Lawfare Against the Populist Right, By Richard Miller (Londonistan)
Lawfare refers to the strategic use of legal systems and processes to achieve political, ideological, or social goals, often by targeting opponents with lawsuits, investigations, or legal restrictions to hinder their activities, damage their reputation, or drain their resources. In the context of politics, lawfare is frequently used to delegitimise or weaken adversaries, particularly those who challenge the established political order, such as populist movements.
The populist Right in France is primarily represented by parties like the National Rally (Rassemblement National, RN), led by Marine Le Pen, and to a lesser extent, other figures like Éric Zemmour and his Reconquête Party. These groups have gained significant traction in recent years by focusing on issues such as immigration, national identity, sovereignty, and opposition to the European Union. The RN, in particular, has become a major political force, consistently performing well in elections, including the 2022 presidential election where Le Pen reached the second round against Emmanuel Macron, and the 2024 European Parliament elections where the RN secured a strong showing.
The populist Right's rise has alarmed France's political establishment, including centrist and Left-wing parties, as well as much of the media and intellectual elite. This has led to various strategies to counter their influence, one of which is lawfare.
Marine Le Pen and the National Rally have faced numerous legal challenges over the years, often framed by critics as attempts to undermine their political legitimacy. One prominent case involves allegations of misuse of European Parliament funds. In 2015, the European Parliament accused the RN (then called the National Front) of misusing €7 million in EU funds by paying party staff for work unrelated to their parliamentary duties. This led to a long-running investigation, with Le Pen and other RN members facing charges of "embezzlement of public funds."
In 2024, Le Pen went on trial in Paris over these allegations. The trial was widely seen as politically charged, with Le Pen and her supporters arguing that it was a deliberate attempt by the establishment to tarnish her image ahead of the 2027 presidential election. The RN has claimed that similar financial practices were common among other political parties but were not prosecuted with the same vigour, suggesting selective enforcement.
Additionally, Le Pen has faced legal scrutiny for other issues, such as a 2015 case where she was fined for inciting racial hatred after comparing Muslim street prayers to the Nazi occupation of France. While she was acquitted of the most serious charges, the case was seen by her supporters as an attempt to silence her critique of immigration and multiculturalism.
The RN has also been targeted with investigations into its campaign financing. In 2014, the party secured a loan from a Russian bank, which raised questions about foreign influence in French politics. This led to legal and regulatory scrutiny, with opponents accusing the RN of being a conduit for Russian interests. While no definitive evidence of wrongdoing was found, the investigation kept the party on the defensive and fuelled negative media coverage.
More recently, in the lead-up to the 2022 election, French authorities investigated the RN's campaign spending, alleging irregularities. These investigations, while not resulting in major convictions, have been criticised by the RN as a form of lawfare designed to distract from their political message and drain their resources on legal defense.
France has strict laws on hate speech, incitement to violence, and Holocaust denial, which have been used to target populist Right figures. For example, Éric Zemmour, a far-right commentator and politician, has faced multiple lawsuits for his statements on immigration and Islam. In 2020, Zemmour was fined for inciting racial hatred after comments on a French TV. These legal actions, while grounded in French law, are often seen by the populist Right as attempts to censor their views and limit their ability to speak freely on controversial issues.
The French government has also used anti-terrorism and public safety laws to monitor and restrict the activities of far-Right groups. For instance, in 2021, the government dissolved Génération Identitaire, a far-Right identitarian group, accusing it of promoting discrimination and violence. While the group was not directly tied to the RN, the move was seen as part of a broader effort to crack down on the far-Right ecosystem, which indirectly affects the populist Right's broader movement.
The French establishment, including Macron's centrist government and Left-wing parties, has often framed the populist Right as a threat to democracy and republican values. This narrative has been used to justify legal and regulatory actions against them. For example, during the 2022 presidential campaign, Macron repeatedly warned of the dangers of "extremism," implicitly targeting Le Pen, which some saw as laying the groundwork for further legal challenges.
