Financial crises are often linked to a political crisis. On September 8, the French government will submit itself to a vote of confidence – which, by all accounts, it will lose. At issue is France’s parlous financial state, which a minority French government seeks to address. This week, French 30-year bond yields reached levels unseen since the Greek debt crisis in 2011, while the 10-year yield has surpassed present-day Greece’s.
France’s economy minister was quick to warn that France’s lamentable financial position could leave it facing an IMF bailout. This was intended to frighten MPs ahead of the vote rather than reflect reality. Greece was borrowing at near 30 percent prior to its debt crisis and had a budget deficit of 15 percent GDP, while France’s is 6 percent. Parallels with Greece in 2011 are exaggerated. Yet debt markets can turn at the blink of a logarithm.
If François Bayrou’s government falls, an optimistic outcome is unlikely
Were that to happen, the European Commission would never allow an outside body alone to take control of a Eurozone member. As with the Eurozone crisis a decade and a half ago, a new “Troika” would be appointed: IMF, European Central Bank and European Commission. Thirteen years ago I happened to be a member of that Troika called in to propose wholesale reform of the Greek public sector as the corollary for massive loans. Witnessing firsthand France’s leading role and unforgiving manner in “Task force for Greece,” it was clear how France’s attitude did not endear it to the Greeks. Like the French, they express their anger openly and carry historical grudges.
Demonstrations and riots were not the only signs of Greek frustration and humiliation. “Task force for Greece” was nominally led by France and Germany. But the Greeks ran a very effective press campaign showing how German reparations owed to Athens from World War Two equated to Greek debt. Germany’s delegate to the task force had his German home firebombed (whenever I caught sight of him, he was always flanked by armed detectives). Germany discreetly left the “dirty work” to France.
The French team was run by senior members of the French Finance Ministry. They set about the task with technocratic zeal. My brief was to lead on reforming the Greek university sector (having served a few years previously on a French prime ministerial commission for French university reform). The Troika austerity reforms were truly harsh. Fierce cuts to public sector wages and pensions, tax increases, privatization of state-owned enterprises and labor market deregulation resulted. My bit part was cut short by Greece’s refusal to implement any reforms not proposed and directed by itself. That became the norm. Greek passive (and not so passive) resistance to the Troika austerity reforms and the consequent political turmoil led to Greece directing the reforms itself.
France’s prominent role in the Troika austerity measures should be a salutary lesson given its own financial predicament. With a 6 percent budget deficit and national debt to GDP ratio at 113 percent (predicted to rise to over 120 percent), France is already operating at twice the EU’s Stability and Growth Pact requirements. In November last year, the country was placed in excessive deficit procedure (EDP). As a result, under Article 126 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, France is required to provide six-monthly plans to the EU Commission on the corrective action, policies and deadlines it will apply to return to a 3 percent deficit by 2029, failing which astronomical fines could be imposed.
There is little chance France can comply with the plan. A political crisis is likely on September 8. If François Bayrou’s government falls, an optimistic outcome is unlikely. Three fateful scenarios present themselves. President Macron could appoint France’s fifth prime minister in two years. But who would want the poisoned chalice of applying austerity measures with no possible majority in the present National Assembly? The President could call new elections as he did in 2024. But opinion polls suggest another minority government, albeit clearly dominated by the Rassemblement National. A third scenario would be for President Macron to resign. That would lead to a new RN French president, by no means committed to austerity measures.
Each of these options will seriously frighten financial markets, not to mention the European Union. Given the way President Macron has antagonized so many European leaders over the last ten years, not to mention its role in the Greek debt crisis, France should be fearful she is not forced into the indelicate hands of the Commission. Which country’s officials would march into Paris? Heaven forfend that I be invited to take part in a Greek-led “Task force for France.”
