The ERA Act is meant to turn a 25-year political ambition into binding law, yet researchers are still waiting to see the text. Commissioner Ekaterina Zaharieva brought the timetable forward from 2027 to 2026 so that the legislation can pass within the current political mandate. The sources reviewed for this article did not confirm that the Commission has tabled a final proposal.
The numbers explain the urgency. The Union spent 2.22% of its gross domestic product on research and development in 2023, well below the long-standing 3% target. The planned ERA Act would embed that target in law and align public and private funding with strategic priorities such as artificial intelligence, quantum technologies, green technology and life sciences. The shortfall may look small on paper, yet it separates the Union from competitors that invest more.
The Commission has built the ERA Act file on broad consultation. The call for evidence closed on 10 September 2025 with 178 contributions from 29 countries, and the public consultation closed on 23 January 2026. Parliament added its own voice with a text adopted on 10 March 2026, which set out what members want to see in the upcoming proposal.
Supporters describe four pillars for the ERA Act. The first would protect the freedom of scientific research through dedicated legislation, and the second would create a binding and coherent governance framework for the research area. The third would embed the 3% investment target, while the fourth would improve researcher circulation, careers and working conditions, including mobility, gender equality and knowledge security.
The beneficiaries are numerous, because the Commission says the initiative could help about two million researchers across the Union. For them, the ERA Act promises clearer career paths and easier movement between countries, a goal that stakeholders sometimes call the fifth freedom, the free circulation of knowledge and researchers. Universities have pressed for a uniform visa approach and for a regulation instead of a directive, so that rules apply identically in every member state. That would end the patchwork of rules that researchers meet today when they move between national systems.
Money remains the sharpest dispute, and negotiators know it is as much about politics as about arithmetic, since finance ministers guard their budgets closely. The league of research universities LERU has proposed a legally binding 4% of GDP, while other voices suggest a national escape clause for research spending, similar to the exemptions that governments won for defence. Finland offers a model that several stakeholders cite, because each euro of public investment there leverages two euros of private funding.
The ERA Act also has to fit with other initiatives. It connects with the Choose Europe for Science agenda and the forthcoming European Innovation Act, and the Commission wants all three to reinforce Europe’s competitiveness. Governments will resist anything that looks like a binding spending order, so negotiators will likely trade a firm target for flexible national pathways.
The coming months will show whether the ERA Act arrives as a real legal commitment or as another soft coordination exercise. Researchers, universities and finance ministries should watch the proposal for three signals: the legal form it takes, the wording of the 3% target and the protections it offers for scientific freedom.
