Brussels is moving to replace U.S. funding that has quietly bankrolled large parts of Europe’s activist industry for years. As Washington pulls the plug on programs linked to USAID, many political campaigns, NGOs, and advocacy networks across Europe are suddenly short of cash.
The European Union now wants to step in and pick up the bill. Behind closed doors, officials are discussing how to use the next long-term EU budget, covering 2028 to 2034, to plug the funding gap and stop what they see as a strategic ecosystem from collapsing.
For more than a decade, American money helped build a professional activist class in Europe. Funding from the U.S. government, foundations, and partner organisations allowed campaigns to expand, hire staff, and maintain permanent pressure on national governments and EU institutions.
That cash is now drying up. The impact has been immediate: projects shut down, staff laid off, and influence fading. In Brussels, this is being treated not as a financial problem, but a political threat—especially as eurosceptic and sovereignist parties continue to gain ground.
The EU’s answer is to spend more. Draft budget plans include a sweeping new program, AgoraEU, which would centralize funding for media, culture, and “civil society.” With a proposed budget of €8.6 billion over seven years—up to six times current levels—the scheme would massively expand EU-funded activism.
Officially, the Commission says the money is about democracy, participation, and free expression. In reality, the funding is designed to favor organisations that share Brussels’ ideological outlook, effectively replacing American support with a permanent, EU-backed funding pipeline.
The controversy is about more than money. Pouring billions of euros into activist networks raises uncomfortable questions about neutrality—and about whether taxpayers should be forced to fund groups that often campaign against elected governments.
The timing also jars. As households face high prices, slow growth, and pressure on public services, Brussels is preparing to spend billions propping up an activist ecosystem while other areas face cuts or tight spending limits.
This shift also reflects growing nerves inside the EU institutions. Donald Trump’s return to the White House and his hostile stance toward Brussels have accelerated efforts to “defend” the European project from political backlash.
Inside the EU, officials increasingly talk about the need to “shield the European consensus.” In practice, that means using money to drown out critics and reinforce approved voices.
The language is revealing. It points to a Commission that is less interested in open debate than in protecting its own power—power that officially comes from member states, but is often enforced through financial pressure and political punishment.
Hungary has already learned what happens when a government openly challenges Brussels. Others are watching closely.
