Europe's far-right parties grow increasingly divided on something that once united them — sympathies for Vladimir Putin's Russia.
As nationalists and right-wing populists across Western Europe move closer to power, many are seeking to distance themselves from their past admiration for a country waging Europe'
With support for far right politics well established across Europe, how might upcoming elections shape its future? Europe correspondents Jon Henley and Ashifa Kassam answered Reddit users’ questions about their reporting from the continent
Support for far-right parties has been growing across Europe, with radical right, populist parties in coalition governments in Croatia, Czechia, Italy and Finland, and leading in the polls in Austria, Belgium, France and Germany.
The Guardian reported this year that nearly a quarter of voters in Europe voted for far-right parties in their most recent national elections, a fivefold increase since 1995.
Continue reading...
© Composite: Guardian Design
© Composite: Guardian Design
© Composite: Guardian Design
Marine Le Pen has threatened to challenge future European Union funding for Ukraine, warning that France cannot continue underwriting large financial commitments while confronting its own deteriorating public finances. The National Rally leader has also proposed withholding half of France’s contribution to the EU budget, a confrontation that could place Paris at the centre of a major dispute over European spending.
In an interview published on 14 October, Le Pen questioned the EU’s €90 billion support loan for Ukraine, describing France’s estimated €18 billion share as an excessive burden. She also expressed opposition to the proposed €100 billion financing instrument for Ukraine under the Union’s next seven-year budget, covering 2028 to 2034.
Her intervention comes as EU leaders meet in Brussels to negotiate competing financial priorities, including defence, industrial competitiveness, agricultural subsidies and continued assistance to Kyiv. France’s presidential election in 2027 gives the dispute particular significance: a change of government in Paris could alter the position of one of the Union’s principal financial contributors.
The distinction between the existing Ukraine loan and the proposed future instrument is important to the financial consequences of Le Pen’s position.
The €90 billion package, approved earlier this year, supports Ukraine during 2026 and 2027. According to the European Parliament’s latest assessment, €60 billion is allocated to defence and €30 billion to budgetary assistance. Almost €15 billion had been disbursed by 18 September.
The loan is financed through EU borrowing backed by the Union’s budget. Le Pen’s description of an €18 billion French share should therefore not be confused with an immediate payment of that amount by the French Treasury. The financing arrangements involve collective European commitments and potential future liabilities.
EU Today has previously examined Brussels’ efforts to accelerate the release of Ukraine’s financial assistance as Kyiv faces growing military expenditure and pressure on public services.
The second programme concerns financing beyond 2027. Under the European Commission’s budget proposal, up to €100 billion would be available for Ukraine between 2028 and 2034, with the eventual allocation depending on its requirements. The mechanism would support reconstruction, economic stability and preparations for eventual EU membership.
Le Pen’s opposition therefore extends beyond the immediate cost of the war. It challenges the assumption that the EU will remain a major source of Ukrainian financing throughout the next budgetary cycle.
The National Rally’s position is closely connected to its domestic economic programme.
As EU Today reported on 6 October, Le Pen has proposed €140 billion in public spending reductions by 2032, alongside measures intended to reduce France’s deficit and stabilise its national debt.
Her programme includes limiting France’s net contribution to the EU budget to €5 billion. The latest threat to withhold part of the country’s payments moves that argument from budgetary reform towards a potential institutional confrontation.
EU contributions are legal obligations established under the Union’s financial framework and own-resources arrangements. A French president could oppose a new seven-year budget, which requires unanimous approval by member states, but could not simply cancel existing payment obligations without encountering legal consequences.
Timing will also be decisive. EU governments are attempting to secure a political agreement on the next budget before the end of 2026, ahead of France’s presidential election. An agreement concluded before a change of government in Paris would constrain the options available to Le Pen.
Le Pen’s latest statements also reveal the limits of the National Rally’s changing position towards Moscow.
In September, Le Pen and party president Jordan Bardella condemned Russian interference and hostile actions against French interests, presenting resistance to such pressure as a matter of French sovereignty.
However, their willingness to condemn Moscow’s conduct does not translate into support for maintaining the present scale of financial assistance to Ukraine.
The consequences for Kyiv would be substantial. European assistance finances civilian government operations and defence procurement while Ukraine devotes much of its domestic revenue to resisting Russia’s invasion.
European Economic Commissioner Valdis Dombrovskis has warned that Ukraine’s financial requirements for 2027 remain considerable, with Brussels seeking additional contributions from international partners.