The French media, which is largely aligned with centrist and Left-wing perspectives, has amplified these legal cases, often portraying the RN and its leaders as corrupt or dangerous. This media-legal nexus is a key component of what the populist Right describes as lawfare, as it creates a feedback loop of legal scrutiny and public condemnation.
The use of lawfare has had mixed effects on the populist Right in France. On one hand, it has drained their resources, forced them to focus on legal defence rather than campaigning, and damaged their public image among some voters. On the other hand, it has also galvanised their base, who see these legal actions as proof of an elitist conspiracy against them. Le Pen, for instance, has used her legal battles to portray herself as a victim of the establishment, a narrative that resonates with her supporters and reinforces her anti-system credentials.
The populist Right's claim that they are victims of lawfare in France can be defended on several grounds, particularly from the perspective of fairness, political strategy, and the broader implications for democracy.
The RN and its supporters argue that they are disproportionately targeted compared to other political parties. For example, while the RN has been investigated for its use of EU funds, similar practices by other parties, such as Macron's La République En Marche, have not faced the same level of scrutiny. This selective enforcement suggests that the legal system is being used as a political weapon rather than an impartial arbiter of justice.
The timing of legal actions often aligns with key political moments, such as elections, which supports the argument that these cases are strategically motivated. The 2024 trial over EU funds, for instance, came at a time when Le Pen was positioning herself for future electoral contests, raising questions about the intent behind the prosecution.
The use of hate speech laws against figures like Le Pen and Zemmour can be seen as an attempt to stifle legitimate political debate. While their rhetoric is often provocative, it addresses real concerns among a significant portion of the French population, such as immigration and cultural identity. By criminalising these views, the state risks alienating a large segment of the electorate and driving them further toward radicalisation.
The populist Right argues that these laws are applied unevenly, with Left-wing figures rarely facing similar consequences for inflammatory statements. This double standard undermines the credibility of the legal system and fuels the narrative of lawfare.
Lawfare can be seen as an anti-democratic tactic that seeks to weaken political opponents outside the electoral process. The RN has consistently won significant support in elections, reflecting a genuine base of popular support. By using legal means to hinder their activities, the establishment risks undermining the democratic principle that political battles should be fought at the ballot box, not in the courtroom.
The dissolution of far-Right groups like Génération Identitaire, can also be interpreted as an overreach that targets the broader populist right ecosystem. This creates a chilling effect on political organising and activism, which disproportionately affects the right.
The populist Right has effectively used the lawfare narrative to strengthen its position as an anti-establishment force. Le Pen's portrayal of herself as a victim of a corrupt system resonates with voters who feel marginalised by the political elite. In this sense, lawfare may backfire by reinforcing the very grievances that fuel populist movements in the first place.
The media's role in amplifying these legal cases often plays into the hands of the populist right, as it reinforces their claim of being unfairly targeted by a biased establishment. This dynamic has helped the RN maintain its relevance despite legal challenges.
The populist right's legal troubles are not unique to France. Populist movements across Europe, such as the Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) in Germany or the Freedom Party in Austria, have also faced legal scrutiny. This suggests that the issue may be less about lawfare and more about the inherent tensions between populist ideologies and the legal frameworks of liberal democracies.
Lawfare in France against the populist Right, particularly the National Rally and figures like Marine Le Pen and Éric Zemmour, involves a combination of legal actions, investigations, and regulatory measures that have targeted their activities, finances, and speech. These efforts, which include high-profile cases like the EU funds trial and hate speech prosecutions, are seen by the populist Right as a deliberate strategy by the establishment to undermine their political influence and silence their message.
The populist Right's perspective on lawfare can be defended as a critique of selective prosecution, a defence of free speech, and a warning about the anti-democratic implications of using legal means to suppress political opponents.
