The European Commission wants member states to assess climate risks, establish national resilience plans and incorporate future warming into public investment decisions. Yet the proposed legislation does not provide the funding needed to implement its ambitions.
The European Commission has proposed a new climate resilience law that would require EU governments to assess their exposure to extreme weather, identify authorities responsible for managing risks and develop national plans to protect infrastructure and economic activity.
Presented on 27 October, the initiative marks a shift in European climate policy towards managing the consequences of changing weather conditions alongside efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
However, the Commission estimates that adapting Europe’s infrastructure and economy to future climatic conditions will require approximately €70 billion annually.
The proposed legislation does not establish a dedicated funding programme of that size.
This creates an immediate question for member states already facing difficult decisions over defence expenditure, energy security and public borrowing.
Brussels wants governments to make climate preparedness a routine part of economic planning, but the financial responsibility for delivering those measures remains largely unresolved.
The proposal envisages national assessments by 30 June 2029 and strategic resilience plans by 31 December 2030.
These documents would identify threats affecting infrastructure, public services, economic activity and communities.
Governments would also be expected to specify which public authorities are responsible for managing particular risks.
The intention is to prevent situations in which responsibility is divided between institutions without a clear mechanism for action.
The proposed framework would establish a common basis for assessments across the EU, allowing national authorities to compare risks and coordinate responses.
This could be particularly relevant where droughts, floods or disruptions to energy networks affect more than one member state.
The deadlines remain proposals rather than existing legal obligations. The legislation must still be negotiated and adopted by the European Parliament and the Council.
A common warming scenario
One of the most significant elements of the proposal is the introduction of a shared reference trajectory for global warming.
According to the Commission’s announcement, the framework uses a trajectory involving global average warming of approximately 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels by 2030, 2°C by 2050 and 3°C by 2100.
These figures would provide a common planning assumption for evaluating long-term risks.
They are not legally determined temperature outcomes or a guarantee that warming will follow precisely that path.
Instead, they are intended to help authorities examine how buildings, roads, energy facilities and other infrastructure might perform under changing climatic conditions.
For example, a transport project designed to operate for several decades would need to consider possible exposure to extreme heat, flooding or changes in rainfall patterns.
Such assessments could influence engineering requirements, maintenance costs and investment decisions.
The financial problem
The Commission estimates that approximately €70 billion a year will be needed to strengthen Europe’s climate resilience.
That expenditure could include flood protection, water management, urban cooling, agricultural adaptation and improvements to vulnerable infrastructure.
The Commission argues that preventive investment can reduce the economic losses associated with disasters.
According to its figures, climate-related damage across the EU amounted to approximately €200 billion between 2022 and 2025, averaging €50 billion annually.
However, estimating the economic benefits of prevention does not resolve how projects should be financed.
National governments face competing demands on their budgets, while local authorities often bear responsibility for infrastructure without possessing sufficient resources for major investment programmes.
Private financing may contribute in commercially viable areas, but some adaptation projects generate public benefits rather than direct financial returns.
Flood barriers, emergency drainage systems and measures protecting vulnerable communities may therefore require substantial public expenditure.
The proposed legislation establishes a framework for identifying such investments but does not guarantee the resources necessary to undertake them.
Businesses and insurers face changing risks
The Commission also wants climate resilience to become part of business and financial decision-making.
Companies operating transport networks, energy facilities and industrial sites may face increasing exposure to disruption from extreme weather.
Insurers must assess the potential for more frequent or costly claims.
Banks and investors may need to consider whether assets remain commercially viable under changing environmental conditions.
These issues have implications for credit conditions, property values and long-term investment.
However, incorporating climate risks into financial decisions can create difficulties for regions where exposure is high and adaptation costs are substantial.
Insurance premiums may rise, while some properties or economic activities could become increasingly difficult to insure.
The Commission has indicated that further proposals concerning climate insurance and disaster preparedness are being developed.
Their eventual design will influence how financial risks are distributed between households, businesses, insurers and governments.
New European climate information tools
The framework also introduces instruments intended to improve access to scientific information.
The European Climate Viewer will provide mapped information on projected climate hazards.
The Navigator of Climate Resilience Tools will help authorities and businesses identify relevant assessment instruments.
A separate Solutions Explorer will provide examples of adaptation measures developed through European research programmes.
These tools could make climate information more accessible, particularly for smaller administrations without extensive technical resources.
Nevertheless, access to information does not automatically produce the financing or institutional capacity required to implement projects.
A municipality may be able to identify a flood risk more precisely while remaining unable to finance the necessary protective infrastructure.
A new responsibility for Brussels and national capitals
The Commission is expected to present an additional EU strategic plan on climate resilience in 2028.
Separate initiatives are also being prepared on heatwaves, insurance and disaster preparedness.
