The European Union is seeking to make future development funding for non-EU countries conditional on cooperation with its migration policy, according to proposals outlined in the European Commission’s draft budget for the 2028–2034 period.
The move marks a shift in how Brussels intends to use its financial influence abroad, particularly in dealings with countries in North Africa and other regions considered key to stemming irregular migration flows.
The proposal, which centres on a €200 billion Global Europe fund, has drawn criticism from within the European Parliament and development circles, with concerns raised over the blurring of development goals and border enforcement objectives.
Under the Commission’s draft, the Global Europe fund would consolidate several financial instruments, including humanitarian aid, development assistance, and pre-accession support for candidate countries. The stated aim is to streamline external spending and improve coordination. However, a significant change in the new framework is the inclusion of migration conditionality.
In practical terms, this means that access to development funds could be reduced or withdrawn if recipient countries do not cooperate with EU migration goals—specifically, the readmission of their own nationals who have been refused asylum or deported from the EU. An EU official involved in the drafting process confirmed that financial allocations could be cut “in case of serious shortcomings by a partner country … notably on returns and readmissions,” though humanitarian aid would remain exempt.
The conditionality clause is intended to address the EU’s longstanding difficulties in returning irregular migrants to their countries of origin, often due to the refusal of those countries to issue necessary travel documents or cooperate with EU authorities.
However, critics argue the policy risks politicising development aid and undermining the EU’s reputation as a consistent and principled donor. Barry Andrews, an Irish MEP from the liberal Renew Europe group and chair of the European Parliament’s development committee, told the Financial Times that the shift “diminishes the development focus” of EU external spending.
“The main objective of our development policy is poverty eradication—not securing the European borders,” Andrews said. He added that linking aid to migration enforcement undermines the EU’s credibility as a partner, especially in regions where global competitors such as Russia and China have increased their presence.
Andrews also noted that a previous attempt to integrate migration controls into EU development assistance—the €5 billion EU Emergency Trust Fund for Africa—had yielded limited results and strained relations with partner countries. He warned that tying aid to returns and readmissions might complicate trade and diplomatic relations, particularly in Africa.
Nevertheless, the proposed doubling of the EU’s external spending compared to the current 2021–2027 budget has been welcomed in some quarters. Andrews called the increased funding “cautiously optimistic” and acknowledged that many projects under the Global Europe umbrella would still have positive developmental outcomes.
“Whether it will have an effect on the root causes of migration is very difficult to say,” he added.
The Commission’s proposal will need approval from both the European Parliament and the Council of the EU. Negotiations are expected to be contentious, as member states and MEPs debate the balance between development priorities, geopolitical interests, and domestic political pressures related to migration.
The draft budget comes amid wider EU efforts to tighten migration controls. Recent agreements with countries such as Tunisia and Egypt have already linked financial support to border management cooperation. The inclusion of such conditionality in the bloc’s formal budget signals a more systematic approach going forward.
Separately, diplomatic developments in the EU’s foreign policy have also progressed. Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico has withdrawn his opposition to the EU’s 18th package of sanctions against Russia, clearing the way for approval by EU foreign ministers. Fico had previously delayed the sanctions over concerns related to Slovakia’s long-term energy contracts with Gazprom.
After receiving assurances from Commission President Ursula von der Leyen regarding legal protection against potential Russian retaliation, Fico reversed his position. “At this point, it would be counter-productive to continue blocking the 18th sanctions package,” he said, adding that continued resistance “would already jeopardise our interests.”
The lifting of Slovakia’s veto has been welcomed in Brussels, though Fico’s domestic critics accuse him of using the standoff to score political points at home. Martin Hojsík, a leading opposition figure in Slovakia, said the episode “should not be seen as a political victory for Fico.”
The broader budget and sanctions debates reflect growing pressure within the EU to assert geopolitical influence more forcefully, while simultaneously managing internal divisions over migration and energy dependence.
The Commission’s budget proposal will now move into a multi-stage negotiation process with national governments and the European Parliament, with migration conditionality likely to remain a key flashpoint in the months ahead.
