The European Commission’s proposal for the new Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for 2028-2034 outlines a significant reshaping of EU foreign and defence spending. There is some welcome ambition: more funding for defence, external action, and support to our friends in Ukraine. In general, simplification of the many different budget lines is also a good idea.
The Commission’s proposals, however, fall short of a workable solution. How the money is spent matters just as much as the size of the budget. As Greens, we are sceptical of a budget design that sidelines the European Parliament and weakens safeguards for our foreign policy priorities. And we will use the weeks ahead to analyse the proposals in detail and the coming months to improve what is currently on the table.
European Competitiveness Fund
The European Competitiveness Fund (ECF) brings together 14 programmes and four pillars—from clean transition and decarbonisation to defence and space—under a single roof. These vastly different priorities risk competing with each other, ironically under the umbrella of competitiveness.
With €131 billion, the ‘defence and space’ pillar is by far the largest. The increase is welcome, but comes at the expense of too little money for the clean transition. And without clarity if the money counts towards member states NATO spending targets.
While no existing programmes seem to have disappeared, the Commission wants flexibility to shift money around within each pillar. This risks re-allocation of funds for different priorities after adoption of the MFF, without any role for the European Parliament.
Equally sensitive, the Commission wants a single rulebook for all programmes, including Horizon Europe—covering €409 billion. We must ensure the European Parliament stays involved throughout the implementation, not just to sign off on the rulebook and then watch from the sidelines.
Additional defence-related funding is also planned across other instruments—such as Horizon Europe, the Connecting Europe Facility (€17 billion for military mobility), and regional or national plans, depending on member state preferences.
Global Europe Instrument
The Global Europe Instrument, worth €200 billion, will merge all external financing instruments into one envelope. Most of the funds are tied to geographic programmes and competitiveness. This risks sidelining long-standing, thematic priorities such as humanitarian aid, climate, human rights, and democracy support.
What we need is a bigger and ring-fenced budget for these key external activities—and more money for global affairs and emerging challenges in the MFF.
We welcome the additional €100 billion in support for Ukraine outside the MFF. But member states must follow through and actually deliver the money—starting in 2028.
Oversight and Cross-Cutting Issues
The governance model proposed for the MFF strengthens the role of the Commission and lacks proper oversight by Parliament. By shifting to the approach of the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF), key decisions—such as funding priorities and allocation details—are delegated to national plans and future Commission work programmes.
Major implementation aspects are left undefined in the regulations, leaving Parliament without real influence over how billions in EU funds will ultimately be spent. And sidelining regions—those in charge of main implementation—in the decision making process. Here, the proposal clearly needs to improve.
Europe can only be strong if increased defense spending, climate action and social justice go hand in hand rather than competing for the same small budgets. The proposed 35% climate spending target across the MFF is a Green success—with 43% for the ECF and 30% for the Global Europe Instrument. Now we have to look at the fine print to see what counts towards that target and what doesn’t. But support for social projects is effectively being cut. The Social Climate Fund must be strengthened, and affordable housing prioritised—yet a dedicated housing fund is missing.
We also need clarity on funding for biodiversity and a dedicated nature protection fund. To meet these challenges, the EU needs new own resources. Big Tech must finally pay its fair share—no more special treatment for companies profiting in Europe but paying little tax.
Climate policy is also security and competitiveness policy. Europe must become independent from fossil autocracies and must not fall behind technologically. It’s not enough to react to challenges—we must shape them. An EU budget that does not actively drive this transformation is not a budget fit for the future.
The Long Road Ahead
The Commission’s proposal is only the beginning of two years of negotiations between Commission, Parliament and Council. As Greens, we will fight for an ambitious, future-proof budget that strengthens the EU’s ability to act strategically and long-term. And one that respects our long-standing external priorities and the European Parliament’s budgetary authority.
We urge member states not to cut down the overall ambition of an increased budget. Those who call on the European Union to step up and solve problems we all have, can’t cut the means to do so. German Chancellor Merz talks a lot about European defence and competitiveness. Now he needs to make the money available. Ukraine’s defence and European sovereignty don’t come for free.
For more, read our Greens/EFA press release on the MFF proposal.
