A Misappropriation of Public Funds Estimated at €2.9 Million
On Monday, March 31, the verdict was delivered for Marine Le Pen, a leading figure of the National Rally, the French far-right party: a €100,000 fine, a four-year prison sentence—two of which to be served under electronic surveillance—and five years of ineligibility. This ruling, crucial in the run-up to the 2027 presidential elections, follows the European parliamentary assistants case, in which the accused were found to have misused public funds by paying parliamentary assistants for tasks that allegedly served the party’s interests rather than European legislative work. Eight other National Rally MEPs were also found guilty of embezzling public funds, while twelve parliamentary assistants were convicted of receiving misappropriated public money. According to French judicial authorities, the total damages amount to €2.9 million.
Personal Interest Above Justice
Immediately after her conviction, the party leader denied any wrongdoing—despite the findings of the French justice system. Reacting aggressively, Marine Le Pen and other figures from the far-right denounced a biased and politicized justice system, portraying themselves as victims of a political plot aimed at barring the former presidential candidate from the 2027 race. By suggesting that the French judiciary is being used for political ends, Marine Le Pen is clearly trying to serve her own interests: dodging responsibility while maintaining her position on the political chessboard. Her main argument: the twelve million voters who supported her party in the legislative elections, making it the leading political force in the country. Instead of accepting responsibility, the National Rally leader and her supporters have launched a campaign to delegitimize the French judiciary. In this offensive, she has gone so far as to personally target judges, accusing them of being part of a “corrupt system.” The judiciary, on its part, insists that the evidence collected during the investigation is solid and based on tangible facts, free from political interference. Marine Le Pen is employing a dangerous strategy—one that undermines public trust in institutions and weakens the very foundations of our democracy. It is worth remembering that no one is above the law. Justice must not be a tool of convenience, and systematic challenges to judicial decisions by political leaders severely erode the social contract. If Marine Le Pen truly claims to defend the French people and restore state authority, she should start by respecting judicial authority.
Widespread Support and a Climate of Distrust
Despite her conviction, Marine Le Pen has received considerable support within her party and beyond, even internationally. Jordan Bardella, President of the National Rally, decried a “weaponized justice,” while other figures from the right and far-right also voiced their solidarity. Even her voter base appears to stand firmly behind her, interpreting the ruling as proof that Marine Le Pen unsettles the “powerful.” On the international stage, several far-right leaders also defended her. Matteo Salvini, Italy’s Deputy Prime Minister and leader of Lega per Salvini Premier, declared: “Those who fear the judgment of voters often seek comfort in that of the courts.” In Hungary, Viktor Orbán expressed his support by calling the trial an “anti-democratic maneuver.” In the United States, figures close to Donald Trump described the affair as a “witch hunt,” similar to what the former U.S. president allegedly faced.
An Ambiguous Stance from the French Government
In France, the Prime Minister himself expressed doubts about the ineligibility sentence. He stated that the decision “raises questions” and that it is essential to “ensure that justice is not seen as a player in the political game.” Such a statement casts doubt and feeds the narrative that the ruling may have politically questionable motives. By failing to unequivocally affirm the judiciary’s decision, the government contributes to the erosion of public confidence in institutions and calls into question the impartiality of judicial power.
Presidential Candidates Must Be Exemplary
The presidency of the Republic is not just any office. It demands unimpeachable integrity and exemplary conduct. This is not just a matter of image but of principle: how can citizens be expected to obey the law when those who aspire to the highest office feel entitled to bypass it? Marine Le Pen’s case demonstrates how some political figures attempt to normalize condemnable practices. By trying to deflect attention from her conviction through accusations against the justice system, she is refusing to be held accountable. This strategy closely resembles that of other populist leaders who, when facing legal challenges, opt to discredit institutions rather than comply with them. Furthermore, this stance stands in stark contradiction to the National Rally’s historical platform, which has long promoted harsh sentencing, unwavering support for law enforcement, and tough-on-crime policies. For years, Marine Le Pen and her allies have argued that presidential candidates should have a clean criminal record. Yet now, when she herself faces legal consequences, she turns on the very justice system she once championed. This blatant hypocrisy highlights the opportunism at the heart of the National Rally’s rhetoric.
Toward a Jordan Bardella Presidential Run in 2027?
At 29 years old, he is seen as the party’s designated successor for the upcoming presidential elections. Bardella enjoys strong popularity among National Rally supporters, especially among younger voters. However, he still has to prove his ability to meet the challenge and fully embody the role of a national leader in a tense political context.
A Threat to the Rule of Law
The Marine Le Pen case goes far beyond a simple judicial conviction: it raises critical questions about how political leaders respond to institutions. By attacking the justice system instead of taking responsibility, Marine Le Pen and her supporters undermine the rule of law and fuel a broader climate of mistrust.
SOURCES: