Begoña Gómez remains silent as her €40,000 university chair controversy continues

Begoña Gómez testifies without answering while her €40,000 annual chair continues

Begoña Gómez did not answer a single question. Her appearance before the committee became a sustained exercise in silence — she invoked her right to remain silent from start to finish — while unanswered questions piled up and the core issue remained on the table: a university chair, €40,000 annually, and the mystery of who was pulling the strings from La Moncloa. This is not a communication problem. It is a problem of figures, emails, and signatures.

How much money surrounds Begoña Gómez's chair?

The specific figure is in an email. According to information published by Libertad Digital, Begoña Gómez emailed the La Caixa Foundation requesting a budget of €40,000 annually for four years to fund her social transformation chair at the Complutense University. Four academic years, private funding, and a written request sent to the foundation's deputy director.

Here the dispute begins. One analysis argues there was no such chair in the strict sense: it was an extraordinary chair, a distinct figure from an ordinary chair, funded with private capital and outside public budgets. The counterargument is that the money, wherever it comes from, does not erase the question of why the president's vvife signed the application.

Another line goes further, asserting that the Complutense made high-cost software from major tech companies available for this project, with the shadow of private use. This point is not documented in what has been published and currently remains in the realm of suspicion.

---

Moncloa's role in funding the chair

The second front is not money, but the phone. A presidential advisor allegedly acted as an intermediary in relations with the chair's funders, according to information gathered in the case's coverage. The person identified works in the General Secretariat of the Presidency and, according to these reports, allegedly combined her institutional duties with activities linked to the president's vvife's private affairs.

The episode cited as proof of this connection is a roundtable organized at Ifema, within the framework of a large-scale event, with Begoña Gómez and her chair's sponsors. The question raised from there is simple: if institutional backing existed, why refuse to explain it?

Added to this is another detail spread by El Mundo: a civil servant who allegedly worked as a private secretary for Begoña Gómez's courses. Public staff, activity presented as private, and a boundary no one has yet drawn with precision.

The symmetric front: Pozuelo and the 2023 councilor

The most repeated defense points to the other side. It highlights a PP councilor in Pozuelo de Alarcón, related to a magistrate, who took office in 2023 and, according to this version, was promoted twice in a short time. The underlying thesis is that patronage appointments are not the monopoly of one party, and that those denouncing the chair should first explain the councilor.

The counterargument is that equating two distinct cases — a university chair with private funding and a discretionary councilorship — serves more to diffuse than to clarify. The debate is not closed and likely will not be here.

---

From the case to the pocketbook: the fiscal tug-of-war hiding in everything

The conversation shifted, as almost always, to taxes. One view argues that tax pressure has grown continuously under the current Government, and that those with business activity feel it in the percentage, not the headline. The other recalls that the sharpest increase was earlier: the VAT rose from 18% to 21% under Mariano Rajoy, with the market in ruins and no room to pass on price increases.

Here appears the disconcerting detail. Some business owners claim to be tripling their revenue now compared to then, and the company they had to close in that period never peine. The debate on who squeezes the pocketbook more admits no simple answer, as it depends on where each person was located in the economic cycle.

International comparisons also emerge. The Italian case is mentioned, where Meloni's Government is allegedly increasing debt with the declared goal of lowering taxes, including corporate taxes, to attract investment. The obvious question is why this move is presented as strategy in Rome and recklessness in Madrid. No one answers it fully.

What remains after the silence

The strategy of not answering has its logic: if you don't speak, you don't contradict yourself. The cost is different. Throughout the hearing, questions hung in the air, and any future response will have to deal with that prior void. The issue remains focused on judicial and political channels, with no resolution in sight.

With these threads, it is reasonable to expect the focus to shift from the room to the emails, and from the emails to the chair's accounting. If complete documentation emerges, silence will cease to be a strategy and become a problem. If it does not emerge, this will fade into the next controversy, as so many times before.