A new EU-backed study sheds light on the gender gap in investments across Europe, with a particular focus on deep tech — a category of innovation that is central to Europe’s long-term competitiveness, security and economic resilience. Deep tech refers to companies built on scientific breakthroughs and advanced engineering, often emerging from research laboratories and universities. These include firms working in areas such as artificial intelligence, advanced materials, semiconductors, robotics, quantum technologies, climate and energy systems, health and biotech, and industrial technologies. Unlike many consumer-facing digital startups, deep-tech companies typically require long development timelines, specialized talent and significant upfront capital before reaching market. For the EU, deep tech is strategic. It underpins the green and digital transitions, strengthens industrial leadership, and reduces dependence on external technologies in critical areas such as energy, health and security. Ensuring that talent can access capital in these sectors is therefore not only a question of fairness — it is a question of Europe’s ability to compete globally. > Gender equality isn’t just a fairness goal. It’s a competitiveness goal. > Europe can’t afford to waste talent — especially in deep tech. > > Katerina Svíčková, Head of Gender Sector, DG RTD, European Commission Two objectives: Measure the gap — and understand how to close it The project was designed around two complementary goals. First, to identify and consolidate data that can be used to measure the gender investment gap in a consistent and transparent way across Europe. Second, to engage directly with founders, investors and policymakers to understand why the gap persists — and what could help bridge it, particularly in deep tech. While gender-disaggregated data exist, they are often fragmented, based on different definitions or not publicly comparable. This makes it difficult for policymakers, investors and ecosystem actors to assess progress or design targeted interventions. A prototype repository: The Gender Gap in Investments Dashboard A central output of the project is the Gender Gap in Investments Dashboard, developed by Dealroom. The dashboard is a prototype repository that already presents a clear picture of the current state of the gender investment gap using Dealroom data. It brings together information on company founding teams and venture funding outcomes across Europe in a single, accessible interface. The dashboard is not an endpoint. It is designed as a foundation that can, over time, incorporate additional data sources, improve coverage, and offer a more nuanced view of how gender, sector, funding stage and geography interact. The long-term ambition is to support the development of a credible, shared European data infrastructure on gender and investment. What the data show: Deep tech remains highly skewed Even at this early stage, the dashboard reveals persistent imbalances. Across Europe, startups with at least one woman founder raise just 14.4 percent of all venture capital (VC) rounds and 12 percent of total VC funding. In deep tech, the imbalance is even starker. Around 80 percent of deep-tech companies are founded by all-male teams, which receive nearly 90 percent of venture funding. > Investing through diverse teams helps unlock deal flow that would otherwise > remain invisible. > > Ulrike Kostense, Investment Principal, Invest-NL Given the capital intensity of deep tech, these disparities matter. Who receives early and follow-on funding today shapes which technologies Europe brings to scale tomorrow. Listening to the ecosystem: Evidence beyond the numbers To complement the data work, the project placed strong emphasis on qualitative research and ecosystem engagement. Over 11 months, the team conducted: * 81 in-depth interviews with founders, investors, fund managers, public banks and EU policymakers * 12 ecosystem events across Europe, engaging more than 1,000 participants Across countries and sectors, participants consistently pointed to structural barriers, including difficulties accessing early and scale-up capital, credibility gaps in fundraising — particularly in deep tech — fragmented support landscapes, and limited diversity in investment decision-making roles. From insight to action: Priorities for Europe Drawing on both the data and the ecosystem input, the report highlights several areas for action: * Build a permanent European data hub on gender and investment, starting with the Dealroom dashboard and gradually adding more public and private data sources. * Make investment data easier to compare and understand, by using shared definitions and reporting standards across EU and national funding programs. * Close the gap between early support and growth funding, so that startups — especially deep-tech companies that take longer to develop — are not lost before they can scale. * Use public investment to shape the market, drawing on the EU’s role as a major investor — including the European Innovation Council (EIC) and its investment arm, the EIC Fund, which provide public funding and equity to high-potential startups — to attract private capital and set better incentives. * Improve connections across the ecosystem, helping founders find the right funding routes and reach key decision-makers. A foundation for long-term change The central conclusion of the study is clear: Europe does not lack women innovators — it lacks the systems needed to measure, fund and scale them consistently. By combining a shared data foundation with direct engagement across the ecosystem, the project lays the groundwork for more informed policymaking, better investment decisions and a stronger, more inclusive European deep-tech ecosystem. Final Report: Gender Gap in InvestmentsDownload -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is EISMEA – European Innovation Council and SME Executive Agency * The ultimate controlling entity is EISMEA – European Innovation Council and SME Executive Agency More information here.

