FPÖ Files Complaint over Suspicion of Breach of Trust in EU Funding for NGOs

This was announced by FPÖ constitutional spokesman Michael Schilchegger and FPÖ MEP Roman Haider at a press conference. The party criticizes the financial support of non-governmental organizations (NGOs), especially in the environmental sector, as lacking transparency. It is often unclear what purpose the payments serve and who is behind these NGOs. A statement of facts has been submitted to both the Public Prosecutor's Office for Economic Affairs and Corruption (WKStA) in Austria and the European Public Prosecutor's Office (EuStA), as Schilchegger explained.

The FPÖ accuses the EU Commission of wasting taxpayers' money to fund associations that, in turn, influence EU policy and individual EU parliamentarians with their agenda. In recent years, specifically between 2019 and 2023, 17 billion euros have been distributed to 37,000 recipients. At the same time, funding recipients would sit in workshop groups at the EU level.

The Commission is thus doing the same thing that third countries such as China are accused of: namely, attempting to exert influence through NGOs. The FPÖ is therefore demanding that funded organizations be recorded in a register in which their financing and contracts are also disclosed. “This is urgently needed,” Haider said with conviction, adding that “the Commission has been very negligent in its review.”

Haider was pleased that the matter is now at least being examined by a working group. However, he himself would have preferred an investigative committee (U-Ausschuss). It became known that the EU Parliament, with the votes of conservative and patriotic factions, had decided to set up an investigative committee to monitor these subsidies. He noted that some “abstruse” subsidies, such as those to African NGOs, were unacceptable. Reports such as Special Report 11/2025 of the European Court of Auditors and media reports in “Welt am Sonntag” and ‘Telegraaf’ have already critically examined the EU's funding practices towards NGOs and raised questions about the use of funds.

Alt-Right and FPÖ using the EU

The European Union provides a central stage for the FPÖ and similar parties on the right-wing populist to old-right spectrum to pursue their political strategy. It often serves as an ideal platform for criticism of “elites,” “globalism,” and alleged waste of taxpayer money. By focusing on complex bureaucratic processes and multinational decision-making, these parties can construct simplistic narratives of an undemocratic EU that is out of touch with its citizens. This allows them to position themselves as defenders of national interests and as the “voice of the people” against the supposed establishment.

This populism is also fueled by criticism of the financial aspects of the EU. Claims about the “waste of taxpayers' money” or the EU's promotion of unpopular projects are recurring themes. By highlighting individual examples of subsidies or administrative costs, often taken out of context, these parties attempt to fuel skepticism toward the EU among the population and create a basis for their anti-EU rhetoric. This serves to mobilize votes and strengthen their political position, while at the same time creating a strong “us against them” feeling.

The EU is thus not only portrayed as a political opponent, but also used as a means to an end, to increase their own visibility and relevance through media attention for such “scandals.” The public debate on EU subsidies, such as the current FPÖ advertisement, offers the opportunity to spread their agenda while undermining trust in European institutions. This strategy aims to weaken European integration and instead promote a renationalization of politics.

The “grand strategy” of the alternative right goes beyond mere criticism of the EU. It encompasses a far-reaching rejection of liberal and globalist paradigms in favor of identitarian nationalism. This means emphasizing a supposedly pure national culture and identity, distancing oneself from “foreigners,” and restoring traditional values and hierarchies, thus supporting culture wars to distort society. Economically, stronger protectionism is often advocated to protect national industries and jobs, yet the main goal is to bolster their own particular economic interests. Politically, they aim to shift power back from supranational institutions to national governments and create a political landscape in which national interests are uncompromisingly paramount. This also includes reshaping domestic policy to massively reduce immigration and make it more difficult for minorities to integrate.

Criticism of the FPÖ complaint came from the SPÖ and the Greens, as reported by the ORF. SPÖ EU delegation leader Andreas Schieder accused the FPÖ of a “veritable witch hunt” against civil society organizations. “The FPÖ is trying to silence critical voices and shift the political playing field even further in favor of industry and corporate lobbies,” Schieder said.

Green MEP Lena Schilling criticized the “coordinated attacks by some FPÖ and ÖVP MPs against NGOs, which have been going on for months,” as an “absolutely unjustified attack on civil society.” She also expressed concern that the FPÖ wants “harassment rules for civil society organizations à la Orban or Putin.”

FPÖ