France’s next president will therefore inherit a dispute involving more than the national contribution to Brussels. The decisions taken in Paris could determine whether the EU retains sufficient financial capacity to support Ukraine while financing its own defence, industrial and economic commitments.
For Le Pen, reducing European expenditure offers a potential response to French public debt and voters’ concerns about national spending. For the EU, the same policy could remove a major source of support from Ukraine’s longer-term financing arrangements at a time when European governments are already struggling to agree on their collective obligations.
If far right nationalists gain power in four big countries simultaneously, we are in for a dramatic Trumpian tilt
When it comes to Europe’s economy or its peace and security, it is obvious that decision-making has to be done largely at the European level to be meaningful. Yet electoral politics is still conducted mostly at the national level. The silver lining of this mismatch is that from country to country in Europe we have governments with different political priorities and leanings. Unlike in the US, where one presidential election can radically change the entire country’s course, as we have seen so vividly under Donald Trump’s leadership, the same drama has not so far unfolded in Europe. This may be about to change.
Pedro Sánchez rolled the dice in Spain last week, calling a snap election for next month after an unholy alliance of the conservative People’s party (PP), the far-right Vox and Catalan pro-independence party Junts blocked his big housing reform package in parliament. If the socialist prime minister, hailed by progressives globally but demonised by Europe’s right and Trump’s US, loses his election gamble, Spain could fall into the hands of a conservative/far-right coalition, which is currently ahead in the polls.
Nathalie Tocci is a Guardian Europe columnist
Continue reading...
© Photograph: Benoît Tessier/Reuters
© Photograph: Benoît Tessier/Reuters
© Photograph: Benoît Tessier/Reuters
By Eldar MAMEDOV
Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su
The right-populist leader deserves scrutiny but offers clarity on Russia–Ukraine and Iran.
The frontrunner in France’s 2027 presidential race—Marine Le Pen from the right-wing National Rally party—has laid out foreign-policy views that American supporters of realism and restraint can approve of, regardless of how they feel about the rest of her program.
While the National Rally has been successfully marginalized and kept out of power in recent decades, one shouldn’t take it for granted that the French political establishment will find a way to thwart Le Pen—meaning her views could certainly become policy. The latest polls show the consolidation of her lead: According to Toluna-Harris Interactive, in a runoff she would take 57 percent against the centrist candidate (and a former prime minister under President Emmanuel Macron) Édouard Philippe and a staggering 69 percent against Jean-Luc Mélenchon, a far-left firebrand.
Of course, the spring of 2027, when the elections are to take place, is still a long way off. Political fortunes can change—as the left-wing outlet Mediapart’s recent investigation into old social media posts written by a teenage Jordan Bardella, now the National Rally president, is meant to demonstrate—but the National Rally’s supporters see such attacks as evidence of the establishment’s ill-fated and cynical effort to derail Le Pen.
Whatever you may think of her, at least her foreign policy views are coherent. On Iran, Le Pen—once labeled a “Trump ally”—offered a far clearer assessment than Macron with his equivocations. “We would still need to know what Trump wanted to do there,” Le Pen said. “Because for now, we still do not know what he wanted to do. He clearly has not achieved his war aims and he is setting the whole planet on fire.” While Macron tends to caveat his criticisms of Trump’s war with accusations that Iran has sought to destabilize the Middle East, Le Pen simply condemns the war on grounds that it’s bad for the French people.
She’s also warned of global inflation “that will have consequences for all peoples” and argued it is “better to convince the U.S. not to go and wage war against a country and an ancient civilization, a complicated country, and probably much more powerful than Donald Trump imagined.”
The events have confirmed Le Pen’s judgement. A civilization of 90 million people with millennia of history cannot be simply bombed away, as Trump (and the Republican Party) are learning to their distress heading into a difficult midterm election season. Le Pen is well aware that the people in France, like elsewhere, are paying the price for this adventure.
On Ukraine, Le Pen has been equally direct while diverging from Macron more dramatically. She warned the conflict has only two possible trajectories: “Either NATO is drawn into this war, and it will be the Third World War, or we will witness a hundred years’ war.” She has called for a major peace conference, made clear she is willing to talk to both President Vladimir Putin of Russia and President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine, and insisted that Germany, Poland, and Turkey be brought into the negotiating process.
