In a written answer on 1 July 2026, Commissioner for Budget Johannes Hahn (Mr Brunner) defended the European Commission's proposal for the 2028-2034 multiannual financial framework (MFF) against criticism from Greek MEP Afroditi Latinopoulou (Patriots for Europe), who had accused the EU of wasting funds on a 'woke agenda' and neglecting national security, demographic decline, and primary production. The Commissioner outlined how the proposed budget triples funding for migration, border management, and internal security compared to the current framework, doubles allocations for Frontex and Europol, and includes ring-fenced agricultural income support with a 10% rural target. The answer, however, contains no new concrete proposals beyond the already published MFF blueprint, instead reiterating existing commitments and rejecting the premise of ideological spending.
The question, tabled by Latinopoulou, pressed the Commission on three fronts: increasing funds for border guarding and deportations rather than 'integration programmes'; establishing funds to support the traditional family and incentivise births instead of 'population replacement through migration'; and redirecting resources from 'gender budgeting' to farmers hit by green transition costs. Brunner's response sidesteps the ideological framing, stating that the MFF proposal 'focuses on competitiveness, security, defence, migration, food security and strategic autonomy and a reinforced commitment to the European principles and values.' He notes that Member States will use migration and border funds according to their specific needs, and that demographic challenges are addressed through the European Social Fund Plus and National and Regional Partnership Plans, allowing tailored measures. On farming, he points to the ring-fenced income support and flexibility to address farmers' needs from 2028.
The policy orientation of the answer is defensive and procedural: the Commission presents its MFF proposal as already aligned with the concerns raised, without announcing new initiatives. The answer signals that the Commission views the current proposal as a balanced response to security, demographic, and agricultural challenges, and that further details will emerge through the legislative process. Institutional follow-up will involve negotiations between the European Parliament and the Council on the MFF, where the specific allocations and conditions for migration, demographic support, and agricultural funds will be debated. The Commission's stance suggests it will resist calls to earmark funds for 'traditional family' measures or to cut 'gender budgeting', instead emphasising Member State flexibility within existing frameworks.
The answer reassures Member States seeking stronger border security and agricultural support, as the tripled migration funding and ring-fenced farm income are concrete. However, it offers no new targeted measures for demographic incentives, leaving that to national discretion. NGOs and integration programmes may face reduced relative priority, while farmers gain certainty on baseline support but remain exposed to green transition costs not addressed in the answer. The Commission's refusal to engage with the 'woke agenda' framing may disappoint conservative MEPs but avoids reopening ideological battles in the MFF negotiations.