The resulting framework could substantially influence how public infrastructure and investment projects are planned across Europe.
However, national governments will have to determine how the proposed requirements interact with existing spending obligations and economic priorities.
The European Parliament and Council must also decide whether the legislation should include stronger financial provisions.
The central issue is not whether governments should assess the risks facing infrastructure and public services, but how the measures identified by those assessments will be funded.
Until that question is addressed, the proposed law will establish a more comprehensive system for recognising climate-related risks without guaranteeing that member states possess the resources to reduce them.
AI coding startup Cogniton is fielding offers for a new funding round.
The round could value Cognition between $70 billion and $80 billion, according to people familiar with the matter.
The new offers come weeks after the company announced a $2 billion round at a $48 billion valuation.
Just weeks after announcing a new round of funding at a $48 billion valuation, AI coding startup Cognition is fielding new investor interest at a much higher price.
The startup has received offers valuing it at between $70 billion and $80 billion and is seriously considering a round before the end of the year, according to sources familiar with the matter.
The talks around the financing are still early, and valuation targets could still change.
Founded in 2023 by Scott Wu, Steven Hao, and Walden Yan, Cognition is best known for Devin, an AI coding agent designed to automate software engineering tasks. The San Francisco-based company's existing investors include a16z, Accel, Founders Fund, Khosla Ventures, Elad Gil, and Pear VC.
Cognition's rapid valuation climb underscores the investor frenzy around AI coding, one of the hottest and most competitive corners of the AI market. As companies race to sell AI coding agents that can take on more of the work engineers do, investors are placing increasingly expensive bets on the few startups they think could emerge as leaders.
Last month, Cognition was drawn into a public feud with rival Factory AI, which accused Cognition employees of posing as job applicants to seek product information and faulted a former Factory adviser for meeting with Cognition executives. Cognition and the former adviser denied that confidential information was sought or shared.
Got a tip? Email Katie anytime or contact her on Signal at kroof.26. Sign up for Business Insider's weekly VC Insider newsletter here.
The risk of continental spread of Ebola looms as Nigeria becomes the fourth African country to report a confirmed case of the deadly virus since the outbreak was declared in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) in mid-May.
Caused by the rare Bundibugyo strain of the virus, it has since become the world’s second-deadliest Ebola outbreak ever and the fastest-growing on record. It has killed 4,803 patients, nearly half of all the 9,876 confirmed cases in the eight provinces of DRC’s eastern region as of October 23
The real scale of deaths is likely much higher, since community transmission of the virus had already begun in DRC’s Ituri province by mid-February, three months before it was detected and officially declared an outbreak on May 15.
Neighboring Uganda, which is backing armed groups in Ituri, undermining the already delayed and severely underfunded health response, also reported its first case on May 15. However, after two deaths and 20 confirmed infections, the health ministry declared Uganda Ebola-free in late July. The WHO also certified this in late August, after no new cases were confirmed for 42 days.
However, its Ebola-free status has now come under question with the first case in Nigeria. The 42-year-old patient is a Ugandan national and Swiss citizen. She is the wife of a Swiss diplomat at its embassy in Nigeria’s capital, Abuja, where she resides.
After a two-and-a-half-week-long vacation in Uganda, she and her husband returned to Abuja on October 3. Four days later, she fell ill. Initially suspected of Malaria, she was treated at two private hospitals before being tested positive for Ebola and isolated on October 20.
Uganda makes a false claim
Soon after she was tested positive in Nigeria, the Ugandan health ministry claimed that the patient had traveled to the DRC.
However, the “information supplied to WHO did not include [her] travel” to any country other than Uganda, WHO representative in Nigeria Pavel Ursu said on October 22.
“So far, there is no validated information that this case traveled to DRC,” added Wessam Mankoula, the Head of Health Emergencies of the continent’s highest health authority, the Africa Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Then on October 23, the Swiss foreign ministry said explicitly that the patient had not traveled to the DRC, directly contradicting Uganda’s claim, indicating that she was infected in Uganda.
Uganda, meanwhile, still maintains that it has no confirmed Ebola cases. The WHO and Africa CDC are now examining a hypothesis that she may have contracted the virus at the airport in Uganda’s capital, Kampala, where a Kenyan businessman, infected during his travels in the DRC, was also present while she was boarding her flight to Abuja.
The Kenyan businessman had spent seven years in the DRC. While traveling on business, he had already fallen ill in September and was treated in multiple hospitals, but was not diagnosed with Ebola. Early symptoms of Ebola are often similar to other diseases in the region, including Malaria. He was reportedly provided antibiotics and sent home at one of the hospitals.
An illegal border crossing
The man in question traveled by road to Uganda from the conflict-ridden, mineral-rich, Ebola-affected province of North Kivu, parts of which are occupied by the Rwandan army and its proxy, the M23, which Uganda also supports, according to the UN.
