The European Parliament's Committee on Budgets on 10 June 2026 examined the Commission's 2027 draft budget, revealing sharp divisions over its size, debt service costs, and flagship programme funding. Commissioner for Budget Piotr Serafin presented a nearly EUR 200 billion commitment and EUR 212 billion payment draft, framed as a stability budget focused on legal obligations in the final year of the current Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF).
Nils Ušakovs (S&D) argued the 3.5% commitment increase was too weak, while Moritz Körner (Renew) noted only EUR 477 million in margins, highlighting the budget's tight constraints. Ušakovs also pointed to EUR 9.9 billion in debt service costs (URI) crowding out programmes, a concern Serafin linked to inflation and geopolitical risks. On Ukraine support, Ušakovs challenged using budgetary availabilities for EUR 1.15 billion in debt service; Serafin cited MFF rules requiring exhaustion of availabilities before using the Ukraine loan instrument.
Flagship programmes like Erasmus+ drew defence from I. Benjumea Benjumea (EPP) and Körner, while Serafin noted a EUR 165 million increase for Erasmus+. Security and migration saw Beata Szydło (ECR) and Tamás Deutsch (PfE) pushing for more border and defence spending, with Serafin presenting higher Heading 4 and 5 allocations. Administrative restraint was flagged by Janusz Lewandowski (EPP), warning of severe pressure under Heading 7; Serafin cited 2% inflation assumptions and stable staffing.
Predictability via amending budgets was sought by Ušakovs, while Tomasz Buczek (PfE) criticized opacity. Rasmus Andresen (Greens/EFA) questioned missing biodiversity goals; Serafin acknowledged the 7.5% target would not be met. Consensus existed on the budget's constraints, support for Ukraine, security priorities, and the need for a strong EP position before Council negotiations. Next steps include the Council position, first trilogue on 16 July, amending letter in October, and conciliation from 27 October.
The debate exposed a cleavage between those seeking higher spending on programmes and those prioritising fiscal restraint and security. A larger budget would benefit EU programmes and Ukraine but increase member state contributions and debt costs; a tighter budget would ease national budgets but risk underfunding priorities. The EP's position will shape negotiations with the Council, where member states typically push for lower spending.