She has gone even further, promising to halt French military aid to Ukraine, on the grounds that France cannot afford to sustain the amount of assistance Macron has been authorizing. Here she will have to explain herself in greater detail. A blanket cutoff is not a serious policy if the goal is to bring the war to an end as soon as possible—any settlement would require Kiev’s consent, as well as Moscow’s.
But neither can “support Ukraine for as long as it takes” work without a clearly defined end-game, and France’s fiscal situation dictates it cannot remain the default policy. Negotiations with all parties, including Russia, should not be treated as an appeasement or betrayal. Any serious attempt to settle the war would require Ukraine to make painful compromises on its NATO aspirations and territorial integrity, while Russia would have to compromise too on credible security guarantees for Ukraine or at least a greenlight for Kiev to rebuild and maintain a credible conventional military deterrent. Le Pen has identified the problem and signaled openness to unavoidable parts of the solution, but she still needs to explain the strategy.
Compare that with what the mainstream is offering. Macron is playing up the “Russian threat” and apparent hybrid attacks by Moscow against Europe. Meanwhile, according to the well-informed Le Figaro journalist Georges Malbrunot, French intelligence officers, while acknowledging the threat, believe that Macron overstates it. Macron’s aim, Malbrunot writes, would be to “steer the choices of the French ahead of the presidential election, targeting Le Pen and Melenchon—the two extremes that are lenient toward Russia.”
In a similar vein, Le Pen’s center-right rival, Edouard Philippe, lashed out at her, saying that “weakening Ukraine, as Marine Le Pen wishes, is threatening the security of Europe and France. I will do everything to prevent it.”
Then there is Gabriel Attal, Macron’s protégé and a possible successor. He delivered a grand speech in Reims calling for a “United States of Europe.” Europe’s security, he said, is being attacked by Russia, its economy by China, and its values by the United States. The remedy is a federalist utopia that he promises to build in “a matter of years.”
There might be a compelling case for EU nations to deepen their economic and technological integration. But the grandiloquent federalism talk sounds tone-deaf when what the French voters care most about is purchasing power, immigration, and French security.
This is the state of France’s foreign policy debate. The mainstream candidates are frightening voters with threat narratives, selling unachievable federalist fantasies, and equivocating on the U.S. war with Iran. The one major candidate discussing how to end wars rather than prolong them, and how to engage non-Western great powers rather than simply pick “a good” side over “an evil” one, is described by the establishment as extremist.
This does not mean Le Pen deserves uncritical support. Her historic ties to Russia warrant scrutiny, and her promise to halt aid to Ukraine needs to be coupled with a more detailed policy proposal and a broader strategy to end the war.
She is right on Iran, but her party has also forged close ties with Israel, seemingly based on a common antipathy to Islamism and to fend off accusations of antisemitism. On the Middle East, it remains to be seen whether national interest or ideological anti-Islamism will primarily inform her policies should she be elected president. Also, given her party’s lingering toxicity among the French elites, it’s far from clear that a President Le Pen would be able to attract diplomatic talent from the center-right to translate her instincts into workable policies.
But these are debates worth having. It is no longer credible to simply dismiss Le Pen and offer fearmongering and fantasy as a substitute for a debate. Perhaps the French establishment should ask itself an uncomfortable question: Why is it that voices advocating for diplomacy and sanity come from the camps they call “extreme” (both on the right and on the left)? Instead, the mainstream should make the language of diplomacy and peace its own. If it doesn’t, it should not be surprised when voters turn to those who do.
Original article: www.theamericanconservative.com
© Yves Herman (REUTERS)
© GUILLAUME HORCAJUELO (EFE)
© Kai Pfaffenbach (REUTERS)
© GUILLAUME HORCAJUELO (EFE)
© Kai Pfaffenbach (REUTERS)
© Yves Herman (REUTERS)
© GUILLAUME HORCAJUELO (EFE)
© Yves Herman (REUTERS)
© Jeremias Gonzalez (AP Photo/Jeremias Gonzalez)
© Jeremias Gonzalez (AP Photo/Jeremias Gonzalez)
© Teresa Suarez (AP Photo/Teresa Suarez)
© Abdul Saboor (REUTERS)
© MOHAMMED BADRA (EFE)
© Yves Herman (REUTERS)
© MOHAMMED BADRA (EFE)
© Kai Pfaffenbach (REUTERS)
Marine Le Pen has presented a five-year fiscal programme under which a National Rally administration would seek €140 billion in net savings by 2032, restore France’s primary budget balance within 18 months and bring the headline deficit back below the European Union’s three per cent threshold by 2030.