It is unclear how the Kenyan businessman reached Kampala from North Kivu. Soon after the outbreak was declared, Uganda had closed the border with DRC, except for humanitarian trucks. Mankoula said he had crossed the border illegally.
In Kampala, he boarded a flight to Nairobi on October 3 from Entebbe Airport, through which the Uganda-born Swiss citizen who later tested positive in Nigeria was also passing that day to catch her flight to Abuja.
“Has there been any touch or contact between two cases [him and the case in Nigeria] at the airport at the same time?” This is one of the theories that is currently under investigation,” said Mankoula of the Africa CDC.
When the Kenyan businessman landed in Nairobi, he was already ill. The family member who picked him up from the airport drove him straight to the Nairobi Hospital, where he died two days later. Eight others who came into contact were also infected and isolated. They include four health workers and four family members, one of whom died later on October 23.
Even as health authorities examine whether he was also the source from whom the Nigerian case contracted the virus, virologist Marion Koopmans, who is also a member of the WHO’s Ebola emergency committee, has cast doubt on this theory.
“I think that is very speculative unless there is evidence of sharing the same space in a manner that could explain that. Random presence at the same location, a large airport, is not a supported epidemiological link by any standard of what we currently know,” she said.
If he was not the source, that could mean Ugandan authorities are either not revealing or are unaware of potential cases in the country. Even if he was the source, questions remain about Uganda’s Ebola-free status, as others he may have come into contact with – either in the airport or on his way to it in Kampala – could also have contracted the virus.
Nigeria at risk of community transmission
Either way, Nigeria is now at risk of community transmission. The Nigerian case landed on October 3 in Abuja, at one of the busiest airports in West Africa. Only on October 20, 13 days after developing symptoms, was she tested positive for Ebola and isolated.
Amid fears that the virus may have infected others who may have come into contact with her during this period, especially health workers, Nigerian Health Minister Muhammad Ali Pate said that authorities were tracing all 44 contacts. “We are trying to contain it so it doesn’t go out to the communities. Hopefully, it won’t get to that,” he added.
“When we identified at-risk countries, Nigeria was not part of this list. It is now. That list would have to be redrawn, and North and Southern Africa could also be at risk,” said Jean Kaseya, director-general of the Africa CDC, adding, “We need to consider that no one is safe today.”
Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan, Hyperbolic founder Jasper Zhang, and Walden Catalyst partner Shankar Chandran.
Luke Dietz
Infrastructure startup Hyperbolic raised a $30 million round led by Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan's VC firm.
The startup connects companies with neoclouds and makes their AI chips easier to use.
Hyperbolic also wants to let customers resell unused computing power.
Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan is backing an infrastructure startup that has raised $30 million to help companies rent compute across hundreds of different AI cloud providers.
Hyperbolic, an AI chip marketplace and software startup, has raised $50 million to date.
Walden Catalyst, the venture capital firm founded by Tan and former Samsung president Young Sohn, led the Series A-1 funding round. Dell Technologies Capital, General Catalyst, Vista Equity Partners, and Cambium Capital also participated.
As companies scramble for computing power, one challenge is that AI cloud providers, or neoclouds, use a mix of different chips, networking, and software. Hyperbolic helps customers find compute resources from different providers and creates software that makes it easier to use them all, rather than dealing with each one separately.
"It's been a really fragmented market that makes the customer experience really painful," said 31-year-old founder and CEO Jasper Zhang.
Hyperbolic also wants to let customers resell compute that they're paying for but no longer need.
The four-year-old startup works closely with about 30 neoclouds, including WhiteFiber and Vector Core Compute. It says it has roughly $200 million worth of compute connected to its software annually.
Hyperbolic previously raised a $12 million Series A round in 2024, led by Variant and Polychain Capital, following a $7 million seed round earlier that year. The company expects to have 50 employees by the end of the year and will use its funding to expand software tools for managing AI chips across different neoclouds.
Zhang said the company is aiming for $150 million in annual recurring revenue by the end of the year and is already breaking even. More than 250,000 developers, including teams at Modal, Higgsfield, and Daytona, use Hyperbolic.
Before founding the company, Zhang worked as a quantitative researcher at Citadel Securities. As Wall Street explores ways to financialize AI chips, he said his startup's plans to let companies resell unused compute could help pave the way for a futures market.
Here's a look at the pitch deck Hyperbolic used to raise its $30 million Series A-1. Slides have been redacted so that the deck can be shared publicly.
Simile, an AI startup, raised $300 million at a $2 billion valuation to build models that simulate consumer behavior.
Alistair Berg/Getty Images
Simile raised $300 million to build models that simulate consumer behavior.
