyone: nuclear power. Although calm and charismatic, Jørgensen repeatedly refused to throw his support behind atomic energy, which displeased pro-nuclear lawmakers. He also rejected the idea of pumping EU cash into new nuclear projects, and cast doubt on the imminent rollout of advanced small-scale reactors known as SMRs.
He was also wishy-washy at times, refusing to provide details or timelines on overhauling EU state aid rules, on phasing out Russian energy, and on where he will find the money to enact his ambitious agenda.
But hey, at least he was entertaining. Pressured by French MEP Christophe Grudler for being insufficiently pro-nuclear, and by German MEP Jutta Paulus for being too supportive of nuclear, he asked Paulus: “May I suggest you go to a room with Mr. Grudler and sort this out?”
The 67-year-old Croatian center-right politician was clearly pursuing a no-risk strategy of doing just enough to get lawmakers’ approval for a second term on the Commission.
Questions about Israel’s war in Gaza and migration dominated proceedings, with Šuica repeatedly asked to condemn Israel’s actions or to take action by suspending an EU-Israel trade agreement.
But Šuica stuck to the narrow tram tracks laid down in the instructions she received from Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, and toughed out the entire three-hour hearing without wavering from her center-right European People’s Party’s typical stance on the Middle East conflict. Namely: calling for a two-state solution, describing the Oct. 7 attacks as “unjustifiable,” and deploring the humanitarian situation in Gaza while refraining from laying blame at Israel’s door.
She promised to continue funding the United Nations Palestinian refugee agency (UNRWA) along with the Palestinian Authority.
Her new Mediterranean portfolio appeared to be full of age-old and intractable problems, concerning not just the Middle East but also migration, where the EU is seeking to take a tougher line.
Here, she sketched out a desire to strike new “comprehensive partnerships” with Jordan, Morocco and other countries in the image of deals struck with Tunisia and Egypt. MEPs appeared to win some concessions from her to scrutinize the often flawed human-rights dimensions of these deals.
This was a solid performance before European lawmakers with no slip-ups or signs of misunderstanding.
It delivered exactly what you’d expect from an aspiring democracy chief: numerous mentions of EU treaties and fundamental rights; a firm “political will” to challenge member states weakening rule of law; a promise to avoid “double standards”; and a clear commitment to uphold the primacy of EU law.
McGrath’s priorities included enforcing the bloc’s new media freedom rulebook and the upcoming Digital Fairness Act to tackle social media’s addictive “business models” that can harm children online. And he pushed back on the idea that the General Data Protection Regulation harms innovation, saying the EU can enjoy high standards and benefit from new tech.
Zaharieva’s strategy to survive her hearing was clear: Pick a couple of priorities that would resonate well with lawmakers and double down on them. 
Within the first hour, Zaharieva managed to clearly convey two of her main talking points: to simplify and cut red tape in Horizon Europe, the EU’s main research funding program, and to push EU countries to finally reach their target of spending 3 percent of GDP on research and innovation. 
It made for a strong first 60 minutes. Lawmakers have long called for both of these things, so Zaharieva was telling them what they wanted to hear. The only dissent came from The Left lawmaker Per Clausen, who pressed Zaharieva on EU research funding for Israel — but she managed to avoid controversy. 
After that, it fell a bit flat. 
Zaharieva kept repeating the same lines, on simplification in particular, without ever really going into detail. But lawmakers also seemed to run out of steam, refraining from pushing her to give more details. At one point she was called out for dodging a question. Meanwhile, some major policy files promised by Ursula von der Leyen and falling under Zaharieva’s remit — such as the long anticipated but still mysterious life sciences strategy, comprising new legislation to support biotech development — were largely omitted from the discussions.
Greek politician Apostolos Tzitzikostas maneuvered his commissioner hearing like a seasoned veteran, deftly reminding the transport chair of his speaking time, addressing potential conflicts of interest head on and even navigating multiple interruptions from protesting MEPs.
The 56-year-old economist appeared well informed, with eloquent responses and occasional quips, though his answers largely lacked detail — even after multiple questions probed him for specifics.
The crisis surrounding the automotive sector took up a large chunk of the session, but automakers hoping to find an ally to reverse legislation mandating that sales of new vehicles be 100 percent zero-emissions by 2035 left disappointed. Carmakers have had plenty of notice, he said, and the legislation creates certainty for the sector. The European People’s Party, however, received its desired commitment on an exception to the law for e-fuels.
TRAN Committee Chair Eliza Vozemberg, a fellow Greek, presided over the hearings, showing just how much control the Southern European country will have over the transport portfolio — and the potential for conflicts of interest. On two separate occasions, lawmakers disrupted the proceedings to protest Tzitzikostas’ nomination.
The 2023 train crash in Greece that left 57 people dead loomed over the proceedings, but Tzitzikostas didn’t shy away from the controversy, instead preemptively bringing it up during his opening remarks. But his repeated insistence that safety will be his No. 1 concern did little to stifle questions as to how he would handle a potential infringement case over the rail tragedy.
Luxembourg’s Christophe Hansen had a truly impressive hearing, at various moments brain-wrinklingly interesting, gut-wrenchingly funny, and heart-breakingly sad. The 42-year-old won half a dozen rounds of applause during the session as he deftly addressed tricky policy problems and personalities. 
After a polarizing year for EU agriculture, the MEP could have fallen foul of several issues. The Socialists were grumpy that their Spitzenkandidat, Nicolas Schmit, hadn’t got Luxembourg’s nomination; Hansen chose to ignore the far-right Patriots and Europe of Sovereign Nations folk in his pre-hearing lobbying; and as its rapporteur in ENVI, he’s tied to the increasingly controversial (and now delayed) deforestation law. 
But it all went swimmingly. Hansen stuck to the center on most issues, promising fair pricing for farmers, environmental mirror clauses on agrifood imports, and generational renewal in farming. He veered conservative on some issues, refusing to legislate on Europeans’ meat consumption, downplaying the scale of livestock emissions, and criticizing the idea of an agri-emissions trading system, or ETS. 
He leaned progressive on others, defending his deforestation law, hinting that farmers’ fears over Ukraine’s accession were overblown, and even coming out in favor of the EU-Mercosur free trade deal (nearly taboo in agrifood circles). 
CORRECTION: This article has been amended to clarify that Kubilius said Lithuania needs €10 billion in defense spending by 2028.