BRUSSELS — Western countries increasingly believe the world is heading toward a global war, according to results from The POLITICO Poll that detail mounting public alarm about the risk and cost of a new era of conflict.  Across all five countries polled — the U.S., Canada, the U.K., France and Germany — the vast majority of respondents think the world is becoming more dangerous. The outbreak of World War 3 is seen as more likely than not within the next five years by American, Canadian, French and British respondents. The share of voters predicting a new global conflict has risen sharply since independent pollsters Public First asked the question in March 2025. “The changed attitudes of the Western public in under a year reflect a dramatic move to a more insecure world, where war is seen as likely and alliances are unstable,” said Seb Wride, head of polling at Public First. But The POLITICO Poll also revealed limited willingness among the Western public to make sacrifices to pay for more military spending. While there is widespread support for increasing defense budgets in principle across the U.K., France, Germany and Canada, that support fell sharply when people learned it might mean taking on more government debt, cutting other services or raising taxes.  “Our polling shows the growing concern about war does not give leaders license to spend heavily on defense,” said Wride. “If anything, voters are now less willing to make the trade-offs needed to improve military security. So European leaders are left in a bind — unable to rely on the U.S., unable to use that as a reason to invest domestically, and under higher pressure to urgently solve this for a world where conflict feels closer than before.” The findings, based on surveys of more than 2,000 voters in each country between Feb. 6 and Feb. 9, lay bare the challenge facing NATO leaders as they try to strengthen security at a time when public finances are tight.  That struggle will shape discussions among politicians from across the world as they head to Germany for the annual Munich Security Conference starting Friday. With no sign of an imminent end to Russia’s four-year all-out war against Ukraine, and the U.S. taking military action in Iran, Syria, Venezuela and Africa under President Donald Trump, many voters see a growing risk of global conflict.  The pattern is particularly stark in the United Kingdom, where 43 percent believe a new world war is “likely” or “very likely” to break out by 2031 — up from 30 percent in March 2025. Nearly half of Americans — 46 percent — think a new world war is “likely” or “very likely” by 2031 — up from 38 percent last year. Among the five countries, only people in Germany think on balance that a third global war is not likely in the next five years. When it comes to individual nations engaging in military action, U.S. respondents were the most likely to think their own country will be at war within the next five years, followed by respondents in the U.K. and France. This suggests NATO’s nuclear powers may be more braced for conflict than other nations, and that Trump’s “president of peace” image is not convincing voters at home.  At least one in three people in the U.S., U.K., France and Canada believe a nuclear weapon is likely or very likely to be used in a war in the next five years.  Russia is seen as the biggest threat to peace in Europe, while Canadians see Trump’s America as the greatest danger to security. In France, Germany and the U.K., the second-biggest threat is seen to be the U.S., which respondents cited far more often than China. WHAT WILL IT COST?  A majority of voters in France, Germany, the U.K. and Canada said their country needs to spend more on defense, with that sentiment strongest in the U.K. and Canada.  But the question is how to pay for it. The POLITICO Poll found support for more defense spending fell when people were invited to consider whether that funding should come from cuts to other budgets, taking on more government borrowing, or raising taxes.  The French and German publics are now less likely to support higher defense budgets within the context of a spending trade-off than they were last year, according to the results.  In Germany, defense spending was one of the least popular uses of money, ahead of only overseas aid.  In 2025, 40 percent of the French public and 37 percent of the German public said they would support increased defense spending when the trade-offs were mentioned. This year, backing for that fell to only 28 percent in France and 24 percent in Germany.  Both countries are now more likely to oppose spending more on defense when they have to consider how to pay the bill.   The POLITICO Poll showed there is also significant public skepticism about creating an EU standing army under one central command, an idea that has been mentioned by the European Commission. The proposal received support from only 22 percent of people in Germany and 17 percent in France. Mandatory military service was most popular in Germany and France, where around half of people support the idea. This edition of The POLITICO Poll was conducted by Public First from Feb. 6 to 9, surveying 10,289 adults online, with at least 2,000 respondents each from the U.S., Canada, U.K., France and Germany. Results for each country were weighted to be representative on dimensions including age, gender and geography. The overall margin of sampling error is ±2 percentage points for each country. Smaller subgroups have higher margins of error.