CEO Joon Sung Park said users can define an audience and ask simulated consumers questions.
Park said CVS and companies in finance and entertainment are already working with Simile.
Companies could soon have a new way to find out your shopping habits — by asking your digital clone.
Joon Sung Park, Co-Founder & CEO of Simile, an AI startup, told show host Molly O'Shea on the Sourcery podcast released on Monday that the company is building simulations of people that businesses can quiz about everything from products to marketing campaigns.
Park said the company is "creating a foundation model of human behavior that basically can take as input a description of a person or a group of people and then simulate what these people might do in different contexts," Park said.
"So they get access to this web interface where they can basically come in and define two things," Park added of existing users. "They can say who they want to talk to and what questions they want to ask. And really they can ask anything, and right now they can ask any number of questions."
Park said Simile raised $300 million in total at a $2 billion valuation.
Simile’s pitch comes as retailers turn to AI to get shoppers to spend. Amazon and Walmart have rolled out AI shopping assistants that answer questions, compare products, and recommend items, while retailers use customer data to personalize what shoppers see. Executives at both companies have said their AI tools are helping boost online sales.
Park said CVS has worked with Simile to better understand consumers, including their responses to store layouts and messaging. The startup also works with financial institutions and entertainment companies, Park said.
Simile maintains simulated panels for different industries and collects additional data when customers want to understand a specific population. Park said Simile's partnerships with organizations, including Gallup, which have access to actual humans who have agreed to participate, provide it with data from more than 40 million people globally. He said the company also uses behavioral information, such as transaction and mobility data, to train its models.
“If we can create simulations of people and be able to ask any questions at any time," Park said, "That becomes a superpower for these companies."
The European Parliament voted on Thursday, 22nd October, to support a €47.4 billion budget for the Erasmus+ programme between 2028 and 2034, demanding substantially more funding than proposed by the European Commission.
The parliamentary position was approved by 454 votes to 34, with 93 abstentions, following negotiations over the future of the EU’s principal education, training and student mobility programme.
MEPs are seeking approximately €6.56 billion more than the Commission’s proposed €40.83 billion allocation, arguing that existing financial support does not adequately reflect rising living costs and the expense of studying abroad.
The decision establishes Parliament’s negotiating position but does not represent final approval of the funding. The programme remains subject to negotiations with national governments and agreement on the EU’s next seven-year budget.
Rising living costs affect student mobility
Erasmus+ allows students, apprentices, teachers and other participants to study, train or gain professional experience in another participating country.
Although widely associated with university exchanges, the programme also supports vocational education, schools, adult learning, youth organisations and sporting activities.
Participation often involves substantial personal expenditure, particularly for accommodation, transport and everyday living expenses.
These costs vary considerably between European destinations, creating financial difficulties for students whose Erasmus grants cover only part of their expenses.
The European Parliament is consequently calling for support mechanisms that account for differences in housing and living costs between host countries, regions and cities.
The proposal is intended to make participation more accessible to people who cannot rely on additional financial assistance from their families.
The European Parliament’s research service has identified unequal access, financial limitations and administrative complexity among the challenges facing the programme.
The proposed legislation would also establish a target under which at least 20 per cent of participants in mobility activities would be people facing fewer educational or economic opportunities.
Parliament seeks larger education allocation
The parliamentary proposal provides for approximately €47.39 billion in current prices over seven years.
The Commission originally proposed approximately €40.83 billion, combining funding for Erasmus+ with activities currently administered through the European Solidarity Corps.
According to the report prepared by Parliament’s Committee on Culture and Education, the revised programme would include more explicit financial allocations for different activities.
Education and training would account for approximately 74.6 per cent of the proposed financial envelope, while youth and volunteering would receive around 15 per cent. Sport would receive approximately 4.1 per cent.
The proposed allocation structure is intended to provide greater certainty for organisations planning longer-term educational projects and cross-border partnerships.
Polish MEP Bogdan Andrzej Zdrojewski, of the European People’s Party, is Parliament’s rapporteur on the legislation. His report calls for greater transparency over expenditure and more predictable funding arrangements.
The programme would continue supporting European university alliances, international educational cooperation and initiatives intended to improve professional skills.
Volunteering and vocational training
One proposed change concerns the integration of the European Solidarity Corps into the wider Erasmus+ framework.
The Solidarity Corps currently offers young people opportunities to participate in volunteering and community activities, including projects addressing social and humanitarian needs.
The Commission has proposed bringing these activities within the new programme in an attempt to simplify administration.
However, parliamentarians want safeguards to ensure that volunteering remains identifiable and accessible within the broader funding structure.
The parliamentary position also seeks to extend mobility opportunities across vocational training, adult education and sport.
These activities would allow a wider range of participants to benefit from international placements, including people outside conventional university education.
