The European Commission is facing intense, coordinated pressure from prominent lawmakers and civil society watchdogs over its decision to appoint a major corporate leader as its top adviser on artificial intelligence. On June 3, 2026, the Commission appointed Jim Hagemann Snabe, the current chairman of German industrial giant Siemens, to the newly created, unpaid role of Special Envoy for Industrial AI. The backlash was immediate and fierce. Critics argue that the European Union’s executive branch has handed immense policy-shaping power to the very industry that spent months aggressively lobbying to weaken the continent’s landmark artificial intelligence regulations.
Jim Hagemann Snabe, a 60-year-old Danish executive, possesses deep roots in the global technology sector, having spent over 25 years in the IT industry. He previously served as co-CEO of the German software multinational SAP from 2010 to 2014 before transitioning to high-profile board roles. He took over as the chairman of Siemens’ supervisory board in 2018, overseeing operations for a massive industrial conglomerate that generates tens of billions of dollars in annual revenue. In addition to his role at Siemens, Snabe has held board seats at Google Cloud, U.S. enterprise AI firm C3.ai, and the World Economic Forum, making him one of the most well-connected figures in global tech.
The political firestorm surrounding Snabe’s appointment stems directly from Siemens’ recent lobbying efforts in Brussels. For months, the German engineering giant was among the loudest voices calling on the EU to scale back its groundbreaking AI Act, which initially entered into force in August 2024. Just weeks before Snabe’s appointment, on May 7, 2026, the Council of the EU and the European Parliament agreed to simplify the AI Act through a legislative package known as the Digital Omnibus. This deal introduced a massive 16-month delay for high-risk AI obligations, pushing the compliance deadline from August 2026 to December 2027, while also exempting factory-floor machinery and industrial AI from the strict rules.
Prominent members of the European Parliament have expressed deep outrage over the timing and nature of the appointment. Brando Benifei, a prominent Italian lawmaker and the co-rapporteur for the AI Act, told reporters that Siemens had lobbied directly and aggressively against his safety proposals during the legislative process. Benifei argued that appointing the chairman of the very company that fought to weaken these rules to advise on the future of those same policies sends a terrible political signal to citizens and lawmakers alike. Other critics, such as Dutch Green lawmaker Kim van Sparrentak, pointed out the irony of letting a company that lobbied against technological sovereignty decide how Europe integrates AI into its industrial base.
Business transparency advocates have joined lawmakers in demanding that the Commission justify the appointment. Bram Vranken, a prominent researcher at the Brussels-based corporate transparency non-profit Corporate Europe Observatory, described the situation as one of the most obvious and flagrant conflicts of interest in recent EU history. Vranken and other observers argue that Snabe cannot impartially advise the Commission on public safety and industrial regulation while simultaneously representing the commercial interests of a massive multinational corporation that actively seeks to minimize its own regulatory burdens.
When pressed by journalists during recent briefings, European Commission spokesperson Balazs Ujvari defended the appointment but declined to provide specific details on the conflict-of-interest assessment. Citing strict personal data protection laws, Ujvari claimed that the executive branch had implemented robust, targeted safeguards to prevent potential bias, though he did not explain what those measures entail. The Commission confirmed that Snabe has agreed to suspend his advisory memberships at Google Cloud and C3.ai for the duration of his mandate, which runs until March 2027. However, the Danish executive will retain his powerful position as the chairman of Siemens.
To counter the growing wave of criticism, digital policy officials in Brussels have defended their reliance on corporate leaders. Digital spokesperson Thomas Regnier emphasized that the Commission selected Snabe solely for the exceptional depth of industry expertise he can bring to the role, rather than his connection to Siemens. Regnier argued that the Commission services do not possess the same level of practical, hands-on experience in deploying advanced artificial intelligence systems across heavy manufacturing, clean-tech, and semiconductor supply chains. The executive branch insists that having an unpaid, top-tier industry insider draft a forward-looking report on industrial AI is essential to help European businesses catch up to their U.S. and Asian rivals.
The controversy comes as Europe finds itself caught in an increasingly aggressive technology war between the United States and China. U.S. Ambassador to the EU Andrew Puzder recently warned European leaders against attempting to “decouple” from Washington on tech issues, urging Brussels to partner with American firms to win the global AI race. Currently, foreign tech companies supply over 80% of Europe’s digital products and cloud services, leaving the continent’s economy highly vulnerable. To boost its own domestic capabilities, the EU has launched a massive technological sovereignty package, including a proposed €50 billion chip development fund and targeted investments in industrial AI and robotics.
As the European Parliament prepares to ramp up its scrutiny of the Commission’s appointments, the dispute over the special AI envoy will likely intensify. Lawmakers are already preparing formal written questions to force the Commission to publish the exact guidelines and meeting limits designed to regulate Snabe’s interactions. Some parliamentary members, such as Renew lawmaker Michael McNamara, have gone so far as to compare the Commission’s cozy relationship with corporate lobbyists to a pale imitation of the Trump White House. Until the Commission provides transparent, verifiable evidence of its conflict-of-interest safeguards, the appointment of the Siemens chairman will remain a major source of political division and public distrust.