The biggest loser of this weekend’s presidential election in Portugal was European Council President António Costa. Not only was Costa’s former rival in the Socialist Party, António José Seguro, elected the new head of state, the results also cemented the far-right Chega party as the country’s second-largest political force. Seguro — a moderate, center-left former member of the European Parliament and minister who was ousted as Socialist Party leader by Costa in 2014 — originally said his decision to launch a long-shot run for the presidency was motivated by his “perplexion” with the direction the country had taken during Costa’s eight-year stint as prime minister. Based on Sunday’s results, voters appear to share Seguro’s concern that the country is on the wrong course.  When Costa became prime minister in 2015, Portugal prided itself on being the only country in Europe with no far-right political presence. But this weekend, Chega leader André Ventura took in a third of the vote thanks to the support of a substantial chunk of the electorate exasperated by the affordability crisis, rising immigration rates and political corruption — issues many link to Costa’s time in office. “It’s completely legitimate to tie this phenomenon to the economic and social model implemented here during the past 10 years — an economy based on low-skilled labor and low wages in a context when prices were increasing dramatically,” said Riccardo Marchi, an expert on right-wing radicalism at Lisbon’s ISCTE-IUL Center of International Studies. “And Costa is the face of that model.” Antonio Jose Seguro after his victory in the second round of the Portuguese presidential election. Seguro originally said his decision to run was motivated by his “perplexion” with the direction the country had taken during Costa’s stint as prime minister. | Jose Coelho/EPA TROUBLE IN PARADISE When Ventura first appeared on the political scene in 2017, Portugal was enjoying a renaissance of sorts.  Just five years prior, the country was on the brink of declaring bankruptcy and was obliged to seek a €78 billion bailout package. In exchange for the cash, citizens faced brutal tax hikes and the severe curtailment of public services. But in 2015, Costa — then the charismatic mayor of Lisbon — cobbled together a parliamentary alliance of left-wing parties, unseating center-right Prime Minister Pedro Passos Coelho and forming a minority government that promised to “turn the page on austerity.” While maintaining fiscal discipline, Costa unveiled progressive policies to improve conditions for the lowest-income citizens and rolled back some of the most severe cost-cutting measures. The economy steadily improved as existing golden tourism schemes and new digital nomad visas attracted foreign investment, and new jobs were created thanks to a successful rebrand that saw the impoverished Atlantic country recast as a trendy new travel destination. After years of pessimism, the future looked bright for Portugal, and many saw Costa as a leader worth emulating. In that context, Ventura launched a campaign for local office on behalf of the center-right Social Democratic Party, and garnered national attention by running on a platform focused on the alleged threat posed by the Roma community. Condemned by his own party, Ventura lost the race. But he noted his rhetoric received more notice — and popular support — than a standard conservative politician would receive. Despite the popularly held belief that far-right sentiment had vanished from Portugal after the Estado Novo dictatorship ended in 1974, António Costa Pinto, a political scientist at the University of Lisbon’s Institute of Social Sciences, said “there’s plenty of data that shows that around 18 percent of the electorate embraces authoritarian values, but in the past, they either voted for mainstream conservative parties or didn’t vote at all.” Focusing on that dormant electorate’s potential, Ventura left the mainstream center-right to create Chega — or Enough — ahead of the 2019 European Parliament elections. He ran on an anti-establishment message, taking on the persona of a straight-talking common man taking on the country’s out-of-touch political elites. The tactic failed to win him a seat in Brussels, but when legislative elections were held later that year, he secured a single seat in the national parliament — and proved Portugal wasn’t immune to right-wing populism. THE RISE OF CHEGA One seat in parliament is hardly the harbinger of future political dominance, yet Ventura went from being Chega’s sole elected representative to running the country’s leading opposition party — and making it to the second round of the presidential election — in just seven years.  