Additional attention is being given to the financial circumstances of participants and the administrative requirements faced by smaller educational organisations.
Dispute over the EU’s next budget
The Erasmus+ negotiations are taking place against the background of a wider dispute over the European Union’s 2028–2034 financial framework.
Member states are debating the overall size of the budget and the competing demands of agricultural policy, regional development, defence, research and education.
As EU Today recently examined, the negotiations have exposed disagreements over whether the EU should expand its financial commitments or constrain expenditure during a period of pressure on national finances.
Parliament’s Erasmus+ proposal will therefore depend not only on agreement over educational priorities but also on the final distribution of resources across the wider EU budget.
Some governments may support broader participation while resisting the full increase requested by MEPs.
What happens next?
Negotiations must establish the programme’s final budget, eligibility rules and the arrangements governing grants after 2027.
The Council has already developed a negotiating position on aspects of the programme, although financial questions remain connected to the broader budget settlement.
Erasmus+ will mark its 40th anniversary in 2027, shortly before the new framework is scheduled to begin.
More than 17 million people have participated in the programme and its related activities since its establishment.
The outcome of the current negotiations will determine whether the next generation of participants receives more financial support and whether the programme can expand without increasing the proportion of costs borne by students and their families.
MEPs have approved emergency EU funding to help four southern European countries recover from destructive storms and flooding earlier this year, with Portugal receiving the largest allocation.
The European Parliament approved €489.15 million in financial assistance for Portugal, Spain, Italy and Malta on Wednesday, 21 October, following severe storms and flooding that damaged infrastructure and disrupted communities across southern Europe during the opening months of 2026.
The allocation from the European Union Solidarity Fund was approved by 651 votes to 17, with three abstentions. Portugal will receive the largest share, approximately €261.5 million, followed by Spain with €149.1 million, Italy with €74.9 million and Malta with €3.7 million.
The funding is intended to support recovery operations and help national authorities meet the costs of restoring essential public infrastructure and services damaged by the disasters.
Portugal receives largest allocation
Portugal’s €261.5 million allocation follows flooding and storms that affected the country during January and February.
The Portuguese authorities applied for assistance from the EU Solidarity Fund after assessing the extent of the damage and the associated costs of emergency operations and infrastructure recovery.
The funds will contribute to eligible public expenditure arising from the disasters, potentially including the restoration of transport links, damaged public facilities and other essential infrastructure.
Portugal has already received approximately €65.37 million in advance funding, according to the figures accompanying the parliamentary decision.
Spain will receive €149.1 million following destructive weather during the same period, including severe flooding in February.
The Spanish government had also requested European assistance to cover part of the expenditure associated with recovery operations.
Approximately €37.26 million of Spain’s allocation has already been paid in advance.
The two countries together account for the substantial majority of the assistance approved on Wednesday, reflecting the scale of their eligible recovery costs.
Storm Harry damages Italy and Malta
Italy and Malta will receive assistance following Storm Harry, which struck parts of the central Mediterranean in January 2026.
Italy’s allocation amounts to €74.9 million, while Malta will receive €3.7 million.
The storm caused significant disruption in affected Mediterranean areas, with heavy rainfall, strong winds and damaging sea conditions placing pressure on local infrastructure.
Italian authorities sought European support for recovery operations in the affected territories, while Malta submitted its own request following the damage sustained during the storm.
The Maltese allocation includes approximately €931,000 already made available through an advance payment.
The final assistance amounts were proposed by the European Commission after examining the applications submitted by the four governments.
The European Union established the Solidarity Fund in 2002 to assist member states and certain countries participating in the EU accession process following major natural disasters.
The mechanism provides financial support for public emergency and recovery expenditure rather than operating as a general insurance scheme for individuals or businesses.
Eligible expenditure can include emergency accommodation, restoring essential infrastructure, securing protective infrastructure, cleaning disaster-affected areas and protecting cultural heritage.
National authorities submit applications to the Commission, which evaluates them against the relevant eligibility requirements and financial thresholds.
Assistance depends on the assessed disaster damage and applicable regulatory criteria, rather than simply reimbursing every euro of economic loss.
The fund is financed through EU budgetary arrangements and is mobilised following the required institutional approvals.
Payments are made to the countries concerned, which remain responsible for ensuring that assistance is used in accordance with EU financial rules.
The Solidarity Fund can therefore help governments manage exceptional recovery costs, but it does not replace national budgets, private insurance or other financial arrangements.
Rising pressure on European disaster funding
The latest allocation comes against a background of increasingly frequent demands on European disaster-response mechanisms.
Southern European countries have experienced damaging floods, storms, heatwaves and wildfires in recent years, leading to repeated requests for assistance.
Recovery expenditure extends beyond immediate emergency operations. Damaged roads, bridges, coastal defences, water systems and public buildings can require prolonged reconstruction.
