The EU Migration Budget
- Europe Must Act
- Feb 26
- 2 min read
Who Really Benefits From €26 Billion EU Migration Budget?
To read our report in full, download it in English here:
As the European Union prepares to significantly expand its budget for migration, border management, and internal security, for this month’s topic, we decided to take a look at how money is really being spent on migration in Europe.
As we discuss in detail in our latest report, the EU 2028-2034 proposed budget triples funds for migration, border management and internal security. Of the total €74 billion earmarked in the MFF “to make Europe safer and more secure”, €26 billion will be dedicated to migration management, including issues related to reception of asylum seekers and other non-border related issues.
To conceptualise this amount a bit better, €26 billion is the equivalent of paying 653,266 people (roughly the population of Montenegro) the EU average full-time salary of €39,800 for a year, or, for the long term, paying roughly 10,000 people the average salary for about 65 years.
In this report, we examine the European Union Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF), which, while it is formally presented as a tool to support reception, inclusion, and solidarity among Member States, also finances detention, return, and cooperation with third countries aimed at restricting migration. Looking at how AMIF funding is allocated in practice, we highlight persistent gaps in transparency and public oversight over how money is spent and which priorities are ultimately advanced.
Through an analysis of available expenditure data and country case studies, including Greece and Ireland, the report explores how substantial portions of EU funding are directed toward reception systems that increasingly resemble detention, as well as towards return and so-called “solidarity” mechanisms that enable displacement rather than protection. Finally, the report examines the increasing role of private companies in migration management, from detention and accommodation to surveillance and data systems, raising critical questions about accountability, profit, and the normalisation of harm within Europe’s asylum regime.
Taken together, these developments challenge prevailing public narratives about the cost of hosting asylum seekers and refugees, revealing instead a system in which vast public resources are channelled into controlling, containing, and profiting from human mobility.
Comments