objectives. In view of the democratic backsliding of certain member states, this decentralised ap­proach is worrying, as less money is likely to be spent on projects that strengthen civic cohesion and promote democratic stability. 17 On a positive note, payments under the NRPPs will be linked to the rule of law report and EU member states’ performance with regard to the report’s recommendations. This follows the logic applied to disbursement under the Recovery and Resilience Plans put in place with NextGenera­tionEU funding, as well as existing structures under the European Semester for macroeconom­ic monitoring. However, the national plans will have to be designed very quickly, with first drafts to be presented to the Commission by June 2027. This leaves very little time to draft a seven-year programme and to truly involve civil society stakeholders in the process. 18 The new MFF envisages more substantial emer­gency funding, which is a welcome approach as in the previous mandate the EU had to deal with unexpected crisis situations, ranging from a global pandemic to a war at its borders. The CatalystEU programme(involving approximately €150 billion) is designed to offer EU-backed loans for public investment in strategic areas (such as digital, defence and clean tech), with a broader objective of strengthening Europe’s cri­sis response and competitiveness. There is no budget line earmarked exclusively for democracy support within CatalystEU. This is a missed opportunity, for two reasons. First, democratic backsliding should be considered a crisis and funding should be available to tackle it. Second, in crises, democratic institutions and processes tend to come under pressure, as was the case during the Covid-19 pandemic. There ­fore, rather than treating democracy as only a horizontal objective through the rule of law con­ditionality mechanism, the EU should consider including language on democracy support in cri­sis moments in CatalystEU. 8. External support for democracy through Global Europe The Commission has integrated support for de­mocracy in the funding for external relations in the next MFF under the Global Europe pro­gramme. With a total budget of€215 billion (compared with€130 billion in 2021–2027), the new instrument is structured in terms of five ge­ographical pillars, with both programmable(for example, flexible) and non-programmable(for example, fixed sum) funds. Democracy support will need to be»programmed« in this new MFF, which means that, unlike in previous MFFs, there will be no binding spending targets to guarantee minimum funding for such support. 19 Binding targets and dedicated funding are need­ed to make sure that support for democracy does not remain merely a vague intention in the EU’s external policies. These targets should be woven into the geographical pillars, enlargement funds and global programmes. In addition, a clear poli­cy framework seems to be lacking in the current design of the Global Europe instrument. As a re­sult, funding might be driven more by short-term geopolitical and economic priorities at the ex­pense of values-based commitments and longer­term projects, such as democracy. In the field of enlargement, the Commission plans to use a»fundamentals first« approach, with an increased focus on conditionality. This approach emphasises that core issues, such as democracy, the rule of law and human rights, shall take priority and must be addressed early and thoroughly before other accession criteria are considered. However, the Commission plans to 17  Louisa Slavkova/Denitza Vidolova/Danielle Brady(2024): Strengthening Civic Cohesion in Europe: Recommendations for an EU policy up­grade, Sofia Platform and European Policy Centre. 18  Civil Society Europe(2025): Civil Society Europe’s Reaction to the Multiannual Financial Framework 2028-2034: Progress for Some, Setbacks for Others (July). 19  ECDPM(2025): A companion guide to the Global Europe instrument proposal(July). 10 Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung e.V.