Pedro Magalhães, an electoral behavior specialist at the University of Lisbon’s Institute of Social Sciences, links Chega’s growth to the perception that Portugal’s establishment parties are part of a “failed party system that’s seen as being frozen and unable to respond to the crises the country faces.” The crises that Chega has thrived on developed during Costa’s years in office. One major issue is the soaring cost of living in major cities like Lisbon and Porto, which is directly tied to Portugal’s consolidation as an international destination. Costa’s government took pains to grant residency permits to foreign celebrities like Madonna in a bid to spur tourism and create service-sector jobs. The tourism economy flourished, but it came at the cost of local residents, who were ejected from apartments hastily converted into short-term rentals and priced out of their local tascas. Home prices across the country jumped more than 124 percent between 2015 and 2025, and the median price-per-square meter in Lisbon now hovers around €5,914. “There are pluses and minuses to tourism, and it’s helped rehabilitate many of our cities,” said Sérgio Sousa Pinto, a Socialist Party lawmaker who served in the national parliament from 2011 to 2025. “But that’s not top of mind for a family that can no longer afford to pay rent.” As European Council president, Costa has urged leaders to tackle Europe’s housing crisis. But during his time as prime minister, he failed to adopt major policies to expand supply or curb rising costs. For years he denied short-term rentals were having an impact on home prices, and he only moved to end the controversial golden visa scheme in 2023. Chega leader André Ventura speaks after his defeat in the presidential runoff. He took in a third of the vote thanks to the support of a substantial chunk of the electorate exasperated by issues many link to Costa’s time in office. | Tiago Petinga/EPA Frustration over cost of living has overlapped with anger regarding the state of public services. As Costa’s government ramped down many austerity measures, it ensured fiscal stability by keeping public spending in check. But that lack of public investment has drawn more scrutiny as migration has skyrocketed, with the number of foreign residents in Portugal jumped from 388,700 in 2015 to 1.5 million in 2024. Chega has gained supporters by blaming immigrants for the lackluster public services, accusing them of overwhelming hospitals and enriching themselves with public subsidies. “It’s the same stuff he used against the Roma community,” said Magalhães. “It’s an economically irrational line, but one that plays well with electors who are frustrated about higher costs and taxes.” The party has also made strides by harnessing resentment grounded in the widespread perception that the country’s political elites are corrupt. Magalhães said Portugal’s citizens are among the most skeptical in Europe when it comes to the integrity of its ruling classes. “We once did a survey in which we asked participants to think of 100 politicians and tell us how many they thought were corrupt,” he recalled. “On average, respondents said 90 of them were.” Ventura has spent years crusading against this alleged rot. And the far-right leader was finally vindicated in 2023, when police raided the prime minister’s residence in Lisbon as part of a wide-ranging influence-peddling probe and arrested Costa’s chief of staff, Vítor Escária, who was found to have €75,800 in undeclared cash stashed in his office. Costa himself was named as a subject in the investigation, prompting his resignation. Both Costa and Escária have always maintained their innocence, and no evidence linking the former prime minister to any wrongdoing has been revealed. Despite that, the case that brought down his government remains active, and has inevitably contributed to Chega’s growth. In the 2024 elections held in the aftermath of his resignation, the party jumped from 12 to 50 seats. Chega then grew to 60 seats in 2025’s repeat elections, held after Costa’s successor — center-right Prime Minister Luís Montenegro — was embroiled in a separate corruption scandal. Costa declined POLITICO’s requests for comment through a spokesperson, who said the president of the Council has a policy of not discussing national politics. LEADING THE RIGHT When Costa stood down in 2024, his Socialist Party enjoyed an absolute majority in parliament. Lawmaker Sousa Pinto believes the government failed to use that power to carry out the structural reforms that could have addressed the grievances fueling Chega’s growth.  “Costa’s tenure leading the Socialist Party is characterized by a lack of imagination,” he said, adding his last government was composed of “mediocre” figures that match “a general degradation in the quality of our politicians.” He also lamented that as Chega emerged on the scene, the Socialists cast themselves as the left’s sole legitimate representatives, facing off against an allegedly uniform right. “They pushed the idea that democratic center-right parties were the same thing as one that’s illiberal,” he said. “That gained traction among many people, and ultimately helped normalize Chega as an option that’s just as acceptable as any establishment party.” Magalhães expressed doubts that Chega’s assent could be blamed on Costa, arguing the party’s growth was due to a “mummified” national political landscape. “What we have today is a better reflection of the diversity of the public’s opinions than it was in the past — whether we like it or not.” While Chega’s electoral base was originally overwhelmingly composed of young men with little formal education, the ultranationalist group is now becoming “a catch-all for right-wing voters,” political scientist Costa Pinto explained. That’s significant in a political landscape that’s been dominated by the right since Costa’s resignation — something Ventura himself underscored on Sunday. “We lead the right-wing space in Portugal,” the far-right leader told supporters. “And we will soon govern this country.