The proposals, presented on Tuesday as Le Pen outlined the financial trajectory she would pursue during a presidential term, come as France faces rising borrowing costs and a public debt ratio approaching 120 per cent of GDP.
The scale of the problem was underlined on the same day by France’s Directorate-General of the Treasury. Its latest report on public debt projects the debt ratio at 119.3 per cent of GDP this year before rising to 121.7 per cent in 2027. Debt stood at 115.7 per cent at the end of 2025.
EU Today has already reported that French borrowing costs and concerns over the sustainability of the country’s finances have begun to weigh on the euro and widen the gap between French and German government bond yields.
Le Pen’s programme is therefore aimed not only at French voters but at financial markets increasingly focused on whether Paris can prevent debt from continuing to rise.
According to the proposals outlined on Tuesday, spending reductions would be concentrated heavily in the first three years of a Le Pen presidency. She would also seek to introduce what she calls a constitutional “golden rule”, requiring successive governments to reduce the budget deficit each year.
The measure would be put to a referendum and is intended to make deficit reduction binding beyond an individual government’s annual budget decisions.
Le Pen has also proposed reducing France’s public debt to around 112 per cent of GDP by 2032. That would reverse the trajectory currently expected by the French government, although the National Rally’s assumptions would depend on its ability to deliver the proposed savings and on economic growth during the next presidential term.
Among the most politically significant proposals is a plan to restrict France’s net contribution to the EU budget to €5 billion. The party argues that some European spending should instead be financed through harmonised taxes on products such as tobacco and alcohol.
Le Pen also expects substantial savings from tighter immigration controls and the introduction of the National Rally’s proposed “national preference” rules for access to parts of the welfare system. Her programme estimates that measures connected with immigration could eventually produce savings of as much as €29 billion annually.
Other elements include changes to pension policy, reductions in corporate and energy taxation, measures against VAT fraud, the abolition of more than 120 taxes and a reduction in the number of state agencies.
The programme marks an attempt by Le Pen to make fiscal policy a central part of a campaign that has until now been dominated largely by immigration, security and questions surrounding France’s political fragmentation.
The timing is significant. Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu’s government has itself introduced a difficult fiscal consolidation programme. The 2027 budget presented by the Finance Ministry envisages €54 billion in measures to improve the public finances, including €43 billion contained directly in the state and social-security budgets.
The government expects the deficit to fall from 5.4 per cent of GDP in 2026 to five per cent next year. It forecasts growth of only 0.5 per cent this year before a recovery to one per cent in 2027.
The debt burden is becoming increasingly costly. Interest payments are expected to reach €91.2 billion in 2027, up from €79.2 billion this year, according to the Finance Ministry. By 2030, total public-sector interest costs are projected to reach 3.7 per cent of GDP.
That gives the presidential campaign an economic dimension that is difficult to separate from France’s relationship with Brussels. Paris remains subject to EU fiscal rules requiring a gradual reduction in its deficit, while any attempt to reduce the French contribution to the EU budget would require negotiations with the other member states.
Le Pen enters that debate from a strong electoral position. Recent polling examined by EU Today has placed her ahead in first-round scenarios for 2027, although the final field remains unsettled. EU Today reported in September that Le Pen was polling between 33 and 36 per cent depending on her opponents.
Her latest intervention shifts part of the campaign onto terrain traditionally associated with the centre-right: public spending, debt and the credibility of France’s finances.
With the government attempting to secure parliamentary support for its own austerity measures and French borrowing costs under closer scrutiny, the question of how the country pays for the state is now moving towards the centre of the contest to succeed Emmanuel Macron.
Right-wing National Rally leader Marine Le Pen on Thursday called footage of a young French police officer being chased, knocked down and kicked during high school protests “unbearable,” and said the attackers deserved exemplary punishment. The video comes at a time when 305 police officers have been injured as of Oct. 2 and 400 schools remain closed.
In a post on X, Le Pen wrote: “The image of this young policewoman, pursued by a pack howling its hatred, thrown to the ground and assaulted, is unbearable. These acts deserve exemplary sentences. Let her know that tonight, millions of French people offer her warm support.”
L’image de cette jeune policière, poursuivie par une meute qui hurle sa haine, projetée à terre et molestée, est insoutenable.
