Tag: Emmanuel Macron

  • A poultry affair at the White House

    A poultry affair at the White House

    The call sheet for this afternoon’s event at the White House was as imposing as ever:

    WHO:

    The President

    Mrs. Melania Trump, First Lady of the United States

    Gobble, Turkey

    Waddle, Turkey

    Putin at 10, turkeys at 12, home to Mar-a-Lago for Thanksgiving by nightfall. A typical day in the Trump presidency.

    This year’s birds, Gobble and Waddle, hail from Wayne County, North Carolina, and will return to live out their days at North Carolina State University. Luckily they aren’t from Venezuela, else Pete Hegseth would have turned them into a cloud of red vapor and feathers already. Cockburn helped himself to a cup of hot apple cider from the White House staff and settled in at the back of the press area.

    Through a spattering of light rain, President Trump began his remarks in the Rose Garden by pointing out the excellent paving job that had been carried out under his direction. “You’d be sinking into the mud,” he said. Interrupted by the occasional gobble, the President said he was delighted to mark “a pardon day for a very important beast” and praised the “two handsome Thanksgiving turkeys.”

    That’s as apolitical as Trump managed. As he spoke from the podium, alongside the Presidential Wall of Fame with its Biden autopen portrait, he went on to declare, “last year’s turkey pardons are totally invalid” – before repardoning them himself. He noted how well he’d performed in the birds’ county of origin – “I won Wayne County by a lot” – and mentioned other turkey names that he had considered. “I was gonna call them Chuck and Nancy,” Trump suggested, “but then I wouldn’t pardon them.” The President mentioned that RFK Jr. – not in attendance – had declared the birds “the first ever MAHA turkeys,” then treated the audience to a diatribe on urban crime in DC and Chicago. “The governor is a big fat slob,” the President said of J.B. Pritzker. Shortly after, he said, “I don’t talk about people being fat, I refuse to talk about the fact that he’s a big fat slob.” Food for thought ahead of your Thanksgiving discussions on Thursday.

    Spotted in attendance: Vice President J.D. Vance and Usha, with their daughter Mirabel; Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent; FBI Director Kash Patel; Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth; Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick; HUD Secretary Scott Turner; EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin; deputy assistant to the President Dr. Sebastian Gorka, and Jason Miller.


    On our radar

    MTG BRB President Trump laid down the gauntlet to Marjorie Taylor Greene following her resignation announcement. “It’s not going to be easy for her” to revive her career in politics, he said, adding, “I’d love to see that.”

    KELLY CONSPIRACY? The Pentagon has launched an investigation into Senator Mark Kelly following last week’s video in which he urges active-duty military to ignore “illegal” orders. President Trump accused Kelly of “sedition,” which he states is “punishable by DEATH!”

    GET STUFFED Several major airports are experiencing serious delays heading into the Thanksgiving holiday due to inclement weather.


    Candace in the crosshairs?

    After the death of her friend Charlie Kirk, Candace Owens spent the fall warning the public of alleged conspiracies behind his assassination… involving, you guessed it, Israel. Now she is concerned for her own safety. On Sunday night, she shared with her 7 million X followers that she had received “credible” evidence of a plot to kill her. “I even have names,” she wrote. The most important name: Emmanuel Macron. The French first couple has been a subject of Owens’s concern for a while now. The podcaster is being sued for making a documentary branding Brigitte Macron secretly transgender. If President Macron employs French assassins to kill her, in a 21st-century retelling of Luc Besson’s Leon, it would be a mistake. Per “comic” Dave Smith’s post on X, “taking out Candace Owens will turn all of us into Candace Owens.” Perish the thought.

    Subscribe to Cockburn’s Diary on Substack to get it in your inbox on Tuesdays and Fridays.

  • Macron has declared war on free speech

    Macron has declared war on free speech

    Emmanuel Macron says Europeans should stop relying on social media for their news and turn back to traditional public media. Speaking in Paris on Wednesday, he said people were “completely wrong” to use social networks for information and should instead depend on journalists and established outlets. Social platforms, he argued, are driven by a ‘process of maximum excitement” designed to “maximize advertising revenue,” a system he said is “destroying the foundations of democratic debate.”

    He accused X of being “dominated by far-right content” and added that the platform was no longer neutral because its owner had “decided to take part in the democratic struggle and in the international reactionary movement.” TikTok, he warned, was no less dangerous. Macron called for “a much stronger agenda of protection and regulation in Europe” to rein in what he views as the excesses of social networks.

    Macron is urging Europe to “take back control of our democratic and informational life.” This is not the first time that he has spoken in such terms. France and its allies, he warned, have been “naïve” in allowing their public debate to be shaped by foreign-owned platforms and algorithms that no longer respect neutrality. To counter what he calls “a crisis of information,” he wants a new “European agenda of protection and regulation.” It is, in effect, a plan to bring the digital sphere under far stricter political control.

    Macron’s comments are an attack on how an entire generation gets its news. Over 40 percent of people under 30 and nearly half of 18- to 30-year-olds now rely on social media for news. He appears to believe they should return to the days of reading and watching state-controlled media. The suggestion is astonishing. It’s frightening to even have to write this but democracy depends on access to competing points of view, not on state-managed television and subsidized newspapers. Macron cannot seriously believe that it would be good for democracy if Europeans were driven back to getting their news from government-aligned networks.

    Macron also blamed foreign interference, accusing Russia of being “the biggest buyer of fake accounts’ aiming to destabilize European democracies. “We’re facing interference on steroids,” he said. Macron has previously cited alleged manipulation of online content during recent elections in Eastern Europe, which he called “terrifying.” Yet observers found little evidence of large-scale manipulation in those cases. What really unsettled Paris and Brussels was often the result of those elections and the rejection of EU-backed candidates. His warnings about fake accounts look less like a defense of democracy than an argument for tightening state control over speech.

    The logical consequence of what Macron is proposing is that to abolish “fake accounts” you must abolish anonymity itself. If Macron is serious about ending fake accounts, and he keeps repeating that he is, the only way to do that is through digital identity. His plan leads inevitably to a system where anyone who wants to post or comment online must first prove who they are.

    The architecture for full control of social networks in the Europe already exists. The EU’s eIDAS regulation requires every member state to issue digital identities. There is France Identité, Germany has eID, Italy its SPID. Originally designed for banking, healthcare and tax, these IDs could easily be integrated into online services. Macron’s vision would plug them directly into the Digital Services Act. The result would be an internet where every post is traceable to a verified name. It’s a short step from fighting “fake accounts” to outlawing anonymous speech altogether.

    For years, Macron has argued that the internet must be brought to heel. When he cannot legislate at home, he does it through Brussels. The EU’s Digital Services Act already gives regulators the power to police what they call “systemic risks” online, a term broad enough to cover disinformation, hate speech, or anything judged destabilizing to democracy. Under the Act, platforms can be fined up to 6 per cent of global turnover, a threat that forces them to police themselves long before Brussels intervenes. The result is over-compliance and the quiet erosion of free speech. Add the eIDAS digital-identity framework, and Macron suddenly has the tools to pursue his long-standing ambition of ending online anonymity.

    In France itself, Macron is running out of power. His government has no stable majority, his authority in parliament has evaporated, and his personal ratings have collapsed. A poll in Le Figaro magazine this week puts his confidence level at just 11 per cent, among the lowest scores ever for a president of the Fifth Republic. On the streets he’s booed. Online he’s mocked daily. But in Brussels, the machinery of regulation still answers to him. The Digital Services Act and eIDAS framework move forward regardless of French politics, enforced by bureaucrats rather than parliament. Macron may be paralyzed in Paris, but in Europe he can still act like a statesman. The danger is that he could still in the time that he has left in office shape the rules that define what Europeans can and cannot say.

    Macron insists he’s defending democracy from manipulation and hate. But that’s the excuse. His vision is of a Europe where free speech is tolerated only when it is traceable, and where platforms pre-emptively silence anything that might draw a regulator’s glare. He calls it a “resurgence of democracy.” It’s nothing of the kind. It’s the bureaucratization of thought, and the beginning of a continent where debate survives only on license. If Macron has his way, Europe’s public square will not just be regulated, it will be licensed.

  • Brigitte Macron has run out of sympathy

    Ten people have been on trial this week in Paris, accused of transphobic cyberbullying against Brigitte Macron. France’s first lady, the wife of Emmanuel Macron, pressed charges after a claim that she was in fact a man went global. Some of those in the dock have apologized for spreading the allegations online but others have said that it’s just a bit of harmless fun and that in a free country one should be able to say what one likes.

    This argument was dismissed by Brigitte Macron’s lawyer, Jean Ennochi, who said: “They all talk to you about freedom of expression, defamation, they completely deny cyberbullying [and] mob harassment.” Prosecutors have demanded suspended prison sentences ranging from three to twelve months for the accused. The judges will give their verdict in January.

    Perhaps Madame Macron should have followed the late Queen of England’s maxim of “never complain, never explain.” Had she done so, the claims that she was a man would probably have not been covered across the world, from the BBC to the New York Times.

    But Macron felt compelled to take action after what began as a one-woman smear campaign turned into a global conspiracy theory. The American influencer, Candace Owens, began pushing the theory in 2024 and eventually released an eight-part podcast. She is being sued by the Macrons.

    The originator of the claim that Brigitte is a man who transitioned is a Frenchwoman in her fifties called Natacha Rey. She took a dislike to Brigitte from the moment her husband was elected president in 2017 and began a three-year “investigation” into her background. No one took any notice of Rey’s social media rants at first. That may have been because of the goodwill most people in France felt towards Brigitte Macron. She seemed like a grounded woman who was more in touch with the average citizen than her husband. They were prepared to overlook the “weird” circumstances of how they met; she was a 39-year-old teacher, a married woman with three children, and he was a 15-year-old pupil in her theatre class.

    In an Anglophone country more searching questions might have been asked by journalists but in France the fawning mainstream media depicted the union as an inspiring love story. As one paper wrote: “Two thwarted lovers ready to overcome all obstacles: the story begins like a Molière comedy.”

    In the early days of Macron’s presidency, Brigitte earned the respect of the French by fronting a campaign against bullying in schools and supporting victims of violence. But then stories began emerging that eroded much of the goodwill: the €600,000 ($694,000) that the Élysée Palace spent on flowers in 2020, the year when Macron locked the French in their homes because of Covid.

    In the summer of 2023 it was disclosed that Brigitte had forked out €315,808 ($365,000) on clothes in the past 12 months. “Brigitte Macron has a particular fondness for luxury items,” explained a fashion magazine, listing her favorite designers as Louis Vuitton, Dior and Chanel.

    The following year Brigitte made a guest appearance in Emily in Paris, the spectacularly vacuous Netflix sitcom that depicts the lives of the rich and frivolous in the French capital. It was not well received. France was in political turmoil, the country was ravaged by violence, the cost of living was soaring and here was Brigitte simpering on screen.

    Barely anyone in France takes seriously the claim that Brigitte Macron is a man. But whereas a few years ago many would have sprung to her defence now they just shrug. They have scant sympathy even if, as one of Brigitte’s daughters told the court this week, her mother suffers from the “horrible” things said about her. The view of the majority is “so what?” They have suffered eight years of her husband’s chaotic presidency.

    Brigitte was asked in an interview last December about the fraught relationship between her husband and his people. She replied that they “don’t deserve him.” It was a provocative remark and, judging from the slap Brigitte gave her husband a few weeks later, he can also drive her to distraction. “We are not an ideal couple,” Brigitte said of her marriage in 2019. The French would agree.

  • Why is mocking Brigitte Macron a crime?

    Why is mocking Brigitte Macron a crime?

    Ten people have gone on trial in Paris accused of harassing France’s First Lady, Brigitte Macron, online. The defendants, eight men and two women aged between 41 and 60, are charged with “moral harassment by electronic means” and making a false claim that she was born a man by the name of Jean-Michel Trogneux. Prosecutors say their posts, many of which mocked her marriage to the President and repeated the rumor about her gender, amounted to targeted abuse. In closing, prosecutors requested suspended sentences. The defendants deny wrongdoing.

    The case stems from a complaint filed by Brigitte Macron in 2024, after a theory claiming she was transgender spread widely across French social media. Some of those now on trial shared or commented on videos repeating the rumor. Others posted memes or insults targeting her appearance and marriage. Under France’s criminal code, “moral harassment by electronic means” can lead to up to two years in prison and fines of €30,000. The court is expected to deliver its verdict later this year.

    The defendants include a small business owner, an elected local official, a computer technician and a teacher. Their alleged crime was to repost memes or post comments mocking the First Lady to modest online audiences, although some gathered considerable views. None have the resources of the presidential couple. Yet they face criminal conviction and possible prison sentences. In another country, such behavior might earn a temporary suspension from social media, or, more likely, the behavior would simply be ignored. In France, it’s a matter for the tribunal correctionnel.

    The rumor about Brigitte Macron first appeared in 2021 in Faits et Documents, a niche newsletter with a tiny circulation edited at the time by Xavier Poussard, a researcher. Its “investigation” claimed, in meticulous detail, that Brigitte Macron was born a man and was in fact the biological father, not the mother, of her three children. The theory goes that Jean-Michel transitioned prior to becoming Macron’s drama teacher when he was 15 and Brigitte was 40. The claim is false as birth records show Brigitte Macron was born female in 1953. Criminalization of the allegations is the real story.