French Prime Minister François Bayrou has recalled parliament for a confidence vote on September 9, betting he can outmaneuver a surging protest movement before it paralyzes France. The grassroots “Bloquons tout” campaign, echoing the gilets jaunes (“Yellow vests”) of 2018-19 and fueled by the hard left, plans to halt trains, buses, schools, taxis, refineries and ports. It is a general strike in all but name. Bayrou’s move aims to reassert control before chaos takes hold, but with the vote just two days before the open-ended strike begins, failure could topple his government and ignite a broader assault on President Macron’s authority. This morning, Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s hard-left La France Insoumise (LFI) announced its plans to file a motion of destitution against Macron on September 23 if Bayrou falls, raising the stakes further.
At the heart of this crisis is the economy. France’s debt has blown past 110 percent of GDP and the budget hole for 2025 stands at around $55 billion. Before the summer break, Bayrou proposed the deepest spending cuts in a generation, in a country where public spending accounts for nearly 60 percent of GDP. The unions are furious. The French are addicted to public spending and there’s a deep-seated mentality that the government owes people ever more. Mélenchon has turned the budget battle into a populist crusade against Macron’s “rich man’s government,” rallying the left and calling on supporters to shut the country down unless the cuts are scrapped. Gilets jaunes veterans have been readying to go back on the streets.
Within minutes of the end of the press conference in Paris at which Bayrou announced the confidence vote, Marine Le Pen’s hard-right National Rally, Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s LFI and others declared they would not support the government. It also appeared yesterday evening that the Socialists were leaning against Bayrou, an immediate slap in the face for him and indirectly for Macron. This morning, Mélenchon escalated the pressure, vowing to push for Macron’s impeachment on September 23 if the vote fails, blaming the president for the crisis rather than Bayrou.
Bayrou’s move was designed to seize the initiative before the country slides into chaos, but the arithmetic is now completely against him. To survive, he needs 289 votes. His Macron-centrist alliance can deliver barely 165. The consensus yesterday evening among journalists and leading Paris-based analysts is that the government has almost no chance of surviving. Marine Le Pen’s National Rally was the only possible lifeline, and immediately after the announcement they made clear that they would not help Bayrou. A curt statement from the RN said it was “not inclined to support” the government. Bayrou and Macron’s gamble has almost certainly failed. It looks as though Macron and Bayrou completely miscalculated their move.
Bayrou’s bold move was meant to buy Macron time. But it now threatens to blow up his presidency
Le Pen no doubt very rapidly concluded that there is no need to save Macron’s prime minister to satisfy her own ambitions. Polls suggest she would emerge from early parliamentary elections as the largest force in the Assembly, even if personally she cannot run. Her party would still, however, fall short of a majority, making her refusal to back Bayrou cost-free and politically advantageous. If the government falls, Macron’s authority erodes further, and the RN’s narrative of “ordinary France versus Parisian elites” hardens. Mélenchon, meanwhile, is actively pushing for Bayrou’s downfall. LFI has seized control of the anti-austerity message and united Socialists, Greens and hard-left radicals behind him. For Mélenchon, an early election offers the chance to turn street anger into parliamentary power.
Bayrou’s bold move was meant to buy Macron time. But it now threatens to blow up his presidency. If indeed Bayrou loses the confidence vote, Macron will face an impeachment process. He could try to appoint another sacrificial prime minister to preside over austerity and strikes, but no one credible will want the job. He could also call an early election, risking handing power to Mélenchon or leaving the country even more paralyzed. Or he could simply sit tight and let the blockades and market jitters spiral while he waits out the end of his term. If Bayrou falls, Macron may limp on in the Élysée, but the Fifth Republic itself risks a reckoning.
As Bayrou battles parliament, the markets are signaling that France’s fiscal credibility hangs by a thread. Bond yields are creeping up. Somehow the ratings agencies haven’t yet let things slide. France has held on to its top-tier status long past the point of credibility. Perhaps this is only thanks to the assumption that the country, Europe’s second biggest economy, is too big to fail. But that indulgence has its limits. Come mid-September, when the numbers are on the table and the budget battle begins, a downgrade from the rating agencies seems inevitable. This will damage France and will certainly damage Europe. A downgrade would spike borrowing costs, potentially triggering a broader sell-off in European markets.
For eight years, Macron’s political brand has rested on him outmaneuvering his opponents and keeping France just stable enough to get by. If the government loses this confidence vote, Macron’s authority breaks. He may cling on in the Élysée, but his presidency will be weakened beyond repair. France risks months of paralysis, street unrest and financial turmoil.
