Digital channels are a core part of EU policy conversations, illuminating new paths for influence and engagement. In the Brussels Bubble, influence travels fast, and increasingly, it travels through social media. While traditional media still play a central role in EU policy discussions, digital platforms are now critical infrastructure for visibility, engagement, and narrative framing. Over the past few years, policymakers have embraced social media not as a novelty, but as a core tool for communicating – more direct, more dynamic, and more distributed than ever before. This shift reflects broader changes in how EU institutions connect with the public and each other.

Why social media matters in the EU Bubble

Social media has become embedded in the daily communications practices of EU policymakers. Its relevance stems from three interlinked dynamics:

• Visibility: Platforms allow officials to share updates, signal priorities and amplify institutional work beyond formal channels. In an environment where attention is power, a tweet or post can instantly put a policy issue in the spotlight.
• Engagement: Stakeholders can respond, comment and interact directly with policymakers, creating a more fluid and participatory environment for policy debate. This two-way engagement can inform officials of on-the-ground sentiments and enable dialogue outside of official meetings.
• Narrative shaping: Social media enables real-time framing of issues, coalition-building and public positioning. EU actors can float ideas, rally support, or challenge narratives in the public arena at the very moment policies are being shaped.

In Brussels – where timing, tone, and positioning are decisive – social media is not optional; it is structural to policymaking. Every post, reply or share can be a strategic move, helping to build or shift consensus. Because of this, the question isn’t whether to use social media, but how best to use it and how the roles of individual platforms keep evolving.

Top platforms used by EU policymakers in 2025

Which platforms dominate the EU policy conversation in 2025? Two names stand out: LinkedIn and X (formerly Twitter) – with a newcomer, Bluesky, emerging as a notable alternative. Each plays a distinct role in the communications ecosystem, and understanding who engages where is key for anyone trying to follow or influence EU policymaking.

1. X (formerly Twitter): Still the “Real-Time Pulse”

Despite all controversies and a turbulent couple of years for the platform, X remains widely used by EU policymakers for its real-time reach.

Its value for policymakers lies in three specific use cases:

Real-time legislative coverage. During plenary sessions, committee votes, or Council meetings, X provides the fastest public record. MEPs live-tweet from the chamber, sharing vote outcomes, procedural developments, and floor amendments as they happen. For anyone tracking a file in real-time, X remains important.

Rapid response messaging. When breaking news hits—a court ruling, a Commission announcement, external events affecting EU policy—X is where officials respond first. The platform's immediacy allows policymakers to frame their position before traditional media sets the narrative.

Political theater. Like it or not. Campaign periods, high-stakes votes, and controversial debates play out on X with an intensity other platforms lack. The confrontational dynamics and quote-tweet culture make it ideal for political positioning, even as the platform's overall influence wanes.

However, X’s influence is no longer unchallenged. Growing concerns about the platform’s stability, content moderation, and fragmentation have prompted some in the EU bubble to explore alternatives. The once-unquestioned “town square” of EU politics is showing cracks. While X is still a key influencer today, its star seems to be waning – leaving observers to wonder if its dominance has peaked, and what that means for the EU’s information ecosystem. Officials post, but meaningful conversation has migrated elsewhere.

2. LinkedIn: A rising centre of gravity

If any platform has surprised observers with its growth in EU circles, it’s LinkedIn. Once seen mainly as a professional networking site, LinkedIn in 2025 has gained significant traction among EU decision-makers. It is now considered one of the most influential sources of policy-relevant content in Brussels. In fact, LinkedIn has become a rising center of gravity for policy dialogue – a place where commissioners, parliamentarians, experts and lobbyists converge in a more deliberative atmosphere.

Its appeal lies in:

• A professional tone that aligns with institutional communication norms
• A broad stakeholder network that includes industry, civil society, and academia
• Greater control over content format and interpretation

As a result, LinkedIn is increasingly used for publishing op-eds, sharing policy updates, and staking out positions in sectoral debates. Its role in the Brussels information space continues to expand with each passing month, reflecting a shift toward more substantive and networked conversations. For those working to influence EU policy, this means cultivating a LinkedIn presence is now almost as important as Twitter – a notable change from a few years ago.

3. Bluesky: The emerging alternative

Enter Bluesky, a decentralized social network that has quickly become the buzziest new forum for the EU policy community. Bluesky gained momentum following widespread dissatisfaction with X, offering a fresh start built on different principles. As of January 2025, the platform had over 30 million users globally and about 4.1 million daily active users – a remarkable rise for a network that barely existed in EU discussions not long ago.