    Whatever one thinks of the law, the scale of the vitriol directed at Brigitte Macron has been ugly. Mocking her age and appearance has long been a national sport. Adding fabricated claims about her identity turned it into something darker. Online pile-ons can become a form of mob harassment. Prosecutors portrayed the posts as part of a sustained campaign of humiliation. Brigitte Macron did not attend, but her daughter Tiphaine Auzière told the court that the conspiracy had “devastated” her mother’s health, describing anxiety, insomnia and withdrawal from public life. The judge noted evidence of a “deterioration” in her well-being.

    The theory circulated on fringe French websites before migrating into mainstream social media. Poussard later expanded his claims into a book, Becoming Brigitte, which Candace Owens then promoted to a global audience. Owens said she would “stake [her] entire professional reputation on the fact that Brigitte Macron… is in fact a man.” When the Macrons filed their defamation suit in Delaware in July 2025, they accused Owens of “disregard[ing] all credible evidence” that Mrs Macron was born female, and of using the claim to monetize outrage. Owens replied that the lawsuit itself was proof that the allegations are true: “If you need any more evidence that Brigitte Macron is definitely a man, it is just what is happening right now.”

    It’s an unpleasant episode, but hardly an exceptional one in the age of social media. Public figures are mocked, insulted and caricatured daily, often far worse than this. Yet in France, ridicule of public figures has a curious way of turning into a matter for the courts. From injure publique to outrage à fonctionnaire, the French state has long confused personal dignity with public order. The Macron presidency, with its high-profile lawsuits, has continued that confusion.

    France has always been conflicted about free speech. It celebrates Charlie Hebdo as a national symbol of defiance, yet prosecutes ordinary citizens for lesser acts of mockery. Even in Britain, with its infamous policing of speech, a case like this about a politician would never reach a courtroom. Britain has its own pitfalls, strict libel laws and “defamation tourism” among them. But the British expect their public figures to endure ridicule, whereas the French state tends to police it. Insulting those in power has long been treated as a kind of lèse-majesté, even in the Republic that prides itself on having guillotined its kings. 

    There’s also a deeper absurdity here. The very premise of the online attacks is that Brigitte Macron was born a man, and is therefore “trans.” The prosecution’s case rests on factual falsehood, not hostility to trans people, yet the optics are hard to ignore. The state insists on tolerance in principle but reacts with outrage when that same vocabulary brushes too close to power. Either France believes gender identity deserves respect, or it believes that being called trans is defamatory. It cannot have it both ways.

    That irony is even sharper given the couple’s record. In 2018, Emmanuel and Brigitte Macron turned the Élysée courtyard into a public dance floor for the Fête de la Musique, inviting queer and transgender performers, including DJ and activist Kiddy Smile, whose troupe vogued on the palace steps in front of the presidential couple. The event, widely promoted by the Élysée itself, was hailed as a symbol of inclusivity. The event has been attacked by the right as a sign of moral decay. Yet seven years later, the same presidency would now appear to treat being called transgender as an insult. The President and First Lady who once posed for photographs with queer dancers are effectively asking the courts to criminalize anyone who implies the First Lady is trans.

    For a couple who insist the facts are on their side, the Macrons’ response has been strangely theatrical. Each new lawsuit amplifies the story they want buried. A calm, factual rebuttal would have ended the matter long ago, as would perhaps simply ignoring the rumor entirely, or even a DNA swab test. Instead, the Macrons have turned the allegations into a global courtroom saga that guarantees the rumor endless life.

    What makes this case remarkable is not the vulgarity of the posts, the internet is full of that, but the reaction from the Élysée. Brigitte Macron has launched a defamation lawsuit against Candace Owens, while prosecutors pursue these ten individuals in France. For a presidential couple that prides itself on intellect and poise, it’s a surprisingly brittle response.

    Does it not occur to the President that the more he and his wife fight the rumor, the more oxygen they give it? Each legal action guarantees another round of headlines and another surge of online curiosity about the very claim they want buried. It’s a textbook case of the Streisand effect, when the attempt to suppress a rumor amplifies it.

    None of this is intended to defend the trolls. Their posts are crude, and few deserve sympathy. But public life comes with a price, and the price is mockery. Sometimes politicians are better advised simply to put up with it. The Macrons may win in court. They will not win in silence.

  • Is DEI to blame for the Louvre heist?

    Is DEI to blame for the Louvre heist?

    Police in Paris have arrested two men after the “heist of the century” at the Louvre museum. According to the French press, the pair were arrested separately as they prepared to leave the country on Saturday evening; both are in their 30s and from Seine-Saint-Denis, the sprawling suburb north of Paris. As yet there is no indication that police have recovered any of the crown jewels that were stolen from the museum in seven sensational minutes last Sunday. The search for them and the two other gang members goes on.

    The 88 million euros ($102m) heist has been deeply embarrassing for France, and the fact that those responsible appear to be local villains as opposed to the international criminal masterminds that some had suggested will only further redden the Republic’s face.

    Jordan Bardella, the right-hand man of Marine Le Pen, called the robbery a “national humiliation”, as did Marion Marechal, the niece of Le Pen and a former MP in her National Rally party

    Marechal demanded that the Louvre’s director, Laurence des Cars, and the head of security, Dominique Buffin, be relieved of their duties. Marechal claimed they had been appointed to their positions as “part of a policy to promote women… at the cost of sacrificing competence and jeopardizing our nation’s cultural heritage.”

    There was much fanfare when Buffin was named last year as the first woman to head up the Louvre’s security. Profiling Buffin, the left-wing Le Monde claimed that she was sometimes mistaken by visitors for a gallery attendant as she went about her work in the museum. Tourists apparently couldn’t conceive that a woman was in charge of security with a staff of 1,100 under her command.

    Laurence des Cars was appointed to her post in 2021, the first woman in the 230-year history of the Louvre. Her competency has come under scrutiny this week. It was reported in the press that des Cars has invested five times less money in security than was the case between 2006 and 2008. On the other hand she has splashed out nearly half a million euros on a new dining room.

    Des Cars offered to resign in the wake of the heist but this was refused by the government. This is no surprise. Emmanuel Macron handpicked des Cars for the post of director and he has to stick by her or else his judgement might be called into question.

    Macron has been a fervent supporter of DEI, or what is known in France as the “feminization” of society. Upon his election as president of the Republic in 2017 he appointed Florence Parly the minister of the armed forces. A socialist and career civil servant, Parly had no military background.

    In March 2022, a month after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, France’s top brass warned that they had enough ammunition for four days of high intensity combat. Parly left her post a few weeks later without much to show for her five years in office other than the “feminization” of the military.

    In 2019 Parly launched an initiative to increase the number of women in the armed forces and she boasted that she would “double the proportion of women among generals by 2025”.
    Her zeal encountered resistance among several senior military figures, who criticized her “political impatience”. In 2020 Parly blocked the publication of a promotion list because she was unhappy at the number of women on it.

    France’s civil service has also been subjected to similar social engineering. In 2023 a law was passed that increased the quota for female appointments to senior and executive positions from 40 percent to 50 percent. As of 2027 there will be financial penalties for non-compliance.