Not since Barack Obama held a press conference dressed as the Man from Del Monte has a suit played such a critical role in US politics. But there it was, after the spring press conference incident, President Zelensky arrived in Washington, DC wearing a suit. The “YMCA”-loving Trump administration is hardly batting off the accusations of campness given its fixation with menswear. Still, Zelensky came, as did all of Europe.
All the handshakes went off without a hitch, although the size difference meant that the visuals were slightly more redolent of vaudeville than high diplomatic drama. Zelensky handed a letter from his wife to the First Lady, thanking her for her intervention on behalf of Ukraine’s missing children. During Trump’s monologues on foreign policy he has often let slip that his wife has been a driving influence in favor of a more compassionate attitude towards Ukraine. Whether the Secret Service can deliver it to the right Melania remains to be seen.
Trump specializes in the diplomatic theater of the absurd: Samuel Beckett meets Metternich meets the cast of Jersey Shore. He duly boasted of solving “six wars in six months,” including in a place he called the Republic of the Condo – which sounds like a pseudonym for Florida. This was a press conference through the looking glass.
Meanwhile the President kept his audience guessing: “We have great people up here,” he said, gesturing at the assembled press pack. “We also have terrible people.” Nobody does scattered insults quite like Trump – he makes the Gatling Gun look like a close-range precision missile.
He treated Zelensky to a long and very involved monologue about the virtues of paper ballots – by far the lengthiest answer of the day. It was a bit like one of those sections you have to skip in a Victorian novel, as when Anthony Trollope does one of his three-chapter sequences about a fox hunt or spends 100 pages waxing lyrical about checks.
In the midst of this, the President insisted that only America uses paper ballots. For all his comedy it is worth remembering that Trump includes provable untruths in most of his monologues. Of course it isn’t only America which uses mail-in ballots. As ever, Trump’s press conference was like watching a mime show. It was wild, confusing and seemingly irrelevant at times, and yet when it was over you had a sense that you’d seen something impressive.
All in all, as good as it could be expected for Ukraine. J.D. Vance – unusually silent today – had apparently been neutered and, for all the Trumpian weirdness, the exchanges yielded a more concrete level of support than last time. On security, said Trump, “there’s going to be a lot of help, we will be involved.”
For now, at least, it seemed President Zelensky had figured out the winning formula; nod, smile and say as little as possible.
Freddy Gray: Candace is being sued or threatened with legal action by the Macrons, Emmanuel and Brigitte Macron, the President and First Lady of France. Because, Candace, you believe that Brigitte Macron is a man. Why do you think the Macrons are choosing to sue you?
Candace Owens: Because they were trying to stop the story. I think it was an effective PR strategy. They had been suing and harassing the journalists that had initially brought this story forth to the French public for years, and then they lost their defamation suit against the two journalists, Amandine Roy, Natasha Roy. And that was pretty explosive news. So I think that they then filed suit against me and knowing that it would drive potentially the most media traffic to kind of say, “Oh no, but it still isn’t true at all. I know we lost this defamation case in our home turf, but we’re now going to try it in America,” just to kind of signal to the press that they’re not lying.
FG: If you wanted the story to go away, this is not a very sensible strategy.
CO: Yeah, actually if you look at the history of them as a couple, they haven’t been very good at PR… I do think it was poor advice. I think their advisors made the wrong decision, and we saw this even recently, the disaster of their PR when Brigitte was caught assaulting Macron on the plane. I mean, they lied, they forcefully lied, and then they essentially disappeared. The story the very next day from the French press. So they’re used to having that kind of power.
FG: It’s that clip that makes me think you’re wrong, because I’m pretty sure she punches like a girl. I mean, men don’t hit like that.
How did the theory start?
