Bulgarian MEP Radan Kanev said he raised concerns within the EPP group about Bulgaria’s prime minister signing the so-called Charter of the “Board of Peace,” which he described as a personal international structure linked to Donald Trump. Writing on Facebook, the MEP explained that he warned colleagues the move poses a reputational and political risk for the EPP, noting that only two EU heads of government had signed the document: Hungary’s Viktor Orban and Bulgaria’s Rosen Zhelyazkov. Kanev underlined that Zhelyazkov is generally portrayed as a pro-European EPP prime minister, making the decision particularly problematic.

According to Kanev, the discussion took place against the backdrop of the Greenland dispute and tensions over an unbalanced EU-US trade agreement. He stressed during the debate that attitudes toward Trump’s pressure tactics and the need for a unified European response would inevitably become part of Bulgaria’s domestic election campaign. Kanev added that he made it clear to his EPP colleagues that he would personally and forcefully criticize GERB and Boyko Borisov over the signature, insisting this would be done on the basis of firm principles rather than political convenience.

Kanev highlighted a response from EPP leader Manfred Weber, which he described as noteworthy. Weber reportedly said that during a meeting in Zagreb, Boyko Borissov had explained that certain “special issues” between Bulgaria and the United States had made the signing necessary, while also assuring that the Charter would not be ratified. Kanev emphasized that this exchange took place openly, in front of hundreds of MEPs, staff members, and representatives of the EPP and the European Parliament, and clarified that he does not publicly disclose private conversations.

He pointed out that this explanation differs significantly from the narrative Borisov has presented to Bulgarian media. Kanev wrote that he finds it troubling to hear claims of unspecified “special issues” between Bulgaria and the United States, adding that he hopes these concerns are personal rather than national. He concluded by warning that he would find it unacceptable if personal problems were allowed to translate into national risks or lead to humiliation for the country.