Investigative journalism

🏗️ Media Oversight and Global Gateway Partnerships

Independent scrutiny is essential to ensure that the EU’s flagship investments deliver on their promise of transparency and good governance. Embedding investigative journalism within EU infrastructure and development initiatives strengthens accountability, reduces corruption risks, and demonstrates that Europe applies the same transparency standards it promotes globally.

Context Global Gateway is the EU’s flagship investment programme for infrastructure, aimed at mobilising €300 billion for energy, transport, digital, health, and education projects worldwide. While the initiative highlights Europe’s commitment to sustainable development and global competitiveness, stakeholders have cautioned that the EU’s credibility also depends on ensuring these funds are open to scrutiny.
Delegation staff and partners emphasise that transparency and integrity must extend beyond financial controls to include independent oversight by journalists and civil society. Large-scale infrastructure projects are highly vulnerable to corruption, mismanagement, and elite capture, which can erode public trust and compromise both development outcomes and the EU’s rule-of-law and democracy agendas.
If local communities perceive EU-funded projects as opaque or benefiting only a few, the EU’s image as a credible promoter of good governance is undermined — weakening its geopolitical influence and economic partnerships.

Why it matters Embedding support for watchdog journalism alongside Global Gateway projects would operationalise OECD Principle 3 — Take a Whole-of-System Perspective, linking media support to governance, anti-corruption, and development policy.
🔹 Earmark resources within infrastructure programmes for investigative reporting and data-driven journalism on procurement, delivery, and environmental impacts. 🔹 Fund collaborations between local and European outlets to monitor implementation and spending. 🔹 Integrate journalist training on infrastructure oversight into governance and transparency initiatives.
These measures would not only safeguard EU investment but also align with the European Democracy Shield and Global Europe commitments to strengthen information integrity and public accountability.
By linking media oversight with economic development, the EU demonstrates that transparency is not a communications exercise but a strategic pillar of Europe’s democratic and economic security.

💡 Lesson: Infrastructure and media support should never be treated as separate silos. A whole-of-system approach means ensuring that flagship investments like Global Gateway are accompanied by independent scrutiny — proving that the EU holds itself to the same standards of transparency and accountability it promotes globally.

🧩 Example in Practice In 2024, DG INTPA and the European Investment Bank piloted cooperation with regional investigative outlets through OCCRP’s cross-border investigations, enabling journalists to track EU-funded transport and energy projects across the Western Balkans. The partnership combined open-data training, shared reporting tools, and rapid access to procurement records — illustrating how media oversight can enhance governance, reduce corruption risk, and reinforce the EU’s credibility as a transparent development partner.

🔍 European Investigative Networks Monitoring Infrastructure and Public Spending

Independent journalism is an essential safeguard for transparency in Europe’s major investment and infrastructure programmes. EU-supported investigative networks already play a pivotal role in tracking procurement, construction, and public-finance flows — from energy corridors to digital infrastructure. These partnerships show how watchdog journalism can complement traditional audit and anti-corruption tools, turning transparency commitments into tangible accountability.

Outlet / Network

Region / Focus

EU Link / Funding Source

Example of Infrastructure or Procurement Coverage

Investigate Europe

Pan-European

Supported by Creative Europe and EU-based foundations

Infrastructure of Power (energy networks, digital sovereignty, public contracts across Member States)

Follow the Money (FTM International)

Netherlands / EU

Participant in EU-funded cross-border consortia – European Data Journalism Network

Investigations into public-spending, infrastructure subsidies, and EU procurement transparency

Lighthouse Reports

EU-wide (Netherlands HQ)

Receives support via the IJ4EU fund (DG CONNECT / ECPMF)

Migrant Detention Infrastructure, Weapons Europe Exports — analysing EU-financed systems

EU Observer / Investigate Europe Collaborations

Brussels / EU Institutions

Co-funded under IJ4EU grants

Who Builds Europe? – tracing lobbying and infrastructure governance within EU programmes

Investigative Journalism for Europe (IJ4EU)

Funding mechanism – not an outlet

Funded by the European Commission (DG CONNECT) and ECPMF

Grants for cross-border teams investigating corruption, infrastructure, and public-spending abuse

European Data Journalism Network (EDJNet)

30 + media in EU & EEA

Funded under Creative Europe

Data-driven projects on regional-development funds, transport corridors, and recovery-plan spending

Balkan Investigative Reporting Network (BIRN)

Western Balkans / EU Neighbourhood

EU funded via DG NEAR and EED programmes

Investigations on energy infrastructure, procurement corruption, and EU-funded construction projects

These initiatives demonstrate that media oversight strengthens the governance dimension of EU investment, from Global Gateway projects abroad to Cohesion Fund investments at home. Supporting such networks through Creative Europe, IJ4EU, and DG NEAR programmes reinforces Principle 3’s call for a whole-of-system perspective, ensuring that accountability, transparency, and information integrity accompany every euro spent.

💡 Lesson: EU-funded and EU-linked investigative journalism networks already provide proven models of independent scrutiny. Embedding similar approaches in new initiatives such as Global Gateway or the European Democracy Shield would institutionalise transparency, reduce corruption risk, and align the EU’s external investments with its internal governance standards.

Credibility risks linked to donor branding

Investigative media outlets in different regions have reported being discredited by opponents pointing to their foreign funding. In one case, publicly available donor attribution was weaponised by hostile actors to delegitimise independent reporting. This highlights the importance of separating support for media from public diplomacy optics.

OCCRP and the USAID controversy

In late 2024, the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) faced attacks in the French press after it was revealed that part of its funding came from USAID. Critics portrayed the outlet as compromised, despite its strong record of independent investigations.

The controversy forced OCCRP to publicly defend its editorial independence, with GIJN and others issuing statements of support.

This case illustrates how even transparent, lawful donor support can be weaponised to undermine credibility — and why risk assessments, visibility waivers, and clear communication about editorial firewalls are vital components of a “do no harm” approach.

Frequently Asked Questions on OCCRP’s Funding and Editorial Policies

GIJN Statement in Support of the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project

Editorial firewalls in donor-funded media

Clear contractual clauses, side-letters, or public statements can establish an editorial firewall between funding and content.

These provisions make explicit that donors cannot influence editorial choices, story selection, or investigative priorities. Communicating this firewall — both internally to staff and externally to audiences — helps safeguard trust.

The OCCRP/USAID controversy shows that even lawful, transparent funding can be weaponised by critics; editorial firewalls and proactive communication strategies reduce the risk that support will be seen as editorial interference.