These costs can place considerable pressure on local authorities, particularly where a disaster affects tourism, transport or economic activity.
The EU faces the additional challenge of maintaining sufficient funds to respond to major disasters affecting several countries within a relatively short period.
Extreme weather events can also expose weaknesses in existing infrastructure, prompting governments to consider whether reconstruction should incorporate additional protection against future disasters.
However, such investments must be assessed against the eligible spending categories of the Solidarity Fund and the availability of other EU financing programmes.
Parliamentary approval and implementation
Wednesday’s vote represents parliamentary approval of the mobilisation proposed by the European Commission.
The decision concerns disasters that occurred earlier in 2026 and does not constitute a new emergency response operation.
The funds will support eligible recovery measures carried out by the national authorities in the four countries.
The payments already made to Portugal, Spain and Malta will be taken into account when the remaining assistance is disbursed.
EU authorities will retain responsibility for monitoring compliance with the relevant financial and reporting requirements.
The substantial parliamentary majority indicates broad support for assistance to the affected countries, although future disaster-funding arrangements will continue to depend on the resources available in the European budget.
For the four governments, the immediate task is to use the approved assistance to meet eligible recovery costs and restore damaged public infrastructure following the storms earlier this year.
European prosecutors have searched offices in Brussels and Strasbourg as an investigation into alleged misuse of parliamentary funds by the former Identity and Democracy group raises questions over financial liabilities inherited by Patriots for Europe.
European prosecutors carried out searches at the European Parliament’s offices in Brussels and Strasbourg on Wednesday, 21 October, as part of an investigation into alleged financial irregularities involving the former Identity and Democracy (ID) parliamentary group.
The investigation concerns approximately €4.33 million in European Union funds that were allegedly improperly spent during the 2019–2024 parliamentary term. The European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) confirmed that searches had taken place in connection with an ongoing inquiry into the use of EU funds by a former parliamentary group.
The premises searched are now occupied by Patriots for Europe, the European Parliament’s third-largest political group, which includes France’s National Rally, Hungary’s Fidesz, Italy’s Lega and Spain’s Vox. Patriots for Europe insists that it has no legal continuity with Identity and Democracy and denies being involved in the investigation.
Investigation into parliamentary expenditure
The European Public Prosecutor’s Office opened its investigation in July 2025 following concerns identified by the European Parliament’s financial administration about expenditure incurred by Identity and Democracy.
The former group, which dissolved following the 2024 European elections, included representatives of France’s National Rally, Italy’s Lega and Germany’s Alternative for Germany.
According to details of the parliamentary financial examination subsequently reported in France, investigators are examining approximately €3.6 million in contracts awarded to external service providers, including businesses with political connections to parties represented within the former group.
The financial examination also identified more than €700,000 in donations to organisations whose activities were allegedly unrelated to the parliamentary group’s official functions.
The authorities are examining whether parliamentary resources were used in accordance with EU financial rules, including restrictions on using public money for national party-political activities.
These are allegations under investigation, not criminal findings. The EPPO has not announced convictions arising from the current inquiry, and the individuals and organisations concerned retain the presumption of innocence.
Earlier investigative measures were conducted in France, Belgium, Spain and Italy in June 2026. Wednesday’s searches mark a further stage in the proceedings.
Can Patriots for Europe inherit the liabilities?
The investigation has opened a separate dispute over whether Patriots for Europe could be required to repay money allegedly misspent by its predecessor.
Identity and Democracy ceased to exist after the 2024 elections. Several parties previously represented in the group subsequently joined Patriots for Europe, a new parliamentary formation that also brought together Viktor Orbán’s Fidesz and Spain’s Vox.
Patriots for Europe maintains that the two groups are legally separate. Its representatives argue that the dissolution of Identity and Democracy ended that group’s institutional existence and that the present parliamentary organisation is not responsible for its predecessor’s financial affairs.
However, the European Parliament’s budgetary authorities have examined whether responsibility for outstanding liabilities can pass to a successor group.
An opinion approved by the Parliament’s Budgetary Control Committee in September considered the circumstances in which continuity between parliamentary groups might establish financial responsibility.
Such an assessment may consider whether members, administrative personnel, operational resources and other assets were transferred from one organisation to another.
The outcome could determine whether the current group is exposed to potential repayment demands, irrespective of whether its present members were personally involved in the expenditure under investigation.
No final determination of such liability has been established through Wednesday’s searches.
Political consequences in Strasbourg
The searches come at a time when Patriots for Europe has become a major political force within the European Parliament.
Its member parties have challenged EU policy on immigration, economic regulation and the distribution of powers between Brussels and national governments. National Rally and Fidesz are also influential actors in the domestic politics of France and Hungary respectively.
