The recent disqualification of Marine Le Pen, the leader of France'sNational Rally (RN) party, from running for president in the 2027 election, is a glaring example of lawfare—a strategic use of legal systems to target and neutralise political opponents. On March 31, 2025, a Paris court convicted Le Pen of embezzling over €4 million in European Union funds, banning her from public office for five years, fining her €100,000, and sentencing her to a four-year prison term (two years suspended, two under house arrest). This ruling, which Le Pen has called a "political assassination," effectively bars her from the 2027 presidential race, where she was the frontrunner with polls showing her at 36-37% support. The decision, backed by what appears to be a coordinated effort by judicial and political elites, reveals a broader war against populist figures like Le Pen, who challenge the establishment's grip on power. This elite-driven campaign to silence dissent through legal overreach is a dangerous assault on democracy, and it deserves to be slammed for its hypocrisy, authoritarianism, and betrayal of the French people.
The disqualification of Marine Le Pen is not an isolated incident but part of a systematic effort by European elites—judges, prosecutors, and centrist politicians—to suppress populist and nationalist leaders who threaten their globalist agenda. Le Pen, a vocal critic of the European Union, mass immigration, and multiculturalism, has spent decades building the National Rally into a mainstream political force, distancing it from the legacy of her father, Jean-Marie Le Pen. Her efforts paid off: by 2024, the RN became the largest single party in France's lower house, and Le Pen herself was poised to challenge Emmanuel Macron's successor in 2027, having come close to defeating him in 2022 with 41.5% of the vote. This rising popularity made her a prime target for the establishment, which has a vested interest in maintaining the status quo of EU integration, open borders, and centralised power.
The charges against Le Pen stem from alleged misuse of EU funds between 2004 and 2016, when the RN (then the National Front) reportedly used money earmarked for European Parliament assistants to pay party staff in France. The court, led by Judge Bénédicte de Perthuis, ruled that Le Pen was "at the heart" of a "system" of embezzlement, costing the EU €4.1-4.5 million. While the court acknowledged that Le Pen did not personally profit— the funds enriched the party, not her personal accounts—the severity of the punishment, particularly the immediate five-year ban on running for office, suggests a political motive. The timing of the conviction, just two years before the 2027 election, and the decision to enforce the ban despite Le Pen's appeal, further fuel suspicions of lawfare. Typically, French law presumes innocence until appeals are exhausted, but the court's use of a "provisional execution" measure to bar Le Pen immediately deviates from this norm, a move critics argue was designed to eliminate her as a political threat.
This case fits into a broader pattern of European elites using legal mechanisms to target populist leaders. In France, the judiciary has increasingly flexed its muscle against political figures who challenge the establishment. The 2016 anti-corruption laws, which allow for immediate political bans, have been weaponized to sideline opponents, as seen with Le Pen and other right-wing figures like Brigitte Bareges, a former mayor banned in 2021 for graft. Across Europe, similar tactics have been deployed: Hungary's Viktor Orbán has faced EU sanctions and legal challenges for his nationalist policies, Italy's Matteo Salvini was prosecuted for blocking migrant boats, and Brazil's Jair Bolsonaro was disqualified from running for office in 2023 on dubious grounds. These cases share a common thread: judicial overreach aimed at neutralising popular figures who oppose the globalist, progressive consensus. Contrary to many conservative takes, the law has become a political weapon.
The French establishment's fear of Le Pen is palpable. Macron's coalition, Ensemble, performed poorly in the 2024 EU elections, where the RN secured 31% of the vote, prompting Macron to call snap elections in a desperate bid to curb Le Pen's momentum. When that failed, the centrist and Left-wing parties formed a tactical alliance with the conventional right to isolate the RN, despite its broad public support. This political manoeuvring, combined with the judicial ruling, paints a picture of a coordinated elite effort to suppress Le Pen's influence. The fact that the EU itself initiated the investigation into Le Pen's finances adds another layer of suspicion, given her long-standing advocacy for "Frexit" and her criticism of the EU's overreach. The EU has a clear interest in silencing anti-EU voices, as seen in its punitive actions against Poland and Hungary over rule-of-law disputes.
Global reactions to Le Pen's conviction further highlight the elite's agenda. Nationalist leaders like Orbán, Salvini, and Brazil's Bolsonaro, condemned the ruling as judicial activism, with Orbán declaring "Je suis Marine!" and the Kremlin calling it a "violation of democratic norms." Even U.S. figures like Donald Trump and Elon Musk weighed in, with Trump calling the conviction a "very big deal" and comparing it to his own legal battles, while Musk labelled it an "establishment plot" by the "radical left" to jail opponents when they can't win democratically. These voices point to a shared concern: the use of lawfare to undermine democratic choice.
This war by the elites against Marine Le Pen is a shameful betrayal of democratic principles, and it deserves to be slammed for its hypocrisy, authoritarianism, and disregard for the will of the French people. First, the hypocrisy of the French and EU establishments is staggering. Misuse of EU funds is a widespread issue— a 2017 European Parliament report found that 42% of MEPs had irregularities in their staffing budgets—yet Le Pen's case was pursued with unusual zeal. Centrist and Left-leaning MEPs, including some from Macron's Renaissance party, have faced similar allegations but escaped comparable punishment. The selective enforcement of the law against Le Pen reeks of political bias, undermining the judiciary's claim to impartiality. If the elites were truly committed to financial integrity, they would prosecute all offenders equally, not just those who threaten their power.