In Brussels, adoption has been notable among key institutions and figures: the European Commission, Parliament, and Council all have a presence, and high-profile leaders such as Ursula von der Leyen, European Parliament President Roberta Metsola, and Executive Vice-President Valdis Dombrovskis are on Bluesky and actively posting. Even several political groups and prominent NGOs have opened accounts, signaling that Bluesky is not just a curiosity but a real player in the space.

Why the attraction? Beyond the draw of a less toxic discourse (so far), Bluesky’s decentralized architecture and transparent algorithms align with EU values around digital sovereignty and platform accountability. In an era when Brussels is pushing Big Tech for more responsibility, a network built on user control and moderation transparency is appealing.

For policy observers, Bluesky’s rise suggests that the EU digital conversation may be fracturing into new venues – ones that are perceived as being more in tune with European regulatory philosophies. It raises the stakes for those monitoring policy: conversations might not all happen on one platform anymore, and keeping track means following multiple feeds.

4. The Platform Strategy Matrix

Different platforms serve distinct strategic purposes in the Brussels ecosystem:

For immediate response: X remains the first-mover platform. When news breaks, officials post there first.

For building credibility: LinkedIn is where expertise is demonstrated through longer-form analysis and sectoral engagement.

For signaling values: for many users, Bluesky adoption itself sends a message about values, transparency, and alignment with EU tech policy principles.

For constituency engagement: Facebook and Instagram connect MEPs with voters back home, separate from Brussels policy conversations.

For simplification: TikTok and YouTube translate complex policy into accessible narratives for broader publics, not so much for the Brussels bubble.

Each of these platforms fulfills a niche: whether it’s appealing to youth, providing richer media, or connecting at the grassroots level. Together, they underscore that EU communications is a multi-platform game. Policymakers are effectively looking for different audiences where they are online.

Social media as strategic infrastructure

For policy professionals and observers, these evolving social media habits of EU policymakers carry important implications. First, it’s clear that social media is not an add-on – it has become an integral part of how EU governance works. In 2025, digital channels shape how officials share information, how they engage with stakeholders, and how they position themselves in the broader policy narrative. In other words, if you want to follow EU policymaking closely, you can’t ignore what’s happening on these online platforms. They are where announcements are made, debates unfold, and alliances are signaled in real time.

Secondly, the landscape is more multi-channel and fragmented than ever. Gone are the days when one platform (say, Twitter) was almost the singular “town hall” for all EU policy talk. This means that advocates and analysts must broaden their social media monitoring. A key update might come via a LinkedIn post that doesn’t cross-post to Twitter, or an early policy signal might emerge on Bluesky first. To keep up, one has to track several streams of information in parallel.

These shifts also raise some questions about the EU’s information ecosystem. Is the era of a single, unified conversation over, replaced by a constellation of niche communities? On one hand, the rise of LinkedIn and Bluesky could indicate a healthier diversification – policymakers tailoring messages to different audiences and perhaps avoiding some of the toxicity of old Twitter. On the other hand, a more fragmented public sphere might make it harder for citizens and smaller stakeholders to follow everything or to have their voices heard equally everywhere. Will important debates become siloed on different platforms, or will there be enough cross-flow to keep the broader public informed? And what does LinkedIn’s more buttoned-up, professional style mean for transparency and accessibility of EU policy discussions – does it widen the conversation or inadvertently narrow it to the “Brussels insider” crowd?

Finally, the embrace of platforms like Bluesky (and even cautious forays into TikTok) hints at an EU policymaking culture that is willing to adapt and experiment in the digital space. It reflects an understanding that controlling the narrative may require venturing beyond comfort zones.

It might also signal a desire for digital environments that better align with European values, be it in terms of privacy, accountability, or content standards. Observers trying to influence policy would do well to not only follow policymakers onto these new platforms but also understand the norms of each – what works on Twitter might fall flat on LinkedIn, and what engages people on TikTok might never be said on Bluesky.

As the social media landscape shifts, one constant emerges: those who shape EU policy will go wherever they can effectively connect with audiences. And those who seek to shape EU policy makers – be they lobbyists, activists, or concerned citizens – must be prepared to follow. The medium may change, but the need to stay informed and engaged is unwavering.

In the end, the evolution of these habits serves as a reminder that the digital public square of Brussels is always in flux. As platforms continue to evolve, their role in the Brussels Bubble remains central to how influence is built, maintained, and contested. Because in Brussels, every post is part of the story.

Stay in the loop with Thembi

We’re building a smarter way to track and understand EU policy, combining AI-powered monitoring with intuitive insights that deliver fast, comprehensive and actionable intelligence.

Thembi helps you stop chasing data and start driving policy work.

Sign up to be the first to know when we launch.