An investigation involving their parliamentary organisation is therefore likely to attract scrutiny beyond the immediate financial questions.
Nevertheless, the political influence of the group and the criminal investigation must be considered separately. The presence of prosecutors at parliamentary premises does not establish wrongdoing by the current group’s MEPs.
The case also raises broader questions about financial accountability within the Parliament, particularly when a political group dissolves following an election and its members establish a new organisation.
Unlike national political parties, European parliamentary groups receive funding specifically to support their legislative, administrative and political work inside the institution.
Those resources are subject to financial controls intended to prevent their diversion into activities that should be funded by national parties or other organisations.
Further proceedings
The EPPO is responsible for investigating and prosecuting offences affecting the European Union’s financial interests. It operates independently of national governments and EU political institutions.
The European Parliament has confirmed its cooperation with the authorities but has declined to comment on the substance of the continuing investigation.
Prosecutors must now assess the evidence obtained during the searches alongside financial records and material collected during previous investigative measures.
Any decision to bring criminal proceedings would depend on the evidence available and the relevant national and European legal requirements.
Separately, the Parliament will have to establish whether any recoverable funds are owed by the former group and, if so, which organisation is legally responsible for repayment.
For Patriots for Europe, the immediate issue is not only the progress of the criminal inquiry but whether the financial arrangements of a dissolved parliamentary group can create obligations for its successor.
European regional and local leaders have warned that the EU’s next long-term budget risks transferring control over investment programmes to national governments, potentially increasing economic disparities and reducing the ability of poorer regions to shape their own development.
The warning was delivered in Brussels on 12 October by Kata Tüttő, President of the European Committee of the Regions, during the opening of the European Week of Regions and Cities.
Her intervention comes as EU leaders prepare to negotiate the 2028–2034 budget, with disagreements over agricultural funding, regional development, defence, industrial competitiveness and the distribution of financial responsibilities among member states.
The Committee of the Regions warned that greater centralisation could concentrate economic opportunities in already prosperous areas while limiting other territories’ capacity to attract investment and develop essential infrastructure.
The concern goes beyond money allocated to regional development. It addresses who controls spending decisions and whether local authorities retain a meaningful role in determining how European funds are used.
Regional governments resist centralisation
EU cohesion policy has traditionally sought to reduce disparities between richer and poorer regions through investment in transport, infrastructure, education, business development and public services. While national governments administer considerable funds, regional and local authorities are frequently involved in identifying priorities and delivering projects.
The Committee argues that restructuring which concentrates decision-making at national level could weaken this arrangement. National governments may favour country-wide industrial or infrastructure programmes, while regional authorities identify specific problems arising from local conditions.
A national infrastructure strategy could prioritise major transport routes and industrial centres. Regional administrations might instead emphasise connecting smaller communities, maintaining local services or developing specialised economic activities.
The dispute concerns whether the next EU budget will maintain flexibility for regional priorities. In Belgium, Germany, Spain and Italy, regional institutions possess important responsibilities across economic development, education and infrastructure. Changes to EU spending governance could alter established relations between European, national and regional institutions.
The budget negotiations intensify the dispute
Ireland’s rotating Council presidency has proposed reducing the Commission’s original seven-year budget plans by approximately €141 billion while largely protecting agriculture and cohesion compared with other expenditure categories.
The proposed financial framework would nevertheless remain substantially larger than the current budget. The distribution of resources remains contentious, and an overall cut does not necessarily translate into the same reduction for every region.
Effects will depend on allocation formulas, national spending plans and programme governance. Meanwhile, European institutions face demands for stronger investment in defence production, digital infrastructure, competitiveness and support for Ukraine while maintaining agricultural and regional commitments.
Economic disparities remain a European problem
The Committee presented its seventh annual assessment of Europe’s regions and cities during the European Week of Regions and Cities, held in Brussels from 12 to 14 October.
The assessment examines competitiveness, resilience, public services, democratic governance and financial conditions. Regional disparities remain a significant feature of the EU economy despite decades of common investment programmes.
Large metropolitan areas often benefit from concentrations of universities, research institutions, advanced industries and capital. Less densely populated territories may struggle with demographic decline, shortages of skilled workers and the cost of maintaining infrastructure.
These differences can reinforce themselves over time. Businesses invest where suitable workers, transport networks and customers are already concentrated. Younger workers moving towards metropolitan economies may further reduce the economic prospects of communities they leave behind.
Defence spending creates new pressures
The increase in European defence expenditure introduces another dimension. Regions containing defence manufacturers, engineering firms, research institutions and military installations could benefit substantially from new spending, while others may receive little direct economic advantage.
If industrial investment concentrates in already advanced manufacturing centres, geographical disparities could widen. Conversely, procurement programmes and infrastructure investment could bring opportunities to weaker regional economies with suitable facilities and labour.
