2028‑2034 EU budget: State of play

European Commission proposal

On 16 July 2025, the European Commission presented its proposal for the next European Union (EU) long‑term budget, the multiannual financial framework (MFF). Covering EU policies' needs for the years 2028 to 2034, and providing the necessary funds for the repayment obligations under Next Generation EU (NGEU), the temporary recovery instrument set up specifically to address the consequences of the COVD‑19 pandemic, the Commission has proposed:

The proposal is structured around three headings that group together shared policies and priorities. A fourth heading covers expenditure for European public administration. The distribution of the commitments among the four different headings, as proposed by the European Commission, is shown in Figure 2.

The 2021‑2027 MFF, when adopted back in December 2020, corresponded to 1.13 % of EU GNI. The Commission proposal for the 2028‑2034 MFF was a mere 0.02 EU GNI percentage points higher than the 2021‑2027 MFF (Figure 1). For that comparison, the funds spent through NGEU are not included. In addition to the 2021‑2027 MFF, NGEU funds have supported Member States in emerging more resilient from the pandemic, providing an additional €861 billion, from 2021 to 2023, of which €359 billion is in grants and €413 billion is in the form of loans. For the forthcoming long‑term budget, the European Parliament has taken a position in favour of a budget that stands at 1.27 % of EU GNI, excluding the repayment of NGEU debt (0.11 %). The Irish Council Presidency budget proposal (or 'negotiating box') proposes an EU long‑term budget at 1.02 % of EU GNI (Figure 1).

Source: Compiled by the authors, based on the European Commission proposal on the 2028‑2034 MFF, the European Parliament interim report and the Irish Council Presidency negotiating box; graphic by Lucille Killmayer, EPRS. Note: The percentage points are based on 2025 GNI values for the European Commission and the European Parliament proposals, and on the 2026 GNI forecast for the Irish Presidency negotiating box.

European Parliament position

On 28 April 2026, the European Parliament plenary adopted an interim report on the next MFF. The report requested a budget set at 1.27 % of EU GNI, excluding NGEU debt repayment, corresponding to €1 789 billion (2025 prices). The additional 0.11 percentage points of GNI (€149.3 billion) are set above the budget ceilings for the NGEU debt repayment costs. This is a 10 % increase (plus €175.1 billion) compared with the Commission proposal, allocated evenly across the three operational headings 1, 2 and 3. Moreover, Parliament created clear and separate budget lines for various policy areas and programmes within the different headings:

Source: Compiled by the authors, based on the European Commission proposal on the 2028‑2034 MFF, the European Parliament interim report and the Irish Council Presidency negotiating box; graphic by Lucille Killmayer, EPRS.

State of play in the Council

Since the presentation of the Commission proposal, the Ad-hoc working party on the MFF and the General Affairs Council (GAC) have discussed the EU's future finances several times. First, the Danish EU Presidency issued a budget proposal, presented in the form of European Council conclusions, without including any amounts. The Cyprus Presidency followed up, and in June 2026 presented a proposal for a €1 581 billion budget (excluding NGEU debt repayment), a €32.8 billion reduction (minus 2 %) of the Commission proposal, or €1 730 billion with NGEU debt repayment. It mainly reduced policies under Competitiveness and Global Europe (headings 2 and 3), each by 3.9 % compared with the Commission's proposal. Several Member States reportedly reacted to the proposal, criticising it for not sufficiently supporting new priorities such as defence, innovation, industry and migration, or for being unbalanced and excessive.

On 10 October 2026, the Irish Presidency deepened the cuts compared with the Commission by €141.1 billion (minus 8 %), proposing a budget of €1 622 billion including the NGEU debt repayment. When the repayment of NGEU debt is excluded (€149.3 billion), the Irish Presidency's budget proposal leaves €1 473 billion for the operational programmes, thus reducing the Commission's proposal by 8.7 %. It reduces headings 1, 2 and 3 respectively by €32.2 billion, €66.6 billion and €33.1 billion. In percentage terms, the biggest cut is for heading 3 (minus 17.4 %), followed by heading 2 (minus 12.8 %), heading 4 (minus 8.8 %) and, last, heading 1 with minus 4 %, without decreasing migration funds. Additionally, it reduces flexibilities that are used to finance unexpected crises; for example, the negotiating box reduces unallocated margins that can fund crisis reaction. Furthermore, flexibilities no longer benefit from top‑ups from fines and decommitments. The latest proposal thus further deepened the gap with the European Parliament's position to more than €316.2 billion (Figure 2).