BRUSSELS — The EU executive wants to cut Chinese firms out of lucrative EU public contracts at home and abroad by overhauling its budget rules, according to three European Commission officials. In March, the Commission will lay out new instructions to impose additional security requirements on foreign companies bidding for public contracts, targeting Chinese firms in particular. In the face of heightened geopolitical and trade tensions with the U.S. and China, Brussels is exploring measures that favor European businesses over foreign competitors. The rules would apply to its current and future €1.8 trillion long-term budget, which begins in 2028. The EU crackdown is part of a wider effort to limit Chinese influence in Europe. A parallel bill from Industry Commissioner Stéphane Séjourné aims to curb Chinese investment and force foreign companies to partner with local firms in a bid to revive the EU’s industrial sectors. Shunning foreign entities would dovetail with France’s push to extend a “Buy European” clause across the whole EU budget, which is currently being negotiated by national capitals. “You have to be able to take into account the fact that, at least in some sectors that are strategic, parts or products are made in Europe,” Finance Minister Roland Lescure told reporters on Monday. “The U.S. are doing it, China are doing it … We cannot be just the last baby in the yard that’s running around when everybody’s doing something else in the drawing room.” But critics warn that attaching too many strings to EU spending could raise costs and ignite trade retaliation, while penalizing poorer countries that receive the bloc’s development funds. A group of European commissioners focusing on economic security — including Piotr Serafin, Valdis Dombrovkis and Maroš Šefčovič, who are respectively responsible for the budget, economy and trade portfolios — will discuss the budget rules on Feb. 18. “There needs to be a link between our strategic priorities and the way we spend our money,” said one of the Commission officials, who were granted anonymity as they are not authorized to speak publicly. EU STRINGS ATTACHED The crackdown stems from a clause that the Commission introduced in the budget rules in 2024 that set out “security requirements” for certain EU public contracts that involve strategic assets. The Commission will outline what those requirements are and which sectors they’ll affect next month. The guidelines could, for example, go as far as restricting Chinese firms from producing inverters used in solar panels, one of the officials said. The rules will also apply to projects undertaken by the European Investment Bank, the bloc’s lending arm. Brussels will stop short of singling out the countries that’ll be cut off from EU public money, however. Under the new budget in 2028, the overhaul could narrow the access of foreign companies to the European Competitiveness Fund — a €410 billion cash pot to promote industrial development — and the Global Europe Fund, which is worth €200 billion and finances EU aid to developing countries. The crackdown stems from a clause that the European Commission introduced in the budget rules in 2024. | Nicolas Economou/NurPhoto via Getty Images The French may welcome the looming crackdown, as Paris pushes for a “European preference” across the whole budget. But the Commission’s pitch will meet resistance from a group of Northern European countries. In a joint letter, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands and Sweden warned that prioritizing European goods and services “risks wiping out our simplification efforts, hindering companies’ access to world-leading technology … and pushing investments away from the EU.” Joshua Berlinger contributed reporting from Paris.

LONDON — Chancellor Rachel Reeves will make a statement responding to new assessments of the U.K.’s finances on March 3, the U.K. Treasury said on Monday. In a statement, the Treasury said it had asked the U.K.’s independent fiscal watchdog, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), to prepare an economic and fiscal forecast for that date. However, it said the forecast will “not make an assessment of the government’s performance against the fiscal mandate and will instead provide an interim update on the economy and public finances.” “This approach gives families and businesses the stability and certainty they need and supports the government’s growth mission,” it said. The Labour government has previously said it intends to only hold one “major fiscal event” per year. However, a worsening financial outlook forced the chancellor into announcing significant tax and spending changes at last year’s spring statement. At the most recent government-wide budget in November, Reeves increased taxes by a further £22 billion per year. She refused to rule out further tax increases in an interview last week.

BRUSSELS — The European Parliament’s centrist political groups are backing down on a threat to vote against a key part of the EU’s long-term budget, following concessions made by the European Commission. After weeks of pressure from the political groups, the Commission on Sunday evening proposed several changes to its plan for the next seven-year EU budget in an effort to avert an all-out rebellion during a vote on Thursday, according to a document seen by POLITICO. The presidents of the Commission and Parliament — Ursula von der Leyen and Roberta Metsola — and Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, whose country holds the rotating presidency of the Council of the EU, spoke Monday to discuss the budget plan. The center-right European People’s Party, the Socialists and Democrats, the liberals of Renew Europe, and the Greens had on Oct. 30 sent a letter to the Commission demanding changes to the proposal — especially the way it deals with EU cash for regions and for farmers — and threatening to refuse to engage in negotiations if those changes were not made. Hours after the Commission changed its plans, those groups are now backing down. “Victory for the European Parliament in defending farmers and regions in the next long-term EU budget,” Siegfried Mureșan, the EPP’s lead negotiator on the budget, wrote on social media on Monday. A Renew Europe official, granted anonymity to speak freely, told POLITICO that the group “will not ask for a resolution rejecting national plans to be tabled for a vote in the plenary this week.” Lawmakers and officials from S&D and Greens also indicated that the resolution is unlikely to come to fruition, despite some misgivings about the Commission’s proposed compromise. “There is nothing substantial to answer the main demands of the [European Parliament’s] letter,” Jean-Marc Germain, a Socialist lawmaker who works on the budget file, told POLITICO. The French MEP added that he still supports rejecting a major part of the Commission’s budget proposal — although several colleagues privately admitted that any resolution seeking to bring down the proposals is unlikely to pass without the support of EPP and Renew. COMPROMISE PLEASES EU COUNTRIES The Commission’s changes also have to be backed by national capitals, which are generally reluctant to give concessions to the Parliament early in the negotiating process. Frederiksen did not oppose the Commission’s suggested changes during the meeting with Metsola and von der Leyen, according to an official with knowledge of the talks.  A senior EU diplomat, granted anonymity to speak freely, said on Monday that “I don’t have many issues with the content of the [Commission’s] paper.” The proposals “overlap significantly with positions expressed by member states in Council,” the diplomat added. This is a significant dial-down from previous threats by the Council that caving in to Parliament’s demands could have thrown a spanner into the negotiations. “The Commission forced the Danish presidency to accept these changes over the weekend” to avert Parliament’s rejection, said an EU official with knowledge of the discussions. Parliament is opposed to the Commission’s plan to pool funds for regions and farmers into one single pot, which makes up around half of the total budget, as many MEPs claim that this will cut Parliament and regional leaders out of decision-making and hand too much power to national governments. To address these complaints, the Commission on Sunday proposed a “rural target” that would compel governments to spend 10 percent of the amount of money in the national plans on agriculture. The Commission has also suggested giving regional leaders more power to determine how the money is being spent ― including by giving them a seat at the table in key planning meetings between national governments and Commission officials. Finally, the Commission suggested giving Parliament a bigger role in deciding how the EU’s public funding is being spent. In a further concession, the Commission on Monday morning sent an updated document, seen by POLITICO, in which it used language that is more aligned with Parliament’s position. It described the suggested compromises as “proposals in the legal text,” as requested by Parliament.