— Marine Le Pen (@MLP_officiel) October 1, 2026
Ces faits méritent des peines exemplaires. Qu’elle sache que ce soir, des millions de Français lui apportent un soutien chaleureux.
The clip, which spread rapidly online, shows a lieutenant trainee with the Paris police prefecture being pursued on foot by several people near Avenue Gambetta in the 20th arrondissement. Voices on the recording shout insults, calling her a “bitch,” and scream: “Kill her!”
One person trips her; others then kick her while she is on the ground, according to accounts from the Paris police prefecture and French media. A follow-up video shows the woman being beaten and kicked on the head while on the ground.
10 ans de prison…. Voilà ce qui leur laisserait le temps de réfléchir à leurs actes. https://t.co/gTKwfkVe7S
— Le Jarl (@le_jarl) October 1, 2026
Authorities said the officer had stopped to retrieve a dropped radio during a tense confrontation involving roughly 100 demonstrators and was then overtaken. She later filed a criminal complaint. The Paris prosecutor’s office opened an investigation Friday into group violence against a person holding public authority.
Interior Minister Laurent Nuñez wrote on X that attacking a representative of law and order in this way was intolerable. He said he supported the officer and the 305 other police officers and gendarmes injured in interventions that day, and that those responsible would be found and prosecuted.
Une jeune lieutenant stagiaire de la préfecture de Police a été poursuivie, projetée au sol et agressée par plusieurs individus dans le 20e arrondissement de Paris cet après-midi.
— Laurent Nuñez (@NunezLaurent) October 1, 2026
S’en prendre ainsi à une représentante de l’ordre est intolérable.
J’apporte tout mon soutien à…
The assault occurred amid a wave of high school blockades and demonstrations that have turned violent in several cities, leading to close to 2,000 arrests. Le Pen, president of the National Rally group in the National Assembly and the frontrunner to win the 2027 presidential election, had earlier posted that the unrest was no longer ordinary student protest but organized rioting involving professionals and lawmakers from the left-wing France Unbowed party.
She called for a new anti-rioter law that would make participation in a riot a clearly defined offense.
— Remix News & Views (@RMXnews) October 1, 2026
The entire entrance is currently in flames.
School staff can only stand and watch it burn.
Follow: @RMXnews https://t.co/WN8wYfNGZl pic.twitter.com/CZ8h1aDO3U
Regional council president Valérie Pécresse likewise described the scenes as urban rioting rather than student demands and said images of the officer being attacked were frightening.
Yesterday, schools were set on fire, fire trucks and firefighters attacked, and teachers beaten. A school leadership team was even doused in gasoline in Marseille. This morning, more arsons have been reported as well as mass looting. There appear to be no signs the protests are slowing down as the weekend approaches.
— Remix News & Views (@RMXnews) October 2, 2026
After the fire is put out, Black youths begin shooting firework mortars at the school.
Follow: @RMXnews pic.twitter.com/B1klTDYtZW
The post ‘Unbearable’ – Le Pen condemns viral video of French policewoman hunted and beaten by multicultural youths during violent student blockades appeared first on Remix News.
LA NEWSLETTER · GRATUITE
L'essentiel de l'actualité, passé au crible par les cinq plumes du Courrier. Dans votre boîte, chaque jour ouvré.
Gratuit. Vous restez libre de partir quand vous voulez.
JE M'INSCRIS lecourrierdesstrateges.frQuatre ans de guerre en Ukraine n'y avaient pas suffi. Il aura fallu un décret sur des hypermarchés.
Le 17 septembre, un décret signé de Vladimir Poutine transfère les actifs russes de trois groupes européens — le distributeur Auchan, l'enseigne de bricolage Leroy Merlin, le suisse Nestlé — à une société d'« administration temporaire » nommée L.E.V. Management. Le Kremlin invoque l'appartenance de ces entreprises à des pays « inamicaux ». En clair : l'État russe prend la main sur des biens français sans les acheter. Roland Lescure dénonce la mesure le lendemain.
Le 19, Marine Le Pen et Jordan Bardella publient un communiqué commun. Le Kremlin, écrivent-ils, ne peut « espérer dicter directement ou indirectement la politique de la France par l'intimidation, la menace, la déstabilisation ou la pression psychologique ». Le même jour, dans l'Oise, Bardella qualifie la démarche russe d'hostile et parle, à propos de l'Ukraine, d'un bain de sang.
