This contribution outlines how two different doctrines have guided and continue to guide the European Union’s budgetary politics. In the 1980s, scholars described traditional European public finance doctrine as driven by a ´policy-first` doctrine, as the original participants in the European Communities believed that identifying comparable or common needs should take precedence. Other literature stresses the strong transfer doctrine of the budget and points out that participants focus primarily on financial flows between regions, states, and sectors. This doctrine reverses the ´policyfirst` doctrine, since the policies and the expenditure profile of the budget are primarily determined by distributional considerations. The intent of policies is secondary to distributional considerations. Tensions within EU budgetary politics are caused by divergences between the two models, with the EU institutions continuously renegotiating the multiannual financial framework (MFF) amid this ongoing dispute. Importantly, we have seen a renewed, stronger focus on the policy-first doctrine in recent years. We argue that exploring the tension between the two doctrines is central to understanding the institutional, economic, and political choices made about this budget. Our claim is supported by an analysis of the European Commission’s initiative to shape the next MFF for the 2028-2034 spending period. In mid-July 2025, the Commission published key documents to prepare its negotiating position for the next MFF negotiations, proposing several policy innovations. But what doctrine inspired the proposal? We argue that the Commission is relying on the ‘policyfirst’ doctrine: the Commission is trying to frame the next MFF as a budget to implement clear policies, including the provision of public goods and support for EU strategic actions, and is using the associated terminology. However, the consolidated nature of the transfer doctrine prevents radical budgetary changes. When actors follow a combination of the two doctrines, tensions are created, with the result that policy intentions are caught in the conflict of promoting juste retour, limiting a useful policy debate on policy content. Overall, our paper contributes with analytical criteria with which we can not only understand the EU’s struggle over its budgetary choices, but also to interpret the Commission’s proposal and the upcoming negotiations. This contribution was written after the publication of the Commission’s proposal and before the Council’s response, and the upcoming negotiations will define the struggle and the balance between the two doctrines.