Fifteen Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) have raised serious concerns over the European Commission’s handling of three Erasmus+ youth projects run by World Youth Alliance Europe (WYA Europe), following project review reports issued by the European Education and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA).
In a letter addressed to European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and Commissioners Roxana Mînzatu and Michael McGrath, the MEPs — led by Italian MEP Paolo Inselvini — call for institutional clarification regarding “the methodology, criteria, and respect for political neutrality that the Commission and its executive agencies are obliged to uphold.”
The EACEA grant review letters accuse WYA Europe of not upholding “EU values”. However, the agency reviewers justify this, by drawing on strategies and roadmaps that did not even exist when the WYA grant projects were approved — including the EU LGBTIQ Equality Strategy 2026–2030 and the Roadmap for Women’s Rights adopted in 2025. Additionally, the accusation of “not upholding EU values” is based on non-binding political documents. The agency is selectively interpreting “EU values” in ways that intend to exclude young people from access to public funding.
Grant agreements are legal instruments. They set out, in advance, the criteria by which projects will be assessed. Beneficiaries design, deliver and report on their work based on those terms. Legal certainty is not a nicety. It is a bedrock of civil society and what allows organizations — especially smaller, youth-led ones, like World Youth Alliance Europe — to operate without fear of shifting political winds suddenly rendering them in breach of contract or reprisal from powerful institutions.
The letter from the MEPs also challenges the idea that the EU values enshrined in the Treaties and the Charter of Fundamental Rights, are the same “EU values” pushed by current policy preferences. EU values include human dignity, freedom of thought, conscience and religion, pluralism and democracy. World Youth Alliance’s positions — grounded in recognition of the inherent dignity of the human person from conception – is a lawful view held by millions of Europeans. If such views are deemed inherently incompatible with the European Commission or Erasmus+, the implication is not just that World Youth Alliance Europe should be excluded, but that a wide range of organizations – and EU countries themselves – are no longer welcome in the EU. That is the opposite of inclusion; it is ideological coercion.
The problem with calling disagreement “disinformation” is that once that line is crossed, no civil society actor is safe — progressive or conservative. A worrying aspect of the EACEA review letters is the labelling of certain WYA materials as “disinformation” simply because they diverge from the lucrative “comprehensive sexuality education” model promoted and funded by EU institutions and partners. Disinformation is a serious accusation. It implies intentional falsehood and public harm. To deploy accusatory language without transparent criteria, scientific comparison or methodological explanation is irresponsible. There is a difference between contesting a policy approach, based on evidence and research, and spreading ‘disinformation’. Collapsing the distinction between the two allows public authorities to sidestep debate and dodge accountability.
The fifteen MEPs who signed the letter to the European Commission President are right to ask whether the EACEA demand for “balance” and “contradictory perspectives” is being applied consistently across all EU grant initiatives. For example, did the EACEA make sure that all scientific and philosophical perspectives, including those critical of gender theory, were present in the implementation of the Erasmus+ project called “FemQueer – Common strategies for Gender Equality”? A great many projects funded by Erasmus+ openly advocate for policies and frameworks that do not include a single piece of research or reasoning to explain legitimate dissenting views. In fact, there are even projects funded by Erasmus+ that openly advocate for policies and frameworks in opposition to the very laws of the country they are implemented within.
The European Commission has a choice. It can dismiss the letter — or it can take seriously the questions 15 MEPs have raised about how power is exercised through funding mechanisms.
If Erasmus+ and EU Commission programs are to remain viable spaces for dialogue, democratic participation and civic engagement, they cannot be transformed into tools of soft coercion.