CO: The Daily Mailran a headline, and Emmanuel Macron was on camera saying it’s not true, and freaking out about these rumors and saying how hurtful they were. And I thought that was odd. I said, “What could possibly be going on in France that the President is having to lower himself to respond to such a ridiculous rumor?” And when I was reading this article, I was sort of interested in the dog that wasn’t barking, which is that the Daily Mail didn’t do a good job of instantly debunking it. Obviously, tons of photos could debunk this… It wasn’t a deep internet web conspiracy. It was actually French journalists that were on the left who loved Brigitte Macron and wanted to celebrate her by doing their due diligence and telling the story of Brigitte Macron. These were feminists… They felt that they were being threatened by the Élysée Palace. They were asking basic questions, asking for pictures and feeling like they had done something wrong. And they were essentially being told that the only person that could get them what they were looking for was a woman named Mimi Marchand, who at that moment was running communications for the Macron couple. Mimi Marchand has since been charged with forging documents… So it was very organic how this story took off in France. People just trying to figure out like, hey, can we get some photos of you? There’s 30 years of your life that seem to be missing?
FG: It is definitely strange that nobody seems to be able to find a lot of evidence about Brigitte Macron’s upbringing. But what occurs to me – I’ve watched the series – I know the journalist you speak to, Xavier Poussard. He uses a facial recognition app to say that these images of Brigitte Macron’s brother must be her. There’s a sort of 80 percent likelihood. That strikes me as not necessarily reliable, and also the fact that, you know, siblings can look very, very alike. So the fact that Brigitte Macron’s brother looks a lot like her is not quite that surprising, is it?
CO: No, it’s not surprising at all. And you’re correct. This is not a 100 percent technology… What’s more compelling is that this brother of hers is missing. At this point you would have to have a terrible relationship with your brother if you wouldn’t just come out before you had to sue anyone and say, “Hi, it’s me, I’m Jean Trogneux. I love my sister very much. I’m a private person, but this is getting ridiculous.” Or even her children, right? Her children could release photos of them being raised by her growing up. But I don’t care how angry you are at your parents, at a certain level, you’d go, “Guys, this is getting ridiculous. Here’s me and my mom.” We’re just like, hey, 30 years of your life is missing. It’s getting a little uncomfortable with how many people in your orbit have been arrested for pedophilia. You’ve lied – objective lies – you told the press at the beginning of your relationship. Don’t forget, when he first ran for president, the public told the media he was 17. Now we’ve got them down to 15. And the truth is that he was actually 14 when he was in that play where she says she saw him perform. But it’s not helping the media story that they lie. From the very beginning they presented it as if Brigitte was this really irresistible, sexy teacher, when when they actually got evidence of what she looked like when she was teaching Macron. She looks homely. It’s definitely not a very attractive teacher that was wearing skirts. It looks like a male that’s in the middle of a transition, to be honest with you.
FG: I’ve listened to what Xavier and you said about that. And it does sound a bit like Xavier was sort of just angry at the media for the way that they manicured her image. But that’s what happens with powerful and important people. Their images are always being manicured, and often they manicure themselves.
CO: Which is totally fine. It’s every piece of the Brigitte Macron story that has required so many lies. And yeah, they they did that, perhaps because they didn’t want people to realize that something really strange happened at that school. And it doesn’t help that when Emmanuel Macron entered office, they got to work trying to lower the age of consent to 13. It doesn’t help that Emmanuel Macron’s mother worked in her career assisting transgendered people in getting identities. The person that’s dressing Brigitte Macron that works with LVMH and Louis Vuitton specializes in androgynous dressing, trans people and of getting models that are trans. There’s so many other elements that are just peculiar. I want people to also know that before we published the first episode, we were in touch with Brigitte’s team. We said, “Look, we’re not interested in spreading conspiracies. Answer these basic questions. Could you produce some photos of your living for 30 years? Did you live as Jean-Michel? Have you ever lived as a person named Veronique?” And they forcefully declined to answer any of those questions.
French pedophilia?
FG: I think you’re sort of insinuating that the real scandal behind this is a kind of pedophilic elite in France.
CO: I believe that’s been a problem that’s happened in Paris for a very long time.
Owens mentioned Sigmund Freud, Richard Duhamel, Richard Trumbull, Eric Moretti and André Gide as examples of French pedophilia.
