A strong external budget: A strategic necessity in the MFF negotiations

This past spring, I supported the deliberations of the European Citizens’ Panel on the next EU budget. This democratic exercise did not involve policy experts, political parties or lobby groups, but 150 randomly selected citizens from all 27 member states. Over three weekends, they debated and agreed on their priorities for the new budget.

Their recommendations primarily focused on everyday concerns, understandably highlighting priorities like healthcare, education, youth employment, energy independence and reducing regional disparities. The EU’s external role received less attention, although the panel did call for a more independent EU in the field of defence, stronger diplomatic alignment and more effective support for external action aligned with strategic interests and values.

The limited focus on EU external action in the final conclusions was predictable. It reflects a wider political tendency to overlook global engagement in the face of pressing domestic issues. In a context of rising living costs, job insecurity, poor infrastructure and limited fiscal space, external action may not feel like a priority. This makes it even more important to engage and explain why it matters. My experience showed that a clear and pedagogical approach resonates. When we explain the interdependence between global stability and our own security and prosperity in concrete, relatable terms, citizens listen.

Making a strong case for the EU’s external engagement

Yet, making the case for medium- to long-term external investments is difficult in a political climate focused on quick returns. This poses a challenge for international cooperation and development, which are long-term investments by nature. They also often lack the immediate visibility of defence or border management, which are frequently portrayed in political discourse and the media as addressing urgent and tangible threats, even if these threats are not always directly felt by citizens.

The political argument for international cooperation needs to be reframed. While life-saving aid still enjoys public support, the traditional narrative on international development, rooted in solidarity and global responsibility, resonates less in today’s more transactional political climate. We need a clearer, sharper narrative that connects external engagement to people’s lives and demonstrates mutual interests and results for both partner countries and EU citizens. The deep USAID cuts show how vulnerable international cooperation is when it lacks a compelling narrative of domestic relevance.

The EU and the foreign policy community at large need to communicate better and more accessibly, using clear data and convincing arguments to show how a prosperous, democratic and stable international environment directly contributes to a safer, competitive and resilient Europe. In the long run, it is also much cheaper.

Critics may argue that external action is a luxury in times of domestic need, but this ignores the long-term cost of disengagement. It also ignores the fundamental interdependence that underpins the global system, where international partnerships support EU jobs, security and supply chains. The potential cost of underinvestment in the EU’s global role has been dramatically underpriced politically and not communicated effectively to the public. The returns may be less visible, but they are more cost-effective than emergency responses once crises erupt.

Allowing a reduction in external action budgets would be a strategic miscalculation, signalling a retreat from the global stage at a moment when coherent and principled EU leadership is most required. It may hasten the collapse of the multilateral system, undermine responses to future pandemics or limit opportunities for European businesses in a competitive global market.

A new narrative must also convey a message of reciprocity: that the EU’s credibility and effectiveness as a global partner are inextricably linked to its internal strength, including a robust economy, strengthened security and defence capabilities, and a united, values-based voice. Strengthening these foundations is not only justified but essential to being a strong and credible global actor.

The return on smart external investment
 

A robust EU external budget is the indispensable financial arm that underpins the EU’s security, diplomacy, international partnerships and crisis response. It is also a direct investment in the EU’s competitiveness, which depends on its ability to forge new alliances and secure sustainable access to critical raw materials and emerging global markets.

Strategic initiatives like the Global Gateway have set out a new narrative on the EU’s offer to its partners, but their ultimate success and geopolitical impact hinge on sustained and predictable financial commitments aligned with clear objectives. Yet, the Global Gateway’s objectives remain ambiguous, balancing development partnerships with an assertive economic foreign policy for EU strategic and commercial interests. A decisive alignment of the EU’s financial resources with its strategic goals is necessary, as is recognising that development finance is part of economic foreign policy.

Similarly, Europe’s security is inextricably linked to the stability of its immediate neighbourhood and the wider world. The multifaceted crises at its borders cannot be effectively addressed by fortification and reactive measures alone. Instability in the Middle East and the Sahel, where the EU’s relative disengagement has already created space for other actors to expand their influence, directly impacts Europe – from endemic political and economic instability to threats of terrorism and disruptions in energy supply and trade routes. This shows that well-funded and proactive external policy is key to a strong and effective security strategy.

Furthermore, the EU’s aspired leadership on global issues like climate adaptation and the green transition depends on its capacity to support partner countries in their decarbonisation and resilience efforts. In addition, the EU can only build systemic resilience and shield itself from the cascading effects of climate change in partner countries by stepping up its climate adaptation and loss and damage efforts. A reduced external budget would impede the EU’s climate objectives, undermine international climate solidarity and irredeemably erode the EU’s credibility and influence as a global leader in this critical area – which also provides opportunities for European businesses.

At the same time, the case for external action should not rest solely on strategic self-interest. It is also about taking pride in Europe’s role as a global actor investing in tangible and life-improving initiatives that resonate with citizens, from humanitarian aid to health and education systems in vulnerable regions.

A strong external action budget must reflect this dual purpose: safeguarding Europe’s future while upholding its identity as a principled global actor. The EU’s focus on values remains a powerful asset that is still recognised and appreciated by many partners. Reaffirming those values, while demonstrating tangible benefits, is essential to renewing broad political support for external action and to positioning the EU as a credible and attractive global partner.

Positioning external action in the MFF talks

This moment is not without precedent. Exactly seven years ago, as the Commission unveiled its proposal for the current MFF, we argued for an ambitious external action budget. Despite tough negotiations, the external heading was ultimately preserved better than expected. Today, the challenge is even greater​, but the lessons from 2018 still apply: a clear, strategic narrative and a broad coalition of support can protect and even strengthen the EU’s global role.

Competing budgetary demands and intense political pressure to prioritise internal challenges are inevitable. Two different visions lie at the heart of the debate between those pushing for a more interest-driven and geostrategic use of external funds, focused on defence, migration and competitiveness, and those defending the EU’s role as a principled global actor committed to development, human rights and humanitarian assistance.

These positions are not mutually exclusive, but without a shared strategic framework, they risk pulling the EU in divergent directions. To secure a strong external budget in the new MFF, the European Commission must carefully navigate internal divisions between member states and across political groups, and effectively link external spending to Europe’s security and prosperity.

This requires integrating foreign policy, development cooperation and economic interests into a single strategic logic: that internal prosperity and external influence are interdependent and mutually reinforcing. Crucially, this also requires breaking out of the siloed nature of MFF negotiations, ensuring that external action is not treated in isolation but considered alongside other EU priorities​.

The EU should advocate for a budget that is not only ambitious in its overall scale but also designed for maximum agility and flexibility. Beyond preserving the size of the external budget, the EU must pay attention to its structure and delivery. The EU must equip itself with the right instrument to respond to a rapidly changing world. This includes clarifying the objectives and political steer, as well as upgrading its institutional, implementation and financial capabilities.

A robust external heading in the MFF is not an operational luxury. Defending the external budget shouldn’t just be about avoiding cuts; it should be about showing value for money, relevance and tangible results – but most of all, strategic necessity.

The views are those of the author and not necessarily those of ECDPM.

Our work on the MFF

Explore our dossier featuring ECDPM’s work on the new multiannual financial framework and the budget negotiations, along with insights into current and past frameworks.