BRUSSELS ― The European Commission proposed several changes to its next seven-year EU budget in an effort to avert a rebellion in the European Parliament, according to a document seen by POLITICO. By giving ground on sensitive issues, the powerful EU executive is aiming to neutralize a threat by a majority of EU Parliament lawmakers to reject its €1.8 trillion plan to fund the EU. The Commission’s move comes hours before a crucial virtual meeting on Monday between Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, European Parliament President Roberta Metsola and Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, whose country holds the rotating presidency of the Council of the EU. Monday’s gathering is a last-ditch attempt to broker a compromise in the face of increasingly tense relations between Parliament and Commission. The new budget requires Parliament’s approval before it comes into force in 2028. The Commission proposing changes to its own budget proposal is highly unusual ― and is a response to pressure from key parties in Parliament, including the center-right European People’s Party and the left-leaning Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats. WHAT ARE THE PROPOSED CHANGES? Parliament is opposed to the Commission’s MFF plan over important changes to regional and agricultural payments, which make up around half of the total budget. A majority of MEPs claim that the proposed reforms will cut Parliament and regional leaders out of decision-making and hand too much power to national governments. To address these complaints, the Commission on Sunday proposed a “rural target” that would compel governments to spend 10 percent of the total amounts of the national plans on agriculture. This is in addition to the €300 billion in direct funding for farmers already included in the original proposal in July. “It’s more or less what we asked for,” said a senior lawmaker who is involved in the discussions. Another point of contention is the Commission’s proposal to merge the regional and agricultural budget into a single cash pot handled by national governments ― who would get significant leeway over how to spend the money. The Commission’s move comes hours before a crucial virtual meeting between Ursula von der Leyen, European Parliament President Roberta Metsola and Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen. | Johnathan Nackstrand/Getty Images This has sparked outrage among mayors and regional leaders, who fear they will have no say regarding the funds. In order to fix this issue, the EU executive has now suggested giving regional leaders more power to determine how the money is being spent ― including by giving them a seat at the table in key planning meetings between national governments and Commission officials. In a further concession, the Commission proposed guarantees to reduce the risk of national governments cutting payments to more developed regions. This comes on top of a €218 billion guarantee for payments to poorer areas in July. Finally, the Commission suggested giving Parliament a bigger role in deciding how the EU’s public funding is being spent. The proposed changes will prove controversial with national capitals, who are currently amending the Commission’s proposal and generally oppose giving early concessions to Parliament. Bartosz Brzeziński contributed to this report.

