The European Commission has presented a draft Multiannual Financial Framework for 2028‑2034 that would remove the European Social Fund Plus (ESF+) as a stand‑alone instrument. Instead, the 14 % social‑spending target would be embedded in each Member State’s National Regional Partnership Plan, meaning that states would no longer receive a fixed, legally protected ESF+ allocation.

The proposal

Under the draft, Member States must demonstrate that at least 14 % of eligible EU‑funded spending is directed to social objectives, but the Commission says the target preserves the Union’s commitment to social investment while giving governments greater flexibility to integrate those goals into broader policy packages.

Potential cuts to social funding

European Parliament services estimate that total social outlays under the new framework could fall to between €63 billion and €87 billion, compared with the €96 billion currently financed by the ESF+ for the 2021‑2027 period. Even the most optimistic scenario would therefore reduce guaranteed funding by at least €9 billion.

Country‑specific impacts are stark. Italy, which receives roughly €14.98 billion from the ESF+, could see its allocation fall to as low as €3.22 billion – an almost 80 % cut. Spain’s funding could drop from €11.43 billion to €2.94 billion, while Portugal could see a reduction from €7.87 billion to €1.58 billion. Germany could lose up to 68 % of its current resources, Poland faces a possible reduction of more than €7 billion in the worst‑case scenario, and Romania could lose about two‑thirds of its social budget.

The projected cuts would affect programmes such as disability support, early‑childhood care, community‑based long‑term care and training for social‑care workers. The European Social Network warned that the loss of a dedicated fund threatens predictability for NGOs and public bodies, while the European Trade Union Confederation argued that fragile social foundations would undermine competitiveness and growth.

Reactions from institutions and member states

The Commission argues that a rigid fund can create inefficiencies and that a performance‑based approach will improve outcomes. However, the European Parliament Committee on Budgets has expressed concern that the new mechanism lacks the legal safeguards that made the ESF+ reliable.

Some Members of the European Parliament have called for a legally binding “hard‑wired” social clause guaranteeing a minimum level of EU money for social programmes. Member States that rely heavily on the ESF+, such as Italy and Spain, have voiced strong opposition, whereas others that anticipate larger defence or green‑transition budgets view the proposal as a way to free up resources for those priorities.

Broader context and next steps

After the United Kingdom left the EU, the UK Shared Prosperity Fund provided roughly one‑third less money than the combined ESF+ and European Regional Development Fund previously did, a reduction that has already caused severe financial instability for equality and social‑inclusion groups in Northern Ireland.

The draft MFF will be examined by the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers, a process that could continue into 2025. Civil‑society groups, trade unions and some national governments are expected to lobby for either retaining a dedicated social fund or establishing a legally binding minimum allocation. If the European Parliament rejects the Commission’s text, the budget could be revised to keep the ESF+ or to create a hybrid model that combines a guaranteed fund with the 14 % target.