    This quota also applies, from January 2026, for appointments to ministerial cabinets and the cabinet of the President of the Republic.

    Earlier this week a collective called Women of the Interior bemoaned the fact in their view there aren’t enough women employed in France’s Ministry of the Interior. They also regretted that female police numbers have slightly decreased.

    Policing is not much fun in France, what with violence from Islamists, Antifa, anarchists, rioters and radical environmentalists. In 2023, there were 5,492 police officers injured in the line of duty, an average of 15 a day. Perhaps that is why numbers are down.

    France’s “feminization” has been inspired by America’s DEI, but while the Trump administration has started dismantling the dogma, France is doubling down. There was a furious response earlier this year when the US Embassy in Paris sent letters to companies requesting they drop DEI programs.

    The Ministry of Foreign Trade denounced the letters as “US interference” and proclaimed that France “will defend their companies, their consumers, but also their values”.

    One wonders if France can defend its companies better than it can its crown jewels.

  • France has failed its daughters

    France has failed its daughters

    It is just over three years since a 12-year-old Parisian girl called Lola was raped and murdered in a crime that shocked France. The woman accused of the murder, 27-year-old Dahbia Benkired, is now on trial and on Monday the court heard chilling evidence from a man who encountered the defendant shortly after the death of Lola.

    Karim Bellazoug told the court that Benkired was carrying a large trunk and told him she had items to sell. When he glanced inside he saw what looked like a body. “I thought she was crazy, that she was a psychopath,” Bellazoug declared.

    The motivation as well as the mental state of Benkired will be examined as the trial continues, but the overarching question is beyond the court’s remit. It is a political question: why was Dahbia Benkired in France?

    She arrived in the country in 2016 on a student visa and took a course in catering. She was a poor student with a reputation for lateness and lying. By 2022, Benkired was a regular cannabis user with no regular employment and no fixed abode. She had also been served with a deportation order, what the French call an OQTF – obligation de quitter le territoire français.

    An OQTF was introduced in 2006; the order is issued by a prefect and requires the recipient to leave France by their own means within 30 days. The initiative took time to get off the ground; in 2007 only 3.9 percent of OQTFs were enforced, a figure that rose to 22.4 percent by 2012, the year that Nicolas Sarkozy left office. He had cultivated an image of being a president tough on crime, which can’t be said of his successors, Francois Hollande and Emmanuel Macron.

    In an interview in 2019, Macron admitted that the current execution rate for OQTF of under 10 percent was not good enough, and he promised that it would soon be 100 per cent.

    His boast was greeted with skepticism by Christian Jacobs, at the time the president of the center-right Republican party. He accused Macron of being “all talk and no action,” reminding the French that when he had come to power in 2017 the president promised to reduce public spending. “But the reality is that spending is increasing much faster than it did under Hollande. We have accumulated an additional €170 billion in debt in two years, and on immigration, it’s the same problem”.

    Jacobs’s cynicism was well placed. France’s debt and immigration have soared in the last six years. In 2024, a record 430,000 legal migrants arrived in France, the same number as the three previous years combined. As for the number of illegal immigrants in France, when asked for a figure on Tuesday the new interior minister Laurent Nunez refused to divulge the number. Jordan Bardella, the president of the National Rally, has since written to Nunez demanding “transparency” on how many illegal immigrants are in France.

    As for the number of OQTF orders that have been enforced, they have fallen to 7 percent. In a report published last year by the independent authority for monitoring the conditions of detention, this low rate is attributable to “the structural obstacles (both material and administrative) that have long hindered the implementation of forced removals.” The report added that the situation “does not appear likely to change in the coming years.”

    A few weeks after that report was issued, a student called Philippine was raped and murdered in Paris by a Moroccan, who had recently been released from prison after serving a short sentence for rape. “Philippine’s life was stolen from her by a Moroccan migrant under an OQTF,” posted Bardella on social media. “This migrant therefore had no place on our soil… Our justice system is lax, our state is dysfunctional, our leaders let the French live with human bombs.”

    A similar message was heard in a Paris court last month during the trial of an African man accused of raping two women at knifepoint on a Saturday afternoon in 2023. The man, who was found guilty, had ignored OQTFs in 2020, 2021 and 2023 and during that time committed several other crimes.

    One of the women, Claire Geronimi, waived her right to anonymity, to declare: “We’re talking about a brutal rape, something that shouldn’t happen in the middle of the afternoon, in the heart of Paris… It’s something that’s very difficult, especially since my attacker was subject to three OQTF orders.”

    Claire has raised a support group for victims of sexual crimes. “I am lucky to be able to testify, I am lucky to be alive,” she said. “I think we could have been Lola, we could have been Philippine.”

    A poll last month found that 86 per cent of French people are in favor of imprisoning foreign criminals issued with a OQTF while they await deportation. It seems logical, but there is little logical about the French political class in this era of chaos. The new coalition government leans to the left and there is little chance that anything will be done to rein in the rampant lawlessness before the 2027 presidential election.

    On Monday, Justice Minister Gérald Darmanin admitted that the Louvre heist was a “terrible” reflection on France, adding that the country had “failed” to protect its national treasures. The same can be said of how the country fails to protect its girls and its women.

  • Why the French are dreaming of a Donald Trump à la française


    A year ago Donald J Trump was still roundly disliked by the French commentariat. Even the conservative Le Figaro newspaper held its Gallic nose in disdain, running a haughty article headlined “Trump, vulgarity runs rampant.”

    The left still loathe the president of the United States but for the right in France he has become a role model.

    The same Le Figaro now writes approvingly of Trump and admits it got him wrong. “We expected an isolationist Trump, focused solely on American interests,” it declared on Friday. “But in nine months, the president has established himself as a peacemaker in multiple international crises.”

    The French perhaps more than any European nation have never got The Donald. The political class in France are bland, humorless and conventional, as is most of the mainstream media.

    The British populist politician Nigel Farage once said of the American president: “There’s a lot of humor with Trump. It’s quick-witted repartee, which he is a master of. He’s very funny. He’s enormous fun to be with.”

    It’s hard to think of any French politician who could be described as “enormous fun,” certainly not Emmanuel Macron. The only thing enormous about the president of the Republic is his ego. And his list of failures.

    Macron has run France into the ground and reduced the country – and himself – to a laughing stock. The French did not appreciate the sight of Trump mocking Macron in Egypt at the start of this week. But their anger wasn’t directed at the American president, as he wondered with a smirk why Macron was being so “low-key.” For the French, the ridicule of their president is richly deserved.

    The contempt for Macron is arguably most profound within France’s business community. They believed his promise in 2017 to relaunch the country’s economy after five years of shambolic socialism under president Francois Hollande. Macron was hailed as the “Mozart of Finance.”

    Eight years later France finances are out of control and last month two rating agencies downgraded the country’s debt.