The Heads of State or Government discussed the Presidency's proposal during the European Council meetings of 15 and 16 October. Tensions and divisions emerged among Member States, with no convergence of views. Several Member States – the 'net contributors' or 'frugals' consisting of Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Austria, Finland and Sweden – insisted that the reductions were not sufficient. They supported a rebalancing towards defence and competitiveness. By contrast, other Member States – the 'friends of cohesion' – refused any reduction in traditional policies, i.e. cohesion policy and the CAP, to finance new priorities instead: defence, competitiveness and energy security. The Irish Presidency touched upon the EU budget's revenue side, including Commission proposals for new own resources and opening the question of rebates, without taking a clear position. It made no reference to new revenues put forward by the European Parliament.

During the meeting, the political difficulties likely to arise from forthcoming elections were reportedly highlighted. The Heads of State or Government recognised the importance of reaching an agreement before the end of 2026, to allow negotiations and adoption of the legislative acts in due time before the start of the new MFF on 1 January 2028. Discussions on the 2028‑2034 MFF will again be on the next European Council's agenda. Figures 3 to 6 compare the different institutions' positions – as they stand today – on the 2028‑2034 MFF headings.

Source: Compiled by the authors, based on the European Commission proposal on the 2028‑2034 MFF, the European Parliament interim report and the Irish Council Presidency negotiating box; graphic by Lucille Killmayer, EPRS. *CAP: common agricultural policy (includes income support, rural areas, fisheries and the unity safety net); **EU facility: includes EU actions and the cushion. Note: EFRD: European Fund for Regional Development (covering the European Regional Development Fund, the Cohesion Fund and Interreg); ESF: European Social Fund.

Source: Compiled by the authors, based on the European Commission proposal on the 2028‑2034 MFF, the European Parliament interim report and the Irish Council Presidency negotiating box; graphic by Lucille Killmayer, EPRS. Note: ECF: European Competitiveness Fund.

Source: Compiled by the authors, based on the European Commission proposal on the 2028‑2034 MFF, the European Parliament interim report and the Irish Council Presidency negotiating box; graphic by Lucille Killmayer, EPRS.

Source: Compiled by the authors, based on the European Commission proposal on the 2028‑2034 MFF, the European Parliament interim report and the Irish Council Presidency negotiating box; graphic by Lucille Killmayer, EPRS.

Reactions by Members of the European Parliament and Parliament's President

Parliament's lead co‑rapporteurs on the MFF, Siegfried Mureșan (EPP, Romania) and Carla Tavares (S&D, Portugal), and Parliament's co‑rapporteurs on own resources, Danuše Nerudová (EPP, Czechia) and Sandra Gómez López (S&D, Spain), firmly rejected the negotiating position presented by the Irish Presidency. They refused the reduction of the Commission proposal by 8.7 % excluding NGEU debt repayment, noting that it would weaken the EU in areas where more action was needed – such as on competitiveness, defence, and security – and would result in underfunding for agriculture and cohesion. They insisted that the EU be provided with the resources that were necessary for the EU to face its responsibilities, underlining how critical it was to have new EU own resources in order to reach an overall agreement on the future EU budget.

In her address to the leaders, the President of the European Parliament, Roberta Metsola, underlined that a smaller budget would prevent the EU from meeting its ambitions, and insisted on providing the necessary financial means. She noted that new EU own resources could enable an agreement, since they could facilitate funding common priorities without putting excessive pressure on national budgets. She stressed the importance of Parliament's participation throughout the process, and reiterated its willingness to work constructively towards achieving an EU budget suited to the EU's objectives. The leaders of four political groups in the European Parliament (EPP, S&D, Renew Europe and Greens/EFA) issued a statement in which they rejected the negotiating box presented by the Irish Presidency, since it would 'shrink the EU budget relative to our economy precisely when Europe is being asked to do more'.

Future steps

The President of the European Council, António Costa, is expected to take over the lead on the 2028‑2034 MFF and present a new negotiating box on 13 November, to be part of the 26‑27 November special European Council's agenda aimed at converging the differing views. As stated by the European Council in its conclusions, the aim is to reach an agreement before the end of 2026, to ensure a smooth transition and start the implementation of the programmes as of January 2028.

From a budgetary point of view, however, the gap between the European Parliament's and the Council's positions appears to be widening. Parliament will have to be involved in the process in a meaningful way so that it can give its consent, in line with Article 312 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in particular paragraphs 2 and 5.