BRUSSELS ― The European Parliament’s four centrist groups are to demand Commission President Ursula von der Leyen make major changes to her plan for the EU’s next seven-year budget, according to the draft of a letter seen by POLITICO. In an escalation of tensions between politicians across the mainstream spectrum and the head of the bloc’s executive, the groups will threaten to reject a key part of the 2028-2034 budget unless their conditions are met. The draft of the letter, which is still being finalized, asks the Commission to overhaul its proposal, published in July, to meet the views of von der Leyen’s own center-right European People’s Party (EPP), the center-left Socialists and Democrats (S&D), the liberal Renew Europe group and the Greens. This quartet forms a majority in the European Parliament, which must approve the budget. Lawmakers oppose the Commission’s “national plans,” an idea to pool funds for farmers and regions — which make up around half of the total EU budget, worth €1.8 trillion — into single pots managed by the bloc’s 27 governments. This is a change from the current system, where regions play a crucial role in handling the funding. “As the current proposal on the [national plans] does not take our core requests into consideration, it cannot constitute a basis for negotiations,” the draft says. “We therefore look forward to seeing our key requests meaningfully reflected in an amended proposal of the European Commission, which would allow the negotiations with the European Parliament to move forward.” The letter is designed to increase pressure on the EU executive to make concessions after weeks of stalled negotiations. If no agreement is reached, the four political groups will put forward a resolution rejecting the national plans part of the budget in the full plenary session of Parliament starting Nov. 12. RURAL DEVELOPMENT The Commission argues that this model will allow governments to spend the EU’s money according to their specific needs and create a stronger link between payments and governments’ economic reforms. But lawmakers say the plan would expand the power of central governments at the expense of regions, which have traditionally played a key role in handling EU funds. One of the most significant demands from the political groups is that the Commission allocate specific funding to rural development and all regions — something that’s not included in the current budget proposal. MEPs are also calling on the EU executive to overhaul its cash-for-reforms model, which, in their view, creates an “inherent democratic deficit.” Parliament also wants greater power to decide and scrutinize how the EU’s public funding is allocated over the seven-year period. Political groups already agreed this month to add a debate on the architecture of the EU’s long-term budget, known as the Multiannual Financial Framework, to the full session of Parliament on Nov. 12. If no agreement is reached, the four political groups will put forward a resolution rejecting the national plans part of the budget in the full plenary session of Parliament starting Nov. 12. | Thierry Monasse/Getty Images That date also marks the cutoff for Parliament and the Commission to agree on changes to the national plans. The Socialists and liberals had already said they were ready to reject the EU budget proposal, but the EPP had not yet confirmed it would also officially do so, despite many of its lawmakers in the past weeks indicating it was likely.  Away from the Parliament, EU governments are currently haggling over the budget proposal in deliberations expected to stretch until early 2027. At that point, Parliament will negotiate the spending plan with national capitals and vote on it before it’s scheduled to come into force in 2028.

LONDON — The British aristocracy has always seen talking about money as a little bit grubby. But the scandalized Prince Andrew is forcing the issue front and center. King Charles’ transgressive younger brother is facing torrid headlines over his friendship with pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. And the revelation in The Times this week that he appears to be living rent-free in a vast lodge is prompting a barrage of wider questions about the way Britain’s royals are funded. In the House of Commons Wednesday, Britain’s center-left Prime Minister Keir Starmer did nothing to tamp down opposition calls for an inquiry into whether taxpayer interests are being protected when it comes to Andrew, who stepped back from Royal duties in 2019 and gave up key titles just last week. “It is important, in relation to all Crown properties, that there is proper scrutiny,” Starmer said. On Thursday, Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, chair of the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee — parliament’s public spending watchdog — said he would be requesting more information on Andrew’s Royal Lodge agreement.  The scandal has sent questions about royal finances rocketing up the U.K. political agenda, just months before a scheduled review of a key part of the arrangement, known as the Sovereign Grant, kicks off. Andrew’s living arrangements are part of “much, much wider problem” with a system of royal finances, which is still mired in secrecy, said Margaret Hodge, the U.K. government’s anti-corruption czar. PAYING FOR THE PRIVILEGE  How the U.K. government covers the cost of the monarchy — expenses like royal engagements, staffing costs and the upkeep of grand residences such as Buckingham Palace — has long been a subject of debate. The current system — known the Sovereign Grant — was brought in by then-Prime Minister David Cameron in 2012. It links public funding of the monarch to the profits of the Crown Estate. The Crown Estate is essentially a portfolio of assets that was owned and managed by monarchs pre-1760 and is now run as a business whose revenue is returned to the U.K. Treasury. It generates significant revenue, which has been bolstered in recent years by lucrative wind farm deals with developers. In the wake of the Andrew revelations, Clifton-Brown said his committee would decide next year whether to “undertake any work” on the Crown Estate accounts. King Charles’ transgressive younger brother is facing torrid headlines over his friendship with pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. | Eric Reid/EPA Charles and Prince William also receive an income from two vast inherited estates — the Duchy of Lancaster and Duchy of Cornwall respectively. This money, according to their own websites, is used to support themselves and their families, and their philanthropic work.  They also have their own investments and inherited wealth — which include private residences in Balmoral, Scotland, and in Sandringham, Norfolk.  Charles and William are not legally liable for income tax, capital gains tax or inheritance tax. But they pay certain taxes voluntarily under an agreement the late Queen Elizabeth II made with the Treasury. As part of this agreement, the government agrees not to publish any information about their tax bill. Because some assets, such as the official residences, the Royal Archives, the Royal Collection of paintings and other works of art are not sold to provide income or capital for the personal use of the king, and pass from one sovereign to the next, it would be inappropriate for inheritance tax to be paid on them, the agreement argues. A former senior official involved in past decisions about royal finances said this system had been designed to ensure the British monarchy, which still has public support, is “not placed in a position of subservience” to the government of the day. It is also meant to allow the royals the “same principle of confidentiality” as other British citizens. But that same former official, granted anonymity to speak candidly, warned there was a “quid pro quo” to that.  “The public will acquiesce in these arrangements if it is seen that the members of the royal family conduct themselves in a way that is, although privileged, not extravagant, and not flagrant. Things break down if there are members of the royal family who aren’t keeping that side of the bargain,” the former official added.  Senior royals are acutely conscious of the sensitivities around the way they’re funded. William is reported to be mindful of the cost of the monarchy and will assess the “footprint” of the institution, The Times reported in June. But Hodge, an ex-public accounts committee chair who has long probed royal finances, believes the system needs much wider reform. She said the Royal Lodge deal for Andrew looked “rotten.” This matters to the taxpayer, she argued. Financial reports on both Duchies are published, but they remain private estates and Hodge believes this makes for “muddy territory.” “In my view, they are public [funds] because they were given by the state to the royal family for the purpose of sustaining themselves,” she said of the arrangement. “I think we need transparency.”