A question of political authority
The Committee of the Regions has limited formal authority over the EU’s long-term budget. National governments will negotiate the framework, and the European Parliament must consent to the final agreement.
Regional leaders are seeking to influence those negotiations before political compromises are established. Their central argument is that aggregate European economic growth alone does not capture the distribution of investment, employment and public services across the Union.
The approaching European Council negotiations will indicate whether governments intend to preserve regional influence over EU spending or concentrate greater authority over investment decisions at national level.
European Union governments are entering a critical round of budget negotiations after the Irish presidency of the Council proposed cutting €141 billion from the European Commission’s long-term spending plans, exposing deep disagreements over how the bloc intends to finance its expanding responsibilities.
The revised proposal, circulated ahead of the European Council meeting scheduled for 15–16 October, would reduce the planned 2028–2034 financial framework by approximately eight per cent to around €1.6 trillion, calculated in constant prices.
Despite the reduction, the proposed budget remains approximately 30 per cent larger than the current seven-year framework. Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands and other governments concerned about national contributions have nevertheless argued that further restraint is necessary.
The compromise, detailed in negotiations over the EU’s next financial framework, reduces proposed spending across several areas while largely protecting the Union’s established agricultural and regional development programmes. The distribution of those cuts is becoming as contentious as the overall size of the budget.
Europe’s new priorities face the deepest reductions
Under the Irish proposal, agricultural and regional development allocations would decline by approximately three per cent compared with the Commission’s initial plans. By contrast, funding intended for competitiveness and security would be reduced by around 13 per cent, while external action and development cooperation face cuts of approximately 17 per cent.
The difference raises questions about whether the next EU budget can support the strategic ambitions repeatedly endorsed by European leaders.
The Commission has presented industrial competitiveness, technological development, defence readiness and economic resilience as central priorities for the remainder of the decade. Yet these sectors would absorb proportionately larger reductions under the revised framework than agricultural and cohesion programmes.
The consequences could extend to investments in advanced technologies, European industrial supply chains, research programmes and cross-border defence cooperation. They could also constrain the Union’s capacity to fund external partnerships and development initiatives.
The debate is particularly sensitive because the EU’s responsibilities have changed considerably since the previous budget was negotiated. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has increased defence requirements, while competition with China and the United States has intensified demands for industrial investment.
Germany and the net contributors demand restraint
The central disagreement concerns how much additional expenditure European governments are willing to finance through the common budget. Germany and other major net contributors face domestic fiscal constraints, rising borrowing costs and demands to increase national defence spending.
For these governments, accepting a substantially larger EU budget would add to financial commitments already being made through national budgets.
The Irish compromise therefore faces opposition from two directions. Some governments consider the reductions insufficient, while others fear that the remaining cuts will weaken programmes essential to their national economies.
Traditional recipients of agricultural and regional funding have an interest in protecting established expenditure. Governments seeking stronger European investment in defence, innovation and industrial competitiveness have different priorities.
The European Parliament is another obstacle. Its consent will be required before the final financial framework can enter into force, giving MEPs considerable leverage in negotiations with national governments.
New EU revenues remain controversial
The proposal also envisages approximately €55 billion in additional annual financing through new or revised EU revenue sources, including customs revenues, emissions-related income and corporate contributions.
The Commission’s framework for the next long-term budget reflects a broader debate over the extent to which the Union should develop independent financing mechanisms rather than rely predominantly on national contributions.
Such mechanisms would potentially give Brussels a more predictable revenue base. However, they also raise questions about fiscal sovereignty, the distribution of costs among member states and the political accountability of European taxation.
National governments remain reluctant to surrender substantial authority over revenue collection, particularly when proposed resources could impose costs on domestic industries or consumers.
Ukraine, enlargement and Europe’s strategic ambitions
The negotiations will influence the Union’s ability to respond to future enlargement. Ukraine and several Western Balkan countries are pursuing accession, but the financial implications of bringing additional members into the Union remain substantial.
Existing arrangements for agricultural subsidies and regional development assistance would require reconsideration if large new beneficiaries entered the budgetary system.
At the same time, the EU faces pressure to support Ukraine financially and strengthen defence production without depending indefinitely on extraordinary borrowing or ad hoc national contributions. These responsibilities cannot be addressed simply by preserving the structure of earlier budgets.
European Council President António Costa will seek to narrow the divisions among the 27 leaders, but agreement on the financial framework requires unanimity. Any government can withhold its consent if it considers the final distribution of costs unacceptable.
The forthcoming summit is therefore likely to establish the parameters of further negotiations rather than eliminate the underlying disagreements. The immediate political question is whether member states can reconcile their commitment to greater European strategic capacity with their reluctance to finance it collectively.
Login