FG: Well, like me, you’re a Catholic. You’re a recent convert to Catholicism. And I know from my French Catholic family that there is this obsessive hatred in France of the French government and the secular French government and the French left, and this assumption that they are satanic somehow or Satanic driven. Is that something you think you’ve latched on to?
CO: Well, no, I was not aware of French politics. I got into this quite organically. I don’t follow French politics. I don’t speak French… The idea that there are is an orbit of people who could commit crimes and then have the audacity to sue people for writing books or sue people that are talking about it. It offends me. It offends my senses as a Christian and as a mother. And I felt that it was very important for the world to kind of look and go, what’s going on in France? … It definitely wasn’t driven by some idea of a satanic panic happening in France.
Trump tells Candace to stop saying Brigitte is a man
FG: The Donald Trump story. He leant on you himself to stop talking about the Brigitte Macron story.
CO: Yeah. Back in February, Macron was in the White House ostensibly to discuss Russia and Ukraine. I was contacted by the White House and told that he took Trump to the side and wanted me to stop talking about Brigitte. And the person who relayed this to me before Trump called me the next day, said that it was a contingency on the Ukraine-Russia conversation, which is ridiculous. When Trump called me the next day. He basically said he was very surprised. But Macron took him aside and asked if he could get me to stop talking about Brigitte. I said to him that I would not speak about Brigitte for a few months while he was looking for a signature on some document pertaining to the EU. But then certainly, of course, I would speak about it months later, which is exactly what I did.
The Candace-Trump fallout
FG: You were a keen supporter. He was a fan of you. And then it seems you’ve completely fallen out and largely over Gaza. Am I correct in saying that?
CO: You are correct in saying that. What’s happening in Gaza, to me is just a moment of are you a human? Are you not a human? And also the Epstein fumble as well – the gaslighting of the Epstein case. To effectively gaslight your supporters and say, why? Why are we still talking about Jeffrey Epstein? What do you mean, why aren’t we still talking about Jeffrey Epstein if there’s been a blackmail ring, and politicians are supporting things because they have been blackmailed. I’ve been very disappointed in him.
FG: The Wall Street Journal is reporting that he’s in the files that he sent this card, this bawdy card, to Jeffrey at birthday card to Jeffrey Epstein.
CO: I don’t buy the birthday card because Trump immediately came out and said, this is not true and sued. In May when Pam Bondi sat down for a meeting and said, you’re actually in these files, he never debunked that. Do I believe that Donald Trump was on Epstein Island? No. Do we know that he parted with Epstein in his youth? Yes, we know that… The bigger point is that he he could have come to his supporters and said, “look, I’m very surprised to hear this. I have nothing to do with anything that happened on that island.” He could have gotten ahead of it. When you choose to gaslight the public, you have become exactly what you knew that we hated when we sent you into DC.
Do you ever think you’re a conspiracy theorist, Candace?
FG: Do you ever feel that you’ve maybe taken crazy pills and you’ve become a conspiracy theorist?
CO: Absolutely not. The Macron story is one of the most fascinating stories ever. And in a sane world, I would be given a Pulitzer.
Owens responds to accusations of being anti-Semitic
FG: There’s a lot of suspicion of you that you have gone from that criticism of Israel into full-on Jew-hatred. How do you respond to that allegation of anti-Semitism?
CO: It’s nonsense to say that I have hatred for Jews. I worked for Prager University. It is a literal Zionist enterprise that is run by an IDF intelligence. I then worked for the Daily Wire, which is run by Ben Shapiro. Prior to that, I worked in private equity for two Jews in New York for four years. And I almost married a Jew, actually, while I was in New York… I’m the same girl who stood up to Black Lives Matter. I don’t care about your identity. I know when people are calling people racist because they are trying to stop the conversation. They said, “You’re a self-hating black.” I know exactly what’s happening when you start using your identity as a shield, and it just doesn’t work with me. What’s happening in Gaza is atrocious.
FG: Well, you married a self-hating Brit instead. Not self-hating, sorry. I meant to say you married a Brit. Let me say that again. I don’t know whether your husband’s self-hating. I’m self-hating.