BRUSSELS ― The far-right Patriots for Europe is taking legal action after the European Parliament suspended access to millions of euros in public funds over alleged misspending. In two separate cases, the Patriots party is contesting rulings by the Parliament and the EU’s party watchdog that resulted in it losing access to more than €4 million in funds, arguing the decisions were illegitimate and the product of bias and lack of impartiality. The far-right political family, home to France’s Marine Le Pen and Hungary’s Viktor Orbán, has consistently complained of being sidelined from EU policymaking and key positions of power since the 2024 European elections, where it surged to become the third-largest group in Parliament. Mainstream politicians have kept the Patriots at arm’s length under the so-called cordon sanitaire — an informal pact to avoid cooperation with factions on the far right and far left. Now, the Patriots are also accusing EU officials of sabotaging their access to public cash earmarked for political parties. “There is a problem with certain agents of the administration of the Parliament,” said Belgian MEP Gerolf Annemans, honorary president of the Patriots party. The Patriots scored its first win on Wednesday when the European Court of Justice annulled a sanction by the party watchdog, the APPF, which had required the party to pay a €47,000 fine. The sanction came after the party wrongly referred to one of its lawmakers as being part of its board in a social media post, which the APPF took as a sign the party had lied in its entry to the authority’s register — a serious offense that could lead to all public funding for the party being withheld. The APPF ruling enabled the European Parliament to cut the Patriots party off from accessing €4 million of EU funding in 2023, documents obtained by POLITICO show. That meant a substantial cut to the party’s available budget for the 2024 elections — where other European political parties carried their 2023 funds over for the following year. Wednesday’s court ruling will allow the Patriots to try to claim part of these funds back — and will likely bolster the party’s claims of bias from the Parliament’s administration. EQUAL TREATMENT In a separate lawsuit filed mid-July, the Patriots accused the Parliament of bias and lack of impartiality after it ruled the party had misspent funds in a campaign in Czechia. The Parliament’s Bureau, composed of MEPs and tasked with taking decisions on administrative issues, ruled the Patriots should pay for that campaign with their own money and give back the EU funds spent on it, which came to €228,000. The decision violated “the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination, as it deemed similar campaigns by other parties to be reimbursable,” the Patriot’s case document, seen by POLITICO, read. The far-right political family, home to France’s Marine Le Pen and Hungary’s Viktor Orbán, has consistently complained of being sidelined from EU policymaking and key positions of power since the 2024 European elections. | Wojtek Radwanski/Getty Images They also argue that the decision was not impartial, as the Bureau is composed mostly of center-right, liberal and left-wing lawmakers, with no far-right MEPs from the Patriots present to defend the case. On top of that, they contend the Parliament violated their rights to defense as it censored big chunks of the letter the Patriots had sent to the bureau to defend themselves. In the first version of the letter, the Patriots compared their campaign with that of another EU party. In the letter that the administration circulated in the bureau, the justification was redacted. ‘VERY GOOD LAWYERS’ The Parliament refused to comment on the ongoing judicial proceedings. The APPF “remains committed to protecting integrity of European democracy” in accordance with its obligations under EU law, it said after the ruling. These two lawsuits follow threats of a separate challenge from the Patriots group — a distinct legal entity from the Patriots party, which represents the far-right camp in Parliament. At the beginning of September, the Parliament’s budgetary control committee recommended the administration seek the reimbursement of €4.3 million from the group in reparations for alleged misspending by the now-defunct far-right Identity and Democracy. The ID group dissolved in the summer of 2024, with many of its members and staff joining the new Patriots. “We will fight it in court if necessary,” said a Patriots group official, granted anonymity to speak about sensitive matters. “We have very good lawyers, and we are sure we are right.”