European Union institutions have channelled millions of euros in public funds to organisations linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, according to a new report published by the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) Group on Tuesday.
The report, led by Swedish ECR MEP Charlie Weimers and titled Unmasking the Muslim Brotherhood, claims that EU institutions, national governments, and regional authorities have for years financed organisations tied to Islamist networks, often under the banner of social inclusion, anti-discrimination, and youth engagement.
It names several recipients of EU funding, including Islamic Relief Worldwide, which it says has received more than €40 million since 2007, the European Network Against Racism (ENAR), which received €23 million over the same period, and the European Muslim Union and the Forum of European Muslim Youth and Student Organisations (FEMYSO), both of which are also cited as beneficiaries of EU-backed projects.
Announcing the publication of the report on X, Weimers said:
A new report reveals how EU funds are being exploited to support organizations linked to the Muslim Brotherhood (MB). These groups, masquerading as inclusive, use financial support from the EU to push a separatist agenda that undermines European values such as freedom, democracy, and equality.
As a case study, the report points to a Council of Europe-backed “Freedom in Hijab” campaign, which promoted the slogan “freedom is in the hijab” as part of an EU-supported anti-discrimination initiative. The campaign was later withdrawn following political backlash in France and other member states, with the report describing it as an example of how institutional inclusion frameworks can be used to advance Islamist messaging.
The report also highlights continued EU-linked funding for organisations accused of maintaining ties to extremist groups. It cites Islamic Relief Worldwide as a major beneficiary of EU and member-state grants despite repeated controversies involving antisemitic statements by senior figures and alleged links to Hamas. It also points to an EU-funded academic project involving the Islamic University of Gaziantep, whose leadership publicly expressed support for Hamas after the 7 October attacks, raising further questions about vetting and oversight.
Defenders of the current funding model argue that there is no conclusive proof that EU money is being used for illegal activity and say the organisations involved play an important role in social inclusion. The report counters that the central issue is not legality but whether such groups are compatible with democratic values, arguing that EU institutions apply stricter safeguards when funding private companies than when supporting politically active civil-society organisations.
The report concludes with a warning: these are not isolated cases or administrative mistakes, but a pattern that puts European democratic cohesion at risk. “Cutting funding and legitimacy to Islamist organisations is not a political option: it is a moral and democratic obligation.” Weimers argues that continuing to ignore this evidence would be “an act of historical irresponsibility.”