Senator Ted Cruz isn’t giving up. Cruz, who believes that the Muslim Brotherhood serves as the “key foundation stone for radical Sunni terrorism,” has just reintroduced – together with five Republican senators and bipartisan support in the House of Representatives – the Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act, which he first proposed in 2015. Cruz is no stranger to controversy when it comes to Islam: in March 2016, following a terrorist attack in Brussels, he said that it was imperative to “patrol and secure Muslim neighborhoods” in America before they became radicalized.
Now he is reupping his call to focus on the Muslim Brotherhood. Founded in Egypt in 1928, it is a dangerously militant Islamic organization with affiliates around the globe. While the US State Department has designated some branches of the Brotherhood as terrorist organizations, it has not targeted the main group. Has the moment arrived to take a stand?
A growing chorus of voices is arguing that it has. According to Andrew McCarthy in National Review, “Ted Cruz understands the threat and is distinguishing himself by charting a very different policy direction. It will serve him well. And it would serve the country well.” Writing in the Middle East Forum, Jim Hanson agreed: “The Muslim Brotherhood represents a danger to the civilized world and designating it a Foreign Terrorist Organization will help curb its influence. An indication that this is a correct move can be seen in the actions of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Jordan. These countries all know the Brotherhood well; each has designated the Brotherhood as a terror group.”
These apprehensions about the Muslim Brotherhood are not the sole province of American conservatives. As early as 1948, King Farouk of Egypt banned the group. Today, alarm about the Brotherhood exists in France, where President Emanuel Macron is seeking to address the threat of Islamic radicalism. In May, a state-commissioned report on the Muslim Brotherhood was leaked, and its conclusions caused a furor. It stated that “political Islam” posed a mounting danger to the democratic values of the French republic. “The reality of this threat,” the report declared, “even if it is long-term and does not involve violent action, highlights the risk of damage to the fabric of society and republican institutions.”
Critics of Cruz’s motion contend that it will boomerang, stirring up more hostility toward America in the Islamic world and stoking broader fears about Islam. Dov Zakheim, the former undersecretary of defense in the George W. Bush administration, observes that the claim that singling out the Brotherhood would promote Islamophobia is misplaced – the Brotherhood is already banned by a welter of countries, including Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Jordan and the United Arab Emirates.
The pressure is building in Congress. In early June, Congresswoman Nancy Mace introduced the Muslim Brotherhood Is A Terrorist Organization Act. “The Muslim Brotherhood doesn’t just support terrorism, it inspires it,” said Mace. “President Trump was right when he said the Muslim Brotherhood is a threat to global security, and it’s long past time we call them what they are: terrorists.”
Will Trump act to try and counter a pernicious ideology that has brought destruction to so many lives? The President has a history of taking bold action in the Middle East, from the assassination of Iranian major general Qasem Soleimani to bombing Iranian nuclear facilities to meeting with interim Syrian president Ahmed al-Sharaa. He has a variety of choices, from issuing an executive order banning the Brotherhood to imposing Treasury sanctions. With bipartisan backing in Congress, it seems more likely than ever that Trump will seek to target the Muslim Brotherhood for destruction.
When Donald Trump won a second term in the White House last November the response in Europe was one of barely disguised horror. “The European Union must stand close together and act in a united manner,” declared Germany’s Chancellor Olaf Scholz.
Emmanuel Macron posted a message on X: “The question we, as Europeans, must ask ourselves is, are we ready to defend the interests of Europeans?” The president of France got his answer on Sunday evening. No. The trade deal agreed between Ursula von der Leyen, the EU Commission president, and Donald Trump has not gone down well in much of Europe.
Scholz’s successor, Friedrich Merz forecast that Germany’s economy would suffer “significant” damage because of the deal. EU exports will have a tariff of 15 percent, which is superior to the customs duties before Trump’s re-election, but much lower than his threatened 30 percent tariff. Additionally, von der Leyen has promised the bloc will purchase energy worth $750 billion from the United States and make $600 billion in additional investments. According to Hungary’s Viktor Orban: “This is not an agreement… Donald Trump ate von der Leyen for breakfast.”
