In a written answer on 4 August 2026, Commissioner Glenn Micallef, responding on behalf of the European Commission, defended the EU executive's role in the 'Postcolonial?' exhibition at the House of European History, stating that the Commission does not intervene in curatorial decisions and that its funding is limited to general operational support. The answer, addressed to a parliamentary question from Marieke Ehlers (PfE), clarifies that the House of European History is an initiative of the European Parliament, operating under its administrative and financial responsibility. Micallef confirmed that the Commission's financial contribution is governed by a Service Level Agreement, expiring at the end of the current Multiannual Financial Framework, which foresees up to EUR 3 million annually. However, he stressed that this amount is not earmarked for any specific exhibition but is a contribution to cover the institution's operational costs.
The question from Ehlers had criticised the exhibition for offering what she called an 'extremely one-sided and activist narrative' focused on 'brutal oppression' and a 'European reckoning', and asked whether the Commission considered it a good use of taxpayers' money and how it ensures objectivity in EU-funded cultural projects. Micallef's answer did not directly address the question of objectivity or whether the Commission would take measures to prevent future funding of similar projects, instead reiterating the institutional separation between the Commission and the Parliament-run museum. The answer provides no new commitments or policy changes, merely restating the existing funding arrangement.
The response highlights a division of responsibilities between EU institutions: the Commission provides financial support under a fixed agreement, while the European Parliament holds curatorial and administrative control. This arrangement means that the Commission has no direct influence over the content of exhibitions, a point that may not satisfy critics who question the use of EU funds for cultural projects with a perceived political slant. For taxpayers, the answer confirms that public money is being used, but only for operational costs, not for specific content. For the European Parliament, the answer reinforces its autonomy in running the museum, while for cultural institutions, it clarifies the funding mechanism but leaves open questions about future accountability and content oversight.