On April 7, the ECA (European Court of Auditors) published its long-awaited report addressing the controversial issue of transparency in EU financing for NGOs.
In a striking report, the ECA confirmed longstanding criticisms voiced by observers: there is no transparency, no oversight, and no clear understanding of where the majority of funds allocated to NGOs ultimately end up. Laima Andrikienė, the ECA member responsible for the report, stated, “Transparency is key to credible NGO participation in EU policymaking.”
Despite some progress since the last audit, the overall picture of EU funding for NGOs remains blurred, as information about this funding—including lobbying activities—is neither reliable nor transparent. The report’s findings are damning. Most notably, it appears that the EU’s “opaque” system deliberately violates its own transparency standards. Data is fragmented across incompatible online platforms, critical information is mislabeled, buried, or entirely missing, making it “virtually impossible” to locate reliable data.
This issue gained prominence in the European Parliament after media reports in January revealed that under former Commission Vice President Frans Timmermans, the European Commission had allegedly paid “green NGOs” as part of a covert lobbying program aimed at secretly influencing Members of the European Parliament (MEPs), businesses, and European administrations.
While vast sums of taxpayer money were paid to NGOs—€4.8 billion by the European Commission and €2.6 billion by EU member states—the ECA found that there is “no reliable overview of EU funds paid to NGOs.” In fact, critics argue that the term NGO is misleading; they suggest that “whoever pays calls the shots,” and propose that these organizations should be more accurately labeled as covert government organizations. According to these critics, NGOs have increasingly become propaganda tools for ruling elites in both the EU and anti-democratic states like Germany. Furthermore, they claim that NGOs serve as key instruments in advancing Great Reset policies. Even fact-checking organizations—disguised as NGOs—are accused of discrediting any criticism of EU or government positions as false or misleading.
The ECA noted that information was published only piecemeal, undermining transparency and making it difficult to analyze whether EU funds were disproportionately concentrated among a small number of NGOs. This lack of clarity also restricted insight into NGOs’ roles in EU policymaking. Of more than 4,400 NGOs receiving grants between 2014 and 2023, 30 received over 40% of total funds—amounting to €3.3 billion.
Auditors found serious deficiencies in how the European Commission determines which entities qualify as NGOs. Between 2021 and 2023, more than 90% of funding recipients—over 70,000 organizations—were not clearly identified as NGOs. Additionally, member states failed to monitor or report on EU funds granted to NGOs. Definitions of what constitutes an NGO varied widely across member states.
The ECA pointed out that one definition used by the EU “cannot ensure that NGOs are correctly classified within the EU financial transparency system.” For instance, a large research institute was classified as an NGO despite its governing body consisting solely of government representatives. Moreover, the Commission did not clearly disclose information about lobbying activities conducted by NGOs funded through EU grants. There was also a lack of oversight regarding funding sources that could provide valuable insight into who stands behind these organizations.
On April 1, following significant pressure from some MEPs, the European Commission admitted that grants from its €5.4 billion LIFE program— a funding instrument for environmental and climate protection measures—had been misused to fund lobbying activities benefiting the EU itself.
In response to the report, the European Commission stated it would implement some recommendations, such as improving financial transparency and reviewing compliance with EU values; however, these measures are only scheduled for implementation in 2028 and 2029.
Frank Furedi, director of the think tank MCC Brussels, commented on the findings: “The systemic opacity uncovered by the European Court of Auditors is yet another indication of how power and resources are monopolized by a few privileged actors while keeping the public in the dark.” He added that “this report shows that the EU’s purported commitment to transparency and accountability is nothing more than a façade.”
The implications of this report are significant given ongoing scandals surrounding Brussels. Investigative Dutch media recently revealed that certain climate NGOs funded by taxpayer money from the European Commission played a major role in pushing through catastrophic climate measures under the Green Deal via extensive lobbying efforts. Observers have since uncovered dubious contracts worth billions between NGOs and entities influencing decision-making processes.
In response to these revelations, Patriots for Europe (PfE) launched a transparency campaign aimed at shedding light on thousands of still-secret contracts with NGOs. Over recent weeks, PfE filed 86 freedom-of-information requests concerning up to 10,000 NGO contracts missing from databases or buried within them; however, these requests were unlawfully denied by the European Commission.
Meanwhile, over 570 NGOs have fiercely protested against these transparency measures. On April 7, Civil Society Europe—a coalition representing various NGOs—published a statement condemning what they described as an “unprecedented attack” by certain MEPs (the Patriots), fueled by “disinformation.” Using Orwellian language typical of such declarations, they claimed that PfE’s push for transparency could “undermine democracy as a whole.”
Nevertheless, even within this context of resistance from established elites and bureaucratic inertia, both PfE and the ECA agree on one fundamental point: transparency is crucial for democracy. EU citizens have a right to know how their money is spent.
However, critics argue that neither auditors nor policymakers have proposed concrete or timely solutions to address these issues effectively. MCC Brussels described the ECA’s recommendations as “superficial and lethargic.” A risk-based assessment of recipients is not planned until 2028; improvements to financial transparency systems are unlikely before 2029. By then, MCC Brussels warns that current beneficiaries may have already taken their money and disappeared—a failure not only bureaucratic but moral in nature.