The most strident criticism of the deal came from France, where in a rare display of unity the terms of the agreement were savaged across the political spectrum.
Prime Minister Francois Bayrou said that “it is a dark day when an alliance of free peoples, united to assert their values and defend their interests, resigns itself to submission.”
Trade minister Laurent Saint-Martin described the deal as unbalanced and said the government should not accept “what happened yesterday because that would be accepting that Europe is not an economic power.”
It was telling that Saint-Martin said “Europe” and not “France.” For centrists like Saint-Martin – he was one of the first to join Macron’s fledging En Marcheparty in 2016 – France and the EU are indistinguishable.
Macron’s predecessor (and mentor), Francois Hollande once accused him of “believing in nothing and having no conviction.” That is not true. Macron has one unshakeable conviction, and that is the EU.
It is why he won’t let Brexit go, taking every opportunity to savage Britain’s decision to leave the bloc. Twice during his recent state visit he went on the attack. Britons were “sold a lie” over Brexit he said at one point, adding on another occasion that the country “was stronger when part of the EU.”
As yet there has been no response the Elysee to von der Leyen’s trade deal. Perhaps Macron is still working out how best to spin the fact that Britain’s tariff rate with the USA is 10 percent.
Marine Le Pen lost little time in pointing this out, posting on X that the EU “has obtained worse conditions than the United Kingdom.” The leader of the National Rally described the deal as “a political, economic and moral fiasco” and said that that “this form of globalization, which denies and destroys sovereignty, has been outdated for many years.”
The majority of the French agree with her. In an interview with the BBC in 2018, Macron admitted that if given the choice his people would probably follow Britain out of the EU. This is one reason why he has been so determined to make life difficult for post-Brexit Britain: pour encourager les autres.
Macron’s strategy has been partially successful. A poll last year revealed that 62 percent of the French are opposed to Frexit. The bad news for the president is that 69 percent of them have a bad opinion of the EU.
The poll was conducted a month before the European elections, which resulted in a resounding victory for Le Pen’s Eurosceptic party and a humiliating defeat for Macron’s Europhile movement.
When Le Pen reached the second round of the 2017 presidential election it was with a promise to quit the EU. Two years later she abandoned that position and vowed to reform the bloc from within. Her party won’t return to Frexit, but it will increase its Euroskepticism between now and the 2027 election. The same goes for the hard-left’s Jean-Luc Melenchon, who loathes Brussels as much as Le Pen. Bruno Retailleau, the leader of the center-right Republicans, is also a long-standing critic of the EU’s ambition and voted against the EU Constitution in France’s 2005 referendum. That result, he said in a 2020 interview, along with Brexit, “have shown one and the same thing: Europeans do not want a federal Europe.”
Across France, enmity towards the EU has strengthened in the last year. The Mercosur trade deal agreed with South America in December is widely unpopular and France’s failure to control its borders is blamed on Brussels.
The French are demoralized and angrier than ever with their ruling elite. A citizens’ collective called “Bloquons tout!” (Block everything) is using social media to mobilize people for a day of protest on September 10. “Boycott, disobedience, and solidarity” is their rallying cry and they are urging people to take to the streets across France.
Will it achieve anything? Probably not. After all, what’s the point of protesting in Paris when all the big decisions about France’s future are made in Brussels.
UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, French President Emmanuel Macron and the rest of Europe’s leaders are clear about what they want to see in Gaza: an immediate ceasefire, the release of the 50 remaining hostages in Hamas’s grasp, an acceleration of aid supplies and an end to a nearly two-year war that has turned the coastal enclave into a real-life version of Dante’s Inferno. Macron went one step further several days ago, announcing that France will recognize an independent Palestinian state at next month’s UN General Assembly meetings in New York. Starmer, under pressure from Labour backbenchers, is moving in a similar, albeit more conditional, direction.
Compare this to President Trump, who often has trouble articulating what US policy goals in Gaza are and what he actually envisions happening there.
