EPP Calls for EU Funding Ban on Islamist Networks as Parliament Backs Action
The EPP Group wants EU money kept away from Islamist networks and legally justified terrorist listings for people and organisations linked to the Muslim Brotherhood. Parliament has backed a resolution, but that vote does not itself impose sanctions.
The European People’s Party Group, the largest political group in the European Parliament, called on 8 October 2026 for EU funding to be withheld from Islamist individuals and organisations and for stronger scrutiny of recipients. Its statement preceded a resolution adopted that day by 381 votes to 167, with 15 abstentions, according to the European Conservatives and Reformists Group and the European Jewish Congress.
What the EPP is demanding
Céline Imart, the MEP leading the EPP’s work on the issue, urged the Council to place people and organisations linked to the Muslim Brotherhood on the terrorist list “where rules allow”. She distinguished Islam as a religion from political Islam and framed the proposal as protecting democracy and religious freedom.
“EU funding must never reach individuals or organisations linked to Islamist networks,” said Tomáš Zdechovský, the group’s spokesman for budgetary control. He called for checks before grants are awarded, disclosure of recipients and programmes, and the ability to follow money to its final beneficiary.
The EPP’s short statement identifies no specific grant recipient, gives no alleged funding total and announces no retrospective audit. Its demands concern eligibility checks, transparency and stopping payments when rules are breached.
What auditors found about EU grants
A separate 2025 European Court of Auditors report provides relevant background. It found incomplete and unreliable information on EU funding for nongovernmental organisations and insufficient disclosure of some publicly funded lobbying and advocacy.
The auditors reported €7.4 billion in NGO funding commitments under internal EU policies between 2021 and 2023, while warning that the overall picture was unreliable. That figure covers NGO funding generally; it is not an estimate of money paid to Islamist organisations. The audit also identified a lack of proactive checks on recipients’ compliance with EU values.
France’s Interior Ministry published its report on the Muslim Brotherhood and political Islam on 21 May 2025, following work commissioned in April 2024. Austria has separately included Muslim Brotherhood symbols in its symbols prohibition law since 2019. These national measures have different purposes and do not constitute an EU terrorist designation.
Support and objections after the vote
The ECR Group welcomed the resolution on 8 October. Its MEP Nicolas Bay urged authorities to examine organisational connections, financing and access to European institutions. The group said it expected the Commission and Council to act on Parliament’s demands.
Renew Europe also supported action, calling for funding and institutional access to depend on respect for fundamental rights. Its MEP Nathalie Loiseau defended confronting Islamist influence while rejecting attempts to conflate Islamism with Islam or encourage hatred of Muslims.
Opponents raised civil liberties concerns. A joint NGO statement published by the Forum of European Muslim Youth and Student Organisations, FEMYSO, on 8 October argued that vague allegations could restrict Muslim civil society’s funding and participation in democratic life.
What would change the legal position
A parliamentary resolution does not itself put an organisation on the EU terrorist list. The Council’s published rules require a prior decision by a competent national authority concerning terrorist acts, which can involve an investigation, prosecution or conviction. A separate Council listing decision is needed.
For Israel, the background includes Hamas, which emerged in 1987 as the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood and is already subject to EU terrorism sanctions. The European Jewish Congress highlighted the new resolution’s focus on democratic institutions, funding safeguards and coordinated action. The next substantive question is which specific entities authorities can identify and act against under the applicable rules.