"Elections are supposed to be decided at the ballot box, not in the courtroom -- unless you're French, or, in this country, a liberal.
What a judge in France has just done by disqualifying Marine Le Pen from running in that nation's next presidential election is what Democrats dream of doing here.
The controversial populist was ahead in the polls, but now Le Pen isn't even eligible to run, thanks to a court that found her guilty of using European Union funds to pay for political expenses.
She insists the spending was legitimate, but as things stand French voters won't get to decide for themselves who's right.
Americans might feel safe from this kind of lawfare -- when New York County District Attorney Alvin Bragg went after President Donald Trump on campaign-finance technicalities, he won his case but lost his gambit.
The nakedly political prosecution only added to the momentum propelling Trump back to office, and in our country voters, not judges, get the final word: Bragg's convictions couldn't stop the Republican from running, and winning.
Yet, in many ways, the lawfare Democrats waged during and after Trump's first term succeeded.
The price of serving in a Republican administration has gone up, with incoming staffers urged to buy legal insurance to cover the costs of defending against lawfare.
"It's edging into absolute requirement territory," an official who served in Trump's first administration told NBC News in January.
"It would be reckless" to do without the insurance, he continued, "if you have any assets to protect -- the house, college funds, whatever."
The legal bills from complying with -- never mind fighting -- federal investigations or congressional inquiries can be ruinous, as first-term Trump personnel discovered.
Lawfare isn't just a legal weapon, it's economic warfare, and the threat of it is a deterrent to anyone considering working for Trump.
But it won't stop with Trump: Whatever succeeds against his administration will be used against every future Republican White House, too.
You don't even have to serve in government to be a target.
Some of the most powerful institutions of the legal establishment not only supported the lawfare against Trump but also, after the riot at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, punished lawyers who dared represent anyone questioning the 2020 election.
In one of the defining early moments of the American Revolution, John Adams went to court to defend the British soldiers who perpetrated the Boston Massacre.
Even they deserved respectable legal representation -- but Trump and his associates, in the eyes of Big Law, did not.
Once back in office, Trump's response was to threaten these powerful firms with losing access to government privileges, from security clearances to permission to enter federal buildings -- the settings for their lobbying activity.
(It's surprising that progressives, who often view lobbying as inherently corrupt, didn't cheer Trump on for this.)
Firms like Paul Weiss and Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher and Flom were quick to come to agreements with the president on how they could change their ways.
Yet what happens once Trump is gone?
Had he lost last year's election, Trump would likely have been sent to prison by his enemies, and other Republicans would have been next on the legal hit list.
If Democrats win back the House next year, they'll use Congress' investigative powers to turn this administration inside-out, forcing testimony on every contentious policy and practice that Trump officials have implemented since Day 1.
And if the Republicans don't hold the White House in 2028, the kinds of political prosecutions that would have happened this year if Kamala Harris had won will take place four years from now.
Voters said no to lawfare as loudly as possible last November, awarding Trump every presidential battleground state, a popular-vote plurality and GOP control of both chambers of Congress.
But to break bad habits of lawfare will take more than one election cycle.
Democrats themselves have begun complaining that Biden officials can't get the legal representation they want because law firms are now frightened of Trump.
The left's lawfare is turning America into the legal equivalent of a "Mad Max" wasteland, where the instigators of this brutal abuse of law are themselves prey to the forces they've unleashed.
Trump is right to pressure the law firms, and they should be quick to admit their mistakes rather than repeating them -- either against Republicans in the future or Democrats now.
As Washington Post columnist Jason Willick has argued, Congress should also step up, codifying into law the Justice Department's guidelines against political prosecutions and legislating to stop state officials like Alvin Bragg from bringing cases using federal campaign-finances laws, which because of their intricacy are easily weaponized.
Yet the only sure and lasting remedy for lawfare is to beat it at the ballot box, and thankfully, we Americans, unlike the French, still get to have our say there."
Comments