Second, the authoritarian nature of this lawfare is chilling. By banning Le Pen from running for office, the court has effectively disenfranchised millions of French voters who support her and the RN. Democracy is about letting the people choose their leaders, not allowing unelected judges to decide who can and cannot run. The court's justification—that Le Pen's election would cause "democratic public unrest"—is a perverse inversion of democratic principles. It assumes that the French people cannot be trusted to make their own decisions and that the judiciary must intervene to "protect" democracy by suppressing it. This paternalistic arrogance is a hallmark of elitism, reflecting a deep contempt for the electorate. Le Pen's supporters, who number in the millions, are not wrong to see this as a "political death sentence," as she herself described it—a deliberate attempt to kill her career and her party's momentum.
Third, the ruling exposes the elites' fear of losing control. Le Pen's rise represents a broader populist wave across Europe, driven by frustration with globalisation, immigration, and the erosion of national sovereignty. The RN's success—winning 31% in the 2024 EU elections and becoming the largest party in France's lower house—shows that her message resonates with a significant portion of the population. Instead of engaging with these concerns through policy and debate, the elites have resorted to legal warfare to eliminate the competition. This cowardice not only undermines democracy but also risks backfiring: as Le Pen's protégé Jordan Bardella noted, the verdict could "increase support" for the RN by fuelling a victimhood narrative that resonates with voters tired of establishment overreach. History shows that suppressing popular movements often strengthens them—look at Trump, whose support surged after each legal attack, or even Le Pen herself, whose party has grown despite decades of opposition.
Finally, this war on Le Pen is a betrayal of the French people's right to self-determination. The elites claim to defend "democratic life," as Judge de Perthuis stated, but their actions do the opposite. By barring Le Pen, they are telling French voters that their preferences don't matter, that the establishment will decide who gets to lead. This is not democracy; it's oligarchy dressed up as justice. The French people deserve better than a system where judges and bureaucrats collude to protect their own power at the expense of the public's voice. The RN's financial troubles in 2014, which the court cited as a motive for the embezzlement, were partly due to the party's exclusion from mainstream funding channels—a form of systemic discrimination by the same elites now punishing Le Pen for finding alternative means to survive. The hypocrisy is infuriating: the establishment creates the conditions for the RN's financial struggles, then uses those struggles to justify banning its leader.
The disqualification of Marine Le Pen is a textbook case of lawfare by activist judges and political elites to destroy a popular figure who threatens their dominance. This war against Le Pen—and by extension, the millions of French voters who support her—is a disgraceful assault on democracy, marked by hypocrisy, authoritarianism, and a blatant disregard for the people's will. The French and EU establishments may think they've neutralised Le Pen, but they've only exposed their own desperation and illegitimacy. If history is any guide, this heavy-handed tactic will backfire, galvanising support for Le Pen and the RN as symbols of resistance against a corrupt elite. The French people should be allowed to choose their leaders, not have them dictated by a self-serving judiciary. This elite war on populism isn't just undemocratic, it's a pathetic display of fear from a ruling class that knows its days are numbered.
https://www.infowars.com/posts/the-western-elites-war-against-democracy-is-now-out-in-the-open
"The French authorities insist that the conviction of Marine Le Pen, which disqualifies the leader of the National Rally (RN) from standing for election as president of France, is not political. No, they say, it simply reflects the neutral 'rule of law' and the 'independence of the judicial system.'
Really? Strange then, that supposedly 'independent' judges and officials across Europe and America have all reached remarkably similar verdicts against right-wing politicians.
It looks less like judicial independence and the old-fashioned rule of law than a globalist establishment plot to use the courts as a political weapon against the rising national populist revolt.
The serious fraud here is not Le Pen's party allegedly embezzling EU funds. It is the liberal elites' fraudulent claim that they are defending democracy—by denying people the freedom to vote for whom they choose.
The one thing which all these unelected judges are truly 'independent' of is any democratic accountability for their actions. Their politicised version of the 'rule of law' is a denial of the rule of the people.
It is now undeniable that the Western establishment is hiding behind the law while waging a political war against popular democracy. The high-profile show trial of Marine Le Pen confirms that their anti-democratic crusade is now being conducted out in the open. It is time for us all to take sides, and take a stand.
You do not need to be an expert in jurisprudence or a conspiracy theorist to see the obvious pattern of political judgements against national conservative politicians across the West.
So, French judges have just convicted Le Pen and thus ruled her out of running in the 2027 presidential election, for which she was easily leading the polls.
This judgement, media supporters of the EU establishment will try to tell us, is of course entirely unconnected to the rulings of the Romanian courts, which cancelled their presidential election after right-wing nationalist Calin Georgescu won the first round, and then barred him from standing again.
Those Romanian verdicts have been upheld by the European Court of Human Rights, which we know is also completely 'independent' of the wishes of any voter in any European