    If French conservatives are to break this socialist stranglehold they will need to do more than simply win an election. They must launch a counter-revolution.

    A few weeks ago a book was published in France titled Bosses: the Trump Temptation. Its author, Denis Lafay, interviewed numerous business leaders in France and discovered that they dreamed of a Donald à la française. It was more than his business approach; they also approved of his “strong rejection” of the mainstream media, public spending, international institutions and wokeism. Above all, wrote Lafay, they admired Trump’s personality. “His virility, his taste for combat, his culture of deal-making, his resilience and finally his very authoritarian side, which reassures them.”

    One suspects that France’s business leaders are more desperate than ever for a Donald of their own after the events of this week in parliament. Centrist Prime Minister Sebastien Lecornu announced on Tuesday that his coalition government was suspending the pension reform bill of 2023 until after the 2027 presidential election. The main plank of this bill raised the age of retirement from 62 to 64.

    The Socialist Party celebrated. Their 66 MPs had threatened to join a motion of no confidence in the government if the bill wasn’t suspended. Lecornu capitulated to the blackmail. Patrick Martin, the president of Medef, the largest employer federation, said it was “a sad day for France,” and lamented the fact that a minority socialist party was dictating government policy.

    The Socialist Party’s representation in parliament has dwindled from 295 MPs in 2012 to 66 today, but they have been marching through France’s institutions for decades. They control the Supreme Court, the State Council, the National Audit Office, the state-owned broadcaster and much of the judiciary.

    If French conservatives are to break this socialist stranglehold they will need to do more than simply win an election with an absolute majority. They must launch a counter-revolution, as Trump and J.D. Vance have in America, purging the institutions of the left-wing dogma that has taken root since Francois Mitterrand’s presidency of the 1980s.

    Earlier this week a conservative magazine called Frontières ran an editorial headlined “A plea for a French Trump.” It listed his achievements this year, including the deportation of illegal immigrants and the classification of Antifa as terrorists, and contrasted Trump’s administration of seasoned experts with their own “incompetent elites.”

    France, declared the editorial, “deserves a Trump and the government that goes with him to restore its greatness.”

    Making France great again won’t be easy given how low the country has fallen this century. So if there is a French Trump out there, bonne chance.

  • Trump takes a pass on brokering peace in Ukraine

    Trump takes a pass on brokering peace in Ukraine

    Has Donald Trump just announced the most consequential foreign policy reversal of his presidency? If so, Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky and France’s Emmanuel Macron – the last leaders to speak to Trump just before his epochal announcement – should be careful what they wish for.

    In the mother of all flip-flops, Trump on Wednesday posted on Truth Social that “Ukraine, with the support of the European Union, is in a position to fight and WIN all of Ukraine back in its original form.” That’s a position that even Biden, in his most optimistic moments, never dared to take. Trump claimed that Russians were finding it “almost impossible” to buy gasoline (by implication, as a result of Ukrainian drone strikes), that “Putin and Russia are in BIG Economic trouble.” To add insult to injury, Trump also called Russia a “paper tiger” that had been “fighting aimlessly for three and a half years a War that should have taken a Real Military Power less than a week to win.” 

    Ouch. That’s about as hard a diplomatic gut-punch that Trump could deliver, short perhaps of calling Putin a coward and a liar. Trump also went out of his way to praise Zelensky at a civil sit-down meeting at the United Nations. “Frankly, Ukraine is doing a very good job of stopping this very large army,” Trump said. “It’s pretty amazing.” That’s a very far cry from Trump’s confrontational “you have no cards” speech to Zelensky in the Oval Office in February. 

    On the face of it, Zelensky got exactly what he wanted from Trump, pushing the line that Moscow faces economic collapse and that Ukraine has a realistic chance of expelling Russian forces from its territory. But in truth Trump’s announcement is terrible news for Kyiv and the future of its war effort. 

    Trump’s statement is not a declaration of support for Ukraine, it’s Trump’s resignation from further participation in the peace process. And the sting in the tail of Trump’s announcement is a crystal-clear declaration that he now considers the Ukraine war Europe’s responsibility. A Ukrainian victory is possible “with the support of the European Union,” wrote Trump. All it will take is “time, patience, and the financial support of Europe and, in particular, NATO.” Except, crucially, that Trump clearly refers to NATO as something distinct from the US, promising that Washington “will continue to supply weapons to NATO for NATO to do what they want with them.” Note the weasel word “they.”

    To be fair to Trump, walking away from trying to make peace in Ukraine was always on the cards. Back on April 18, Trump told reporters at the White House that he wanted to get a peace deal “quickly.” But he also warned that “if for some reason one of the two parties makes it very difficult, we’re just going to say, ‘you’re foolish, you’re fools, you’re horrible people, and we’re going to just take a pass. But hopefully we won’t have to do that.”

    Turns out Trump did end up taking a pass, just like he promised – and Vladimir Putin is to blame. Despite a reputation in some quarters for being a master manipulator, Putin utterly failed to correctly read Donald Trump. Defying media criticism and resistance from parts of the Republican party, Trump took a major political risk in inviting Putin to Anchorage, Alaska, giving the Russian leader red-carpet treatment and even repeating some of Putin’s talking points. Trump gave Putin respect, face and made him a supremely generous offer essentially to freeze the front lines in Ukraine and allowing Russia to hold on to the occupied territories. 

    Instead of banking that amazing breakthrough and calling it a day in Ukraine, Putin stupidly did not give Trump an inch. Instead of stopping his missile bombardments of Ukraine – something that clearly angered Trump and prompted his angry message “VLADIMIR, STOP!” – Putin instead doubled down and intensified his attacks on Ukrainian cities to unprecedented levels. Instead of continuing talks with Kyiv, Putin high-handedly ignored Trump’s calls for him to meet Zelensky. And instead of winding down the war, the Kremlin has done the opposite, launching a series of incursions into NATO airspace. Seen from the White House, Putin’s recent behavior has not just been murderous and provocative – it’s been downright disrespectful. And Trump does not appreciate being disrespected. 

    There is possibly another, more calculating hypothesis behind Trump’s reversal. It’s been clear for a while now that the peace process with Putin is dead in the water – which means no great oil and gas deals or multi-billion dollar mineral rights that will help make America great again. So it’s time to open the shop doors wide and allow Europeans to buy hundreds of billions of high-end weapons from the US for use by Ukraine. The bill just for Patriot missiles of the kind that Ukraine says it needs to create an Iron Dome-like air defense system is $100 billion for that system alone. That way the US economy gets a different kind of boost, while Trump washes his hands of any political downside.

    If there’s one thing Trump hates more than disrespect, it’s to be seen to fail. With his peace initiative floundering on Putin’s intransigence, small wonder that Trump chose to walk away from the coming train wreck and leave European allies to sort out the mess – and foot the bill. 