Le 21, Dmitri Peskov, porte-parole de la présidence russe, se déclare en désaccord catégorique : la Russie ne menace ni la France ni aucun pays européen.
On a appelé cela une brouille. Le mot est mal choisi, et il faut reprendre l'affaire de plus haut pour voir pourquoi.
ABONNEMENT
Deux grands formats par jour. Les cinq plumes du Courrier. La série Sécession, le dimanche.
Le monde commente. Vous, vous comprenez.
S'ABONNER lecourrierdesstrateges.frTrois choses distinctes sont continuellement confondues dans ce dossier. Les démêler est la condition pour en juger.
Il y a d'abord une dette. En septembre 2014, le Front national obtient un prêt de neuf millions d'euros auprès de la First Czech Russian Bank, établissement fondé à Prague puis installé à Moscou, réputé proche du pouvoir russe. L'affaire est révélée par Mediapart deux mois plus tard. La banque fait faillite en 2016 ; la créance est cédée à une société russe de location de véhicules, puis à Aviazaptchast, une entreprise russe d'aéronautique. Le parti a donc eu, des années durant, un créancier russe. Entendue par la commission d'enquête parlementaire sur les ingérences étrangères, Marine Le Pen a toujours tenu la même ligne : si cela l'avait engagée à quelque chose, elle n'aurait pas signé.
Il y a ensuite une image. En mars 2017, à quelques semaines du premier tour de l'élection présidentielle, la candidate se rend au Kremlin et y serre la main de Vladimir Poutine. La photographie existe. Elle est ressortie à chaque échéance depuis, et elle ressortira.
Il y a enfin une doctrine, et c'est la seule des trois qui relève du débat politique légitime. Le RN conteste le soutien financier français à l'Ukraine au nom de la priorité donnée aux intérêts français. Le 3 septembre, sur BFMTV, Louis Aliot, vice-président du parti et maire de Perpignan, proposait de « couper le robinet » de l'aide à Kiev : tout le monde est à l'os, disait-il en substance, et l'on trouve encore de l'argent pour financer des armes. La formule a valu au parti une volée de bois vert — Gabriel Attal parlant de soumission à des puissances dictatoriales.
Ces trois choses ne pèsent pas du même poids. Une dette est un fait, une photographie est un symbole, une doctrine est une position que l'on peut soutenir ou combattre. Les additionner produit un procès facile ; les distinguer produit une analyse.
TELEGRAM · L'INFO EN CONTINU
La newsletter vous donne le matin. Le fil vous donne l'instant.
Gratuit, et en continu.
REJOINDRE LE FIL t.me/resterlibreUne brouille suppose une relation, et un différend qui la rompt. Ici, rien de tel.
Le RN n'a rien révisé de son jugement sur la guerre. Il n'a pas annoncé qu'il soutiendrait l'aide à l'Ukraine, ni désavoué son vice-président, ni changé une ligne de son programme. Il a réagi à un acte précis : la saisie de biens français par un décret étranger. Sa doctrine est demeurée exactement la même — la défense des intérêts français d'abord — et c'est précisément cette doctrine qui, appliquée cette fois, l'a conduit à parler dur.
Il y a là une cohérence qu'on refuse de lui reconnaître et qu'il faut pourtant lui
Marine Le Pen candidate en 2017 (DR)
The Paris Court of Appeal issued its ruling on Tuesday, July 7, 2025, in the National Rally’s parliamentary assistants case. Marine Le Pen’s period of ineligibility for public office was reduced to 45 months on appeal, clearing the way for a fourth presidential bid. However, this legal victory comes with a personal dilemma: the National Rally leader will be required to wear an electronic ankle monitor for one year, a condition she has repeatedly said she would not accept while campaigning.
The Paris Court of Appeal upheld Marine Le Pen’s conviction in the case involving parliamentary assistants employed by members of the European Parliament. She was found guilty of misappropriating public funds and of aiding and abetting that offense.
The presiding judge repeatedly emphasized the seriousness of the misconduct, noting that it had continued over an eleven-year period spanning three parliamentary terms, despite repeated warnings from the European Parliament about compliance with its rules.
The figures speak for themselves: €2.8 million in misappropriated funds. The court found evidence of “an operating system designed to divert European funds for purposes other than those for which they were intended.” According to the ruling, this systematic scheme was established under the leadership of Jean-Marie Le Pen and later continued under Marine Le Pen herself.
