EU funds for left-wing climate NGOs used to target Conservatives

BREAKING: The European Commission admits it has used EU funds that were supposed to “fight climate change” for financing left-wing NGOs and climate organizations with the aim of silencing the voices of European conservatives in a secretive influence operation.

The funds came from the LIFE Program, which is supposed to fund environmental initiatives and has had a total budget of EUR 9 billion since 2014. The LIFE program is a funding instrument dedicated to environmental, nature conservation, and climate action projects but some of the funds were instead used to attack conservative and eurosceptic voices according to the Austrian newspaper eXXpress.

The European Commission has issued a short statement on the matter: “The Commission finds that the work programmes presented by the activist organizations (…) contained inappropriate lobbying activities.” According to internal documents, the targeted campaigns were designed in cooperation between EU agencies and climate NGOs, including planning which critics would be targeted. – “We see this as a clear misstep by both individual EU officials and organizations,” Peter Liese (CDU/Germany), environment policy spokesperson for the conservative EPP group, told eXXpress and added “the misuse of EU funds must stop.”

According to the European Commission, changes are now to be introduced to the LIFE program to prevent future excesses. Guidelines banning subsidized lobbying by EU institutions were already introduced in autumn 2024 – but it is only now that the abuses are being publicly confirmed.

Only a third of organizations and NGOs that received money from the LIFE Program openly disclose their income and how the funds are used, which has led to criticism of lack of transparency.

The former EU Climate Commissioner Frans Timmermans orchestrated the secret contracts with environmental NGOs. These contracts reportedly included detailed lobbying plans specifying targets and goals. It means that the European Commission provided not just funding but also strategic direction on whom to oppose in a coordinated effort to attack political opponents of the European Commission’s climate agenda.

NGOs were instructed to focus on critics of the Green Deal, such as conservative MEPs, national politicians, or parties (Austria’s FPÖ and ÖVP parties are likely among the targets) who resisted stringent climate regulations. For example, the European Environmental Bureau (EEB), a major NGO network, is accused of being tasked with influencing EU Parliament decisions by targeting lawmakers who opposed ambitious environmental laws, like the Renaturierungsgesetz (Nature Restoration Law).

Practically all the opponents targeted are conservatives skeptical of centralized EU policies, often from populist or nationalist factions of the European Parliament as well as national parliaments.

LIFE Program funds in the order of EUR 15.5 million were sent annually to NGOs—as a tool to enforce this coordination. It seems that the European Commission’s funding of many of these NGOs came with strings attached: NGOs had to align their campaigns with the Commission’s political goals, including neutralizing opposition by running “shadow lobbying” operations, crafting campaigns to sway public opinion and pressure decision-makers against Green Deal critics. This included pushing narratives that framed opponents as anti-environment or anti-progress, effectively sidelining their influence. The EEB, for instance, reportedly had to provide “at least 16 examples” of how their lobbying made EU laws tougher, implying a deliberate effort to counter resistance from conservative lawmakers.

The NGOs leveraged media partnerships and public advocacy to amplify their attacks. By framing critics as obstacles to climate action, they aimed to discredit them politically.

The work was outsourced by the European Commission and major NGOs like the EEB that were responsible for setting priorities, which smaller groups then executed.

Three of the EU’s largest conservative party groups, the EPP, ECR, and PfE have called for a pushback against the Commission’s funding practices. In early 2025, EPP MEPs, alongside ECR and PfE MEPs, threatened to freeze €15.6 million in annual LIFE funding to around 30 environmental NGOs. The MEPs demanded accountability and alleged that the Commission’s Directorate-General for Environment (DG ENV) secretly paid NGOs to lobby for stricter climate policies and thus undermined the legislative independence of the European Parliament and national parliaments.

EPP figures like Monika Hohlmeier, vice-chair of the Parliament’s budgetary committee, criticized the Commission for what she called “scandalous one-sided methods,” insisting on repayment of misused funds dating back a decade. The EPP MEP @TomasZdechovsky has said there is whistleblower evidence of “secret contracts” directing NGOs to lobby MEPs.

A few weeks ago, the EPP softened its stance slightly with a last-minute shift: they would drop the funding freeze if the Commission provided a transparency statement. However, after a narrow defeat in the environment committee (41-40 vote on March 31, 2025), the Dutch EPP MEP@sandersmitwzn accused the Commission of reneging on a deal to admit abuses, showing lingering frustration in the EPP. The ECR, a Eurosceptic and right-wing group, has aligned with the EPP in this controversy, amplifying the narrative of overreach by Brussels: Several ECR MEPs, including@FiocchiPietro of Giorgia Meloni’s Fratelli d’Italia party, co-tabled the objection to LIFE funding with the EPP, arguing that the Commission allowed “targeted lobbying” that disrupted institutional balance.

The ECR’s broader agenda of halting EU federalism is closely connected to what it perceives as constant overreach by the European Commission. EPP, ECR and PfE frame the NGOs’ efforts as targeting “critics of the Green Deal,” which implicitly includes their own members—conservatives and populists who resist aggressive climate policies.

Parties like Austria’s ÖVP (EPP) and FPÖ (PfE), Italy’s Fratelli d’Italia (ECR), and Poland’s Law and Justice (ECR) are likely inferred targets, given their vocal skepticism of EU environmental mandates. Many of the NGOs were focused on issues concerning farming, migration, and climate regulations, making it likely that figures such as the Dutch BBB MEP Sander Smit (EPP), who represents farmer interests, or ECR’s Fiocchi, tied to Italy’s rural and industrial base, were either direct or indirect targets of the NGOs.

ER interjection: Visegrad 24 is exceptionally anti-Russian, pro-Ukraine-western deep state, which is why we usually give it a wide berth

Following the Russian invasion of Ukraine, increased Russian aggression against the EU itself (such as sabotage of undersea infrastructure) and the foreign policy changes in the U.S. under President Trump, the debate on the EU abandoning the Green Deal has reignited. As the Trump administration has stated that all NATO allies should be required to increase military spending to 5% of GDP, many European politicians now realize the Green Deal isn’t just making European economies uncompetitive, but also erodes European capabilities to rearm their militaries to the degree needed for Europe to be able to protect EU member states such as Finland, Sweden, the Baltic States and Poland from potential Russian invasions without massive American military support. The debate in Europe on withdrawing from the Green Deal is just getting started.