    Essentially, Trump has called Europe and Zelensky’s bluff. You say you can defeat Putin? You go for it, buddy. You say you won’t allow aggression to be rewarded in Europe? Sure, guys, knock yourselves out. Trump also made it clear that he’s walking away from sanctions, too, by pointing out the painfully obvious fact that it’s Europe, not just China and India, which remains a major importer of Russian energy and therefore one of the biggest funders of the Kremlin’s war machine. Trump told the Europeans he would not sanction Russia further until they stopped importing Putin’s oil and gas – which the EU can’t and won’t do, despite all their fighting talk. 

    For the whole duration of the war European leaders have been making fine-sounding promises to Ukraine that it expects the US to pay for. That includes Macron and Sir Keir Starmer’s latest idea of creating a “coalition of the willing” which proposes a “reassurance force” on the ground in Ukraine – just as long as its backed by US air-power. With his flip-flop on Ukraine, Trump has clearly signaled that Uncle Sucker isn’t going to play that game any more. Trump may still be willing to defend its NATO allies – but when it comes to Ukraine, Europe is on its own, militarily and diplomatically.  By the same token, the White House is through with listening to any more of Putin’s bull-crap. In the rich Russian phrase, Putin “doprygalsya” – literally, jumped himself into a bunch of trouble. 

    Ukraine, Russia and Europe have nothing to celebrate and a lot to rue. Thousands more people are going to die pointlessly, with little prospect of achieving a significantly different outcome than the one Trump put on the table and Putin rejected. The dogs of war remain off their leashes, and the havoc will continue until Ukraine runs out of men – or Russia runs out of money.

  • Macron must go

    This evening Emmanuel Macron will almost certainly be searching for his fifth prime minister since January last year. François Bayrou’s decision to call a vote of confidence in his government looks like a calamitous misjudgment, one that will plunge France into another period of grave instability. Comparisons are being drawn with the tumult of the Fourth Republic when, between 1946 and 1958, France went through more than 20 governments.

    Bayrou’s coalition government has limped along this year, achieving little other than creating more disenchantment and contempt among the long-suffering electorate. The French are fed up with their political class.

    Above all, they’re sick to the back teeth of their president. It was Emmanuel Macron’s decision to call a snap election in June 2024 that kickstarted the chaos. And to think he did it for “clarification.”

    An opinion poll last week reported that Macron’s approval rating has hit a record low: just 15 percent of the country think he is doing a good job. Who are these 15 percenters? How can any voter cast an eye over their crumbling country and conclude that France is in a better state economically and socially than it was in 2017?

    Across the political spectrum calls are growing for Macron to resign. From Marine Le Pen on the right to Jean-Luc Mélenchon on the left, and including veteran centrists such as Jean-François Copé, a minister in the government of Jacques Chirac. They believe the only way France can begin to rebuild is with a new president.  So do the majority of the people; a weekend opinion poll reported that 58 percent believe Macron should resign in the event Bayrou loses his vote.

    Were Macron a man of his word he would step down. In an exchange in 2019 with a group of intellectuals, he criticised previous presidents who stayed in their posts despite losing the confidence of voters in legislative elections. 

    The French are fed up with their political class

    “The president of the Republic should not be able to stay (in office) if he had a real disavowal in terms of a majority,” said Macron.

    The president’s parliamentary majority was slashed in the 2022 election when his party lost 105 seats. In last year’s snap election, they hemorrhaged a further 95.

    The president still struts around the international stage, exchanging hugs and handshakes with other equally inept European leaders. But outside Western Europe no one takes Macron seriously. Not Trump, not Xi, not Putin, not even Tunisia.

    Last week a Tunisian with a history of drug abuse and violence rampaged through Marseille, stabbing several people with a knife as he screamed “Allahu Akbar.” Police shot him dead. The Tunisian government is outraged, calling it “an unjustified killing” and demanding an investigation into the actions of the policemen.

    Authoritarian regimes issue such provocative statements because they know Macron won’t respond. Tunisia, like Algeria – which in the last 12 months have thrown a French journalist and a Franco-Algerian writer in jail – have no respect for the president of the Republic.

    With every day that Macron stays in office, France’s international standing drops another notch. But he insists that he won’t resign.

    In that case, what are the alternatives to France’s political impasse, assuming Bayrou does lose his vote of confidence this evening? Macron could dissolve parliament and call fresh elections, which is what Marine Le Pen wants. But then she would, knowing that the opinion polls put her National Rally party way in front of its rivals.

    Last week, former president Nicolas Sarkozy said that legislative elections were the “only solution.” He also legitimatized Le Pen, declaring that the “National Rally is a party that has the right to stand in elections… in my view, they belong to the Republican spectrum.”

    It’s going to be a week of extreme turbulence in France

    Last month Macron declared that fresh elections aren’t the answer. His preference is to cobble together a third coalition government. Having tried a center-right Premier (Michel Barnier) and a centrist in Bayrou, he’s said to be considering a prime minister from the left.

    The name on commentators lips is Olivier Faure, the leader of the Socialist Party. He and Macron know each other well, to the point of using the informal “tu” when addressing each other.

    You might consider it odd that Macron would turn to a Socialist. This is the party whose representation in parliament has nosedived from 331 seats in 2012 to 66 last year. Their presidential candidate in the 2022 election, Anne Hidalgo, polled 616,478 votes (1.7 percent), 200,000 fewer than the Communist candidate.

    Then again perhaps it isn’t surprising. Macron may have sold himself to the public as a centrist when he launched his En Marche! party a decade ago, but he is at heart a Socialist. He admitted it to a summit of business leaders in 2014, when as the Economy Minister in Francois Hollande’s government, he told his audience: “I am a Socialist… I stand by that.”

    In effect, France has been governed by a Socialist since 2012. Between them Hollande and Macron have led the Republic to rack and ruin. Now there is the prospect of a Socialist prime minister.

    Among the measures Faure has announced in the event he becomes PM are a reduction of the retirement age from 64 to 62 and the creation of a 2 percent tax on assets worth more than €100 million ($117 million).

    It’s going to be a week of extreme turbulence in France. There is the vote today in parliament and then on Wednesday the people will take to the streets in a protest movement called “Block Everything.”

    Do they really need to bother? France is already blocked, thanks to Emmanuel Macron.

  • Can Bruno Retailleau defeat France’s Islamists?

    Can Bruno Retailleau defeat France’s Islamists?

    When France played Algeria at soccer in their national stadium, the Stade de France, in 2001, the French player Thierry Henry said afterwards he felt – disturbingly – as if he were playing away. The game had to be abandoned after dozens of Algerian fans, furious at being 4-1 down, invaded the pitch. 

    Bruno Retailleau, the interior minister of France since September last year and a key figure in the small boats crisis, has been known to cite Henry’s comment. Retailleau is carving out a distinct role for himself in government as the tribune of the growing number of his compatriots who share the same sense that they, too, are “playing away.” In other words, the millions who believe that they have become strangers in their own country.