As part of her sentence, Marine Le Pen received a three-year prison term, including two years suspended and one year to be served under an alternative custodial arrangement. She was also fined €100,000. During the one-year custodial portion of her sentence, she will be required to wear an electronic ankle monitor.
This significant reduction marks a major turning point in the National Rally leader’s legal battle.
Her attorney, Rodolphe Bosselut, described the ruling as “a good start” and a “partial victory,” stressing that the reduction of the ineligibility sentence was “an extremely important point.” He also highlighted the presiding judge’s remarks emphasizing voters’ freedom to choose from the full range of candidates.
During an exclusive interview with BFMTV in February, Marine Le Pen stated unequivocally: “You cannot run a campaign under those conditions.”
She was referring to the mandatory electronic ankle monitor that accompanies a custodial sentence served outside prison. That statement clearly foreshadowed the dilemma she now faces.
The legal situation has become paradoxical. Marine Le Pen is now legally eligible to run for president. However, wearing an electronic ankle monitor for an entire year could severely limit her ability to conduct a normal presidential campaign.
Such a campaign requires constant travel, rallies, media interviews, and visits across the country—activities that could prove difficult to reconcile with electronic monitoring, particularly in the eyes of the public.
Marine Le Pen was not the only person convicted.
Fernand Le Rachinel, the first defendant to appear before the court, received a reduced sentence on appeal: two years of suspended imprisonment instead of three, a €15,000 fine, and one year of ineligibility instead of the three years imposed at trial.
Former National Rally Member of the European Parliament Bruno Gollnisch, who was absent from the hearing, was sentenced to three years in prison and one year of ineligibility, a lighter sanction than the three-year ineligibility period imposed by the lower court.
French lawmaker Julien Odoul was also among the defendants whose case was heard on appeal.
Opposition politicians argued that the core issue remained unchanged regardless of who ultimately represented the National Rally in the presidential election.
Boris Vallaud, leader of the Socialist group in the National Assembly, emphasized that respect for the rule of law and the justice system remained the overriding priority.
Green Party lawmaker Benjamin Lucas-Lundy argued that “whether it’s Marine Le Pen or Jordan Bardella, it changes nothing” regarding the National Rally’s political platform. He reiterated that the party “stole from European taxpayers” and “stole from the French people,” allegations that, he noted, had now been upheld twice by the courts.
Socialist lawmaker Philippe Brun described Marine Le Pen and Jordan Bardella as “interchangeable candidates,” suggesting that choosing between them would make little political difference for voters.
Marine Le Pen left the courthouse without speaking to reporters and headed directly to National Rally headquarters, where senior party officials had convened a crisis meeting.
Her silence contrasted with her attorneys’ public statements and suggested that the party leadership intended to carefully evaluate the full implications of the historic ruling.
Marine Le Pen must now choose between pursuing a fourth presidential campaign and remaining consistent with her long-held position that a presidential campaign cannot realistically be conducted while wearing an electronic ankle monitor.
Jordan Bardella, the party’s vice president, remains the fallback candidate should she decide not to run.
Patrick Maisonneuve, attorney for the European Parliament, underscored the significance of the appellate ruling, stating that the court had confirmed that “European taxpayers’ and French citizens’ money” had been diverted through “an organization that operated for years” under the leadership of the National Front.
Regardless of Marine Le Pen’s decision, the National Rally has a credible alternative in Jordan Bardella.
Nevertheless, the possibility that Marine Le Pen could legally run reshapes the party’s internal dynamics and the balance of power within its leadership.
National Rally lawmaker Thomas Ménagé, who represents the Loiret department, said that “nothing changes” for the party’s members of Parliament, who would continue their legislative work regardless of who ultimately becomes the party’s presidential nominee.
The Court of Appeal’s ruling places Marine Le Pen in a genuine Catch-22.
Legally, she achieved a significant victory through the substantial reduction of her ineligibility sentence.
Politically and practically, however, the electronic ankle monitor remains a serious obstacle to conducting a conventional presidential campaign.
Her silence upon leaving the courthouse suggests she is taking time to consult with close advisers, party officials, and campaign strategists before deciding on the best course of action for both the National Rally and her own political future.
By allowing Marine Le Pen to remain eligible to run for president while simultaneously requiring her to wear an electronic ankle monitor, the court has placed both the National Rally and its leader in an exceptionally difficult strategic position.
L’article Marine Le Pen eligible to run for president est apparu en premier sur FrenchDailyNews.
Login