As European governments haggle over the bloc's next long-term budget, the administrative machinery of EU institutions and the Global Europe Fund appear to be the most vulnerable to deep cuts. Yet the network of EU delegations worldwide is unlikely to face major reductions, despite the fiscal pressure.
The negotiations over the Multiannual Financial Framework for 2028-2034 have pitted a group of fiscally conservative countries—including Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden—against those favouring a more ambitious spending plan. The frugal camp is pushing to trim several hundred billion euros from the European Commission's proposal.
There is broad consensus among member states that spending on EU institutions should be tightened, and the Global Europe Fund, which finances external action, is also set to be reduced from the levels the Commission initially suggested. But according to four EU officials who spoke on condition of anonymity, scaling back the delegation network would be highly problematic, particularly for smaller member states.
“Small member states with few embassies rely heavily on the network of EU delegations,” one diplomat from a smaller country said, speaking anonymously to discuss the sensitive issue freely.
A global reach at a modest cost
The European External Action Service (EEAS) runs 145 delegations and offices worldwide, employing nearly 6,000 people on an annual budget of around €1 billion, according to its 2025 report. These delegations are not staffed solely by the EEAS; they also incorporate personnel from the Commission's departments for international partnerships and for civil protection and humanitarian aid, as well as seconded diplomats from national ministries and local agents.
Supporters of the network argue that its cost is relatively modest given the global coverage it provides to smaller EU states that lack their own diplomatic presence in many countries. “Most costs for delegations do not come from staff but from security and facilities, which is the same reason why some member states cannot afford a diplomatic presence there,” a second EU official explained.
That official suggested that the idea of cutting delegations in the next budget is politically unlikely and stems from a power play by the Commission to gain fuller control over the EU's diplomatic service. This is especially true since the delegations are already undergoing a “modernisation” drive.
Modernisation already under way
Since 1 September, the delegations have been implementing a reform that has already led to significant reductions in administrative staff, drawing opposition from several EU civil service unions. The plan centralises administrative tasks, finance management, and contracts at headquarters and at regional hubs that oversee clusters of countries. For instance, the hub in South Africa also covers Botswana, Mauritius, Madagascar, and Comoros.
Local delegations have been left with smaller, sometimes minimal, diplomatic representation to maintain political dialogue with local authorities, companies, and stakeholders. “The result has been a centralisation of power, weakening delegations that in the past, especially when headed by a diplomat from a large member state, could act far more independently from Brussels,” a third EU official said.
At the same time, officials point out that EU countries with their own diplomatic presence often duplicate the work of the delegations and do not always align with how Brussels is now engaging with third countries.
From development to partnerships
During Ursula von der Leyen's first term, the Commission renamed its directorate-general for international cooperation and development (DG DEVCO) as the directorate-general for international partnerships (DG INTPA). The change was far more than a rebrand: it marked a wholesale shift in the bloc's engagement with third countries, away from development aid and towards backing European companies on major infrastructure projects in strategic areas such as critical raw materials, connectivity, and energy.
The Australian mining company Viridis, for example, signed a letter of intent with the Belgian chemical company Solvay to supply Brazilian rare earths for processing at Solvay's plant in France. In other words, in line with von der Leyen's “geopolitical” approach, the Commission has all but dropped development projects in favour of initiatives that help European companies compete abroad with their Chinese and American rivals.
According to EU officials, when these projects are successful, they manage to help Europe's private sector win contracts far larger than the EU's own contribution, to the point that several European companies have started collaborating with the Commission much more closely. In the new budget, the intent is also to make global funding allocation more flexible, earmarking it by macro-region, such as Latin America and Africa, rather than by individual country, so the EU can better seize opportunities such as commercial contracts or trade agreements.
The debate over the EU's external spending comes as the bloc faces broader challenges, including calls to invest in stability beyond its borders and pressure on Kyiv to accelerate reforms. While the final shape of the budget remains uncertain, the diplomatic network appears to be a protected asset, essential for the Union's global influence and for the smaller states that depend on it.