    There is a trinity of issues at the heart of his agenda – porous borders, rampant crime and an increasingly self-confident Islamist movement that is on a long march through the institutions of the Fifth Republic.

    Jean-Luc Mélenchon, leader of La France Insoumise, the populist party which is currently the most powerful force on the left, thinks Retailleau is the man to watch. “For many right-wing people, Bruno Retailleau is more reassuring than [Le Pen],” he wrote in La Tribune. “Retailleau is the reactionary movement’s best chance at this time.” Retailleau’s prominence is all the more remarkable considering he leads Les Républicains, the once dominant force on the right, which long ago lost its position to Rassemblement National and has been written off by many as a dead party. Yet there’s an outside chance now that he can make it all the way to the Élysée when President Macron’s second term ends in 2027.

    So who is he? Retailleau was born in 1960 in the Vendée – a department best known in history for an unsuccessful royalist revolt against the revolutionary authorities in the 1790s. This revolt elicited Jacobin repression from Paris which was brutal enough to inspire Lenin. Retailleau’s great-great-great grandfather was part of the cross-class alliance that turned to the local aristocracy for military leadership; in his mother’s house there is a certificate of appreciation from Louis XVIII for their loyalty in an era of unprecedented upheaval.

    What happens when the rule of law starts to facilitate crime – and people can see that it’s doing so?

    But Retailleau is a conservative, not a reactionary, despite what Mélenchon may claim. His view of the French Revolution was influenced more by Edmund Burke than by 19th-century French royalists such as Joseph de Maistre. “I owe much of my understanding to Edmund Burke. There was the constitutional change of 1789, which Burke sympathized with, and the Terror of 1793, which he of course rejected. But the Terror of 1793 was not inevitable,” he says, when we meet in London during the recent state visit. “The Revolution could have been more liberal and respectful. But it gave a blueprint for totalitarianism – later communist and in our times Islamist absolutism, the ends justifying the means. And the total vision of society encompassing and politicizing every aspect of life. Meaning the attempt to perfect man from a tabula rasa.”

    The invocation of Burke is typical of the man who is one of the few top-level politicians who manages to keep up his reading while in office. Among writers directly addressing more contemporary issues, his choices are not always easy to predict: many on the French right would cite Jean Raspail’s anti-immigration novel The Camp of the Saints or Michel Houellebecq’s Soumission, an imaginary account about an Islamist takeover of France. 

    Retailleau, however, admires the French-Algerian writer Boualem Sansal, who is currently in prison in Algeria and is a staunch critic of the nationalist regime there and of the Islamists: Retailleau is now the most vocal member of the government calling for Sansal’s release. He is also keen on the writings on art and philosophy of Régis Debray, the tiers monde-iste friend of Che Guevara and Mitterrand adviser. Retailleau enjoys the company of Parisian intellectuals such as the cultural critic Alain Finkielkraut and the political philosopher Pierre Manent – who form a contrast with his circle of intimates from the Vendée, a difference of cultures which he relishes.  

    Retailleau’s career choices have also been unconventional. Most graduates of one of the grandes écoles would go on to become a mandarin serving an apprenticeship in the Cabinet of a minister. Retailleau, by contrast, after Sciences Po, returned to the Vendée – where his grandfather and father, a grain merchant, had both been mayor of Saint-Malo-du-Bois. His grandfather was severely wounded at the first Battle of the Marne in September 1914. His father served in the Algerian War and later ran the family farm.

    Retailleau himself has served as a reservist in the Régiment de Saumur, one of the best-known of the French cavalry regiments; and dressage is his competitive sport of choice. Today, his favorite pastime is riding alone in the Vendée (sometimes to the alarm of his security detail) and he has retained the figure of a jockey until well into his sixties. “I’ve had a few falls,” he notes, but his enthusiasm for the saddle remains undiminished. 

    His children presented him with a she-donkey for his 60th birthday. “When I have the time, I will take her on a journey to the Cévennes – in tribute to Robert Louis Stevenson, another of my favorite authors.” But for now, the crisis at the French borders makes this a luxury he cannot afford: he is a workaholic, often waking at 3:30 a.m. to read his official papers.  

    Retailleau started his career at Puy du Fou – the nearby theme park on French history that was founded by the local aristocrat Philippe de Villiers, a key figure in French Euroskepticism.

    He was a keen participant in Puy du Fou’s pageants and re-enactments. Under de Villiers’s guidance, he rapidly rose to become a member of the National Assembly, president of the Vendée departmental council, president of the Pays de la Loire regional council and finally leader of Les Républicains in the Senate. But the apprentice outstripped the master and there was a parting of the ways.

    ‘Islamophobia is a bogus concept. It conflates all Muslims with Islamism, which is not true’

    The difference in approach between the two men is meaningful. There is a certain non-sectarianism in Retailleau’s approach: behind his desk in the Interior Ministry at Hôtel de Beauvau hang portraits of the two greatest Vendéens – Jean de Lattre de Tassigny, a French marshal of World War Two, and Georges Clemenceau, the victor of the first world war. It’s hard to imagine a purist Catholic of de Villiers’s vintage revering an atheistic anti-clerical like Clemenceau. 

    And when it comes to Russia, Retailleau is firmly in the Giorgia Meloni camp: he parts company with those on the French right who see Vladimir Putin as a defender of family values and Christian civilization. Retailleau sees Putin not as the inheritor of Czarist tradition, but rather as a product of the KGB. 

    Retailleau believes in defending moral as well as physical borders – hence his opposition to euthanasia and his concern about the consequences of gender transitions in children. But restoring the status quo ante on capital punishment, abortion and gay marriage is hardly the mainstay of his policy vision. And he tells me that the restoration of Notre-Dame-de-Paris after the fire of 2019 will rank as one of Emmanuel Macron’s greatest achievements – less for religious reasons than as evidence of what the state can still accomplish in terms of grand projets that really matter, when it can summon the will to sweep aside bureaucratic obstacles. 

    Although the attention is now on what the French call les aspects régaliens of Retailleau’s current role – matters relating to the direct authority of the state – it was his economic agenda that mattered most to him in the Vendée. Retailleau is the antithesis of corporate man (he is proud of banning the word “management” from all departmental discourse), but he was nonetheless a big booster for business in the region. 

    Since the Revolution, the Vendée has got relatively little from the state, making it highly self-reliant. It therefore has some of the lowest claims for unemployment benefit of any department, at 6 percent compared to a 7.4 percent national average. The bulk of businesses comprise what Germans would call the Mittelstand – family-owned enterprises chafing under Parisian and Bruxellois regulations. 

    Intriguingly, Retailleau cites no one economic mentor like Milton Friedman or Friedrich Hayek – nor even that staunchest of French critics of Keynes, Jacques Rueff, who was also an adviser to Charles de Gaulle. Rather, he tells me, his economic inspirations are the Vendéen entrepreneurs who create real prosperity and jobs.