The confusion started weeks into his second term, when Trump, hosting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House, shocked the world by telling everybody that his grand plan for the war-shattered Palestinian territory was to expel the roughly two million Palestinians who lived there to make room for a bunch of resorts and spas. The Trump administration insisted that this plan – if you could call it that – was based the president’s humanitarian motives. It was simply too dangerous and chaotic for Palestinians to continue living in Gaza, the White House said.
It didn’t take long before Trump’s idea collapsed. Palestinians were universally opposed to the prospect of what would be a forced dislocation. Arab states like Egypt and Jordan, who would be relied on to take in the bulk of the Palestinians, vocally denounced it. The Arab League proposed an alternative that would keep the population in select areas of Gaza temporarily to buy time for a massive rebuilding to the tune of $53 billion. As the months went by, Trump largely moved on, claiming credit for compelling the Arab world to offer up their own ideas.
Then, in March, Trump green-lit Netanyahu’s decision to resume the war after a six-week truce suspended hostilities with Hamas. That was the same truce that then-President Elect Trump vocally supported, and which his own envoy, Steve Witkoff, helped broker back in January. The ceasefire bought some quiet in Gaza, paved the way for a partial release of hostages and provided time for the two parties to negotiate a long-lasting end to the conflict. Netanyahu, however, was never particularly enthralled with the ceasefire, likely only signed on the dotted line because Trump insisted on his cooperation and believed – accurately – that Washington would eventually support a return to war. Whether this was a bid by Trump to increase the pressure on Hamas to sign a deal on Israel’s terms or due to frustration with the entire diplomatic process playing out at the time was unclear.
Trump’s twists and turns on Gaza have only gotten more feverish since then. On some days, he appears willing to buck Israel, such as when he authorized Adam Boehler, his hostage envoy, to negotiate directly with Hamas in an attempt to get the last American hostage out of the enclave (it worked; Edan Alexander returned home in May). On other days, he doesn’t mention Gaza at all, viewing it as Israel’s problem to solve. Then a week passes and Trump sounds awfully like Netanyahu, as if he had a metamorphosis in his sleep, telling the Israel Defense Forces to “finish the job” and egging on the Israelis to push for a military solution to Hamas that simply doesn’t exist.
This week, Trump sounds quite different, favoring his humanitarian side yet again. Asked whether he agreed with Netanyahu that there was no starvation in Gaza, the president said no and reiterated that everybody needed to step up – including the Israelis – to ensure food got into the area. “We can save a lot of people, I mean some of those kids,” Trump remarked. “That’s real starvation; I see it and you can’t fake that. So we’re going to be even more involved.” Even so, Trump largely blamed Hamas for stealing the humanitarian shipments, this despite the IDF’s own officers acknowledging in an internal assessment that evidence for aid diversion is lacking.
All of this unleashes a swirl of questions, none of which we have answers too. Indeed, it’s likely Trump doesn’t have answers for them either. And that’s a big part of the problem.
First and foremost, is Trump really committed to becoming the so-called peacemaker he packaged himself to be on the campaign trail? Right now, at least with respect to Gaza, it doesn’t look like it. He says one thing and does another. He castigates Israel for the humanitarian abomination that is unfolding under its watch but nevertheless continues to implement a US policy that defers to Netanyahu, who has demonstrated no interest in a peace agreement short of an outright surrender by Hamas. This is especially surprising because Trump knows he possesses leverage over the Israeli premier; it was only a month ago when Trump dressed down Israel in front of the cameras for threatening the ceasefire with Iran he announced hours earlier. The Israelis got the angry message, and the ceasefire has held to the present day. Is Gaza some kind of exception to the rule in Trump’s mind?
Another question we should ask: is Trump content to write-off Gaza as a problem Israel and the Arab world have to manage on their own? This would be a reasonable position to take; the United States, after all, doesn’t have core interests at stake in Gaza like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon and Israel do. The last thing Washington should be doing is plunging deeper into the Gaza muck. Yet time and again, Trump is content with following Netanyahu’s lead on this issue, to the point where one genuinely wonders whether he understands that American and Israeli interests aren’t completely aligned.
Trump doesn’t know what he wants. This serves Netanyahu’s strategy just fine.