    His answer is shrewd, because it’s hard to be accused of being a “globalist” for extolling the virtues of local enterprises; but it says something about the French right that economic issues are now more internally divisive than cultural matters.

    If the state has interfered too much in the economy, Retailleau also believes it has been too laissez-faire in the realm of security. He poses to me a key theme of his: “What happens when the rule of law starts to facilitate crime – and people can see that it’s doing so? When the endless invocation of the rule of law becomes the enemy of honest people?”   

    Retailleau is referring to what he sees as the excessive solicitude of wide swaths of the French legal profession and judiciary for the rights of individuals accused of crimes at the expense of the collective rights of the law-abiding majority. A mere 7 percent of deportation orders for illegal migrants are implemented, and too often, in his view, that is because French judges rule that a procedural technicality has been breached.   

    This failure of the state on immigration and crime has a particular piquancy for Retailleau: his close friend, Fr Olivier Maire, was murdered in 2021, allegedly by a Rwandan asylum seeker with mental health issues. The suspect had been released on bail after being accused of setting fire to Nantes Cathedral and was being sheltered by Maire at the time. 

    Retailleau has therefore long wanted to re-empower the people by reforming article 11 of the Constitution on procedures allowing for a popular referendum on immigration – something which is not possible today. He also advocates cutting full medical aid for illegal immigrants, preferring to allow them just emergency care.

    ‘Islamists have a smooth narrative: to employ our freedoms to destroy our freedoms. It’s an all-of-society project’

    How did this shift in the ethos of the French judiciary and legal profession come about? Retailleau points the finger at the spirit of ’68 – and, in particular, the long-term effects of the Harangue de Baudot, the 1974 address delivered by the liberal Marseille magistrate Oswald Baudot urging new judges to side with “the weak against the strong,” which is now the sacred text for the left-wing Syndicat de la Magistrature, effectively the trade union for the Bench. 

    In Retailleau’s view, the price of this broad approach is also being paid by the 15,000 security personnel who were injured in France in 2023. Significantly, his first visit as interior minister was to the préfecture at La Courneuve in the Parisian banlieue of Seine-Saint-Denis, where he met three hurt gendarmes: one of the perpetrators of these assaults, a juvenile, already had 33 convictions to his name. 

    Success or failure in crime or immigration policy can at least be measured in numbers. It’s much harder to mark progress in the struggle against political Islam – which Retailleau believes constitutes the greatest subversive threat to the Fifth Republic. “They are a formidable enemy, despite the relatively small numbers of their core cadres,” he says. “They have a smooth narrative: to employ our freedoms to destroy our freedoms. It’s an all-of-society project. For example, they aim to ‘Islamize’ knowledge. And their message is as follows: ‘We will colonize you and we will dominate you.’”

    One of the first steps he took on Islamism after assuming office was to declassify the Interior Ministry’s 74-page report on the Muslim Brotherhood in Europe: his purpose was to alert the public via an approach of “name and shame.” It’s little secret now that Retailleau struggled with the Elysee to maximise its revelations about individual Islamist institutions; partly because the President’s office was initially reluctant to be seen to be dancing to Retailleau’s tune. 

    Retailleau is thus the one making the political weather on this issue: the Defense Council met again recently under the chairmanship of Macron to discuss, in the light of this most comprehensive official analysis of frère-isme to date,  just how to enforce the landmark 2021 French separatism law. The old pre-war French right saw laïcité as the enemy of Catholic France; now, it sees it as a bulwark to protect the country. As ever, practical implementation is the key to Retailleau’s way of doing things.

    This included new ways of disbanding the Brotherhood’s endowments in France which promote hatred – by exposing and then freezing its assets. Also high on the priority list are the law’s demands for neutrality in the public space (no display of symbols of religion by officials at any level) and support for public servants, notably teachers, who face threats because of discharging their public duties – a particular concern after false allegations of “Islamophobia” from a pupil were weaponized against the schoolmaster Samuel Paty in 2020, leading to his decapitation by a Chechen refugee.

    Mélenchon has, unsurprisingly, accused him of cultivating an “Islamophobic climate,” but Retailleau retorts: “The concept of Islamophobia is one of the defining messages of the Muslim Brotherhood and its allies, but it’s a bogus concept to tie our hands intellectually and to prevent us from criticizing Islamism. And it suits the Islamo-Gauchiste project of Mélenchon to build up a communalist bloc based upon a sectarian appeal to anti-state grievances. It conflates all Muslims with Islamism, which is not true.”

    Retailleau is gratified by the favorable official responses which the Brotherhood report has enjoyed in Europe – such as in Sweden and Belgium. Over 20 years ago, French intelligence bestowed the soubriquet “Londonistan” upon the British capital – because it was seen as a “safehouse” for Islamists. Are we still Londonistan, I ask? Retailleau diplomatically sidesteps my question, but his omission of the UK as an enthusiast for this report speaks volumes. 

    Controversial as these issues are, they may (counterintuitively) form the basis of a potential future national consensus. Retailleau respects republicans from the right and the left who want to maintain traditional French laïcité against the New Left’s identity politics: reaching out across party divides, he particularly notes the rigor of the former Socialist prime minister and interior minister Manuel Valls.

    What, then, are his chances in the 2027 presidential election? The conventional wisdom of the Parisian media holds that Retailleau is too old-fashioned to win. How, when he is hovering at around 10 percent in the polls, can he hope to make it through to the second round?

    But the issues of the era – “order, order, order” is how he characterized his priorities when he took office – are cutting in his favor. He remains the most popular minister in a very unpopular government. More-over, despite its poll lead, the Rassemblement National is struggling to find a fully credible candidate, with Le Pen’s legal difficulties potentially preventing her standing and Jordan Bardella, her 29-year-old deputy, lacking frontline experience. 

    Retailleau quotes to me the well-known French political maxim of the author Maurice Druon, who served as Georges Pompidou’s culture minister: “There are two parties of the left in France, one of which is called the right!” There is an opening for a force that is genuinely right-wing, and which stays right-wing in government.

    The question now is how long Retailleau, who is very much his own strategist, remains in government. On the one hand, the Interior Ministry has been a perfect platform for his policy agenda – and the police and fire brigades, with whom he has developed a genuine rapport, would miss him. But if he stays too long, his unique brand risks cross-contamination with that of Emmanuel Macron. That is why, as leader of Les Républicains, Retailleau is increasingly distancing himself from the President on several issues (notably public subsidy for wind farms, which he wants to end). Such open free-thinking does not always endear him to the Élysée. 

    Sir Roger Scruton – one of Retailleau’s heroes – would certainly have appreciated the apparent paradox of his public life to date: the story of a ruggedly individualistic son of La France profonde vindicating the long-neglected rights of the national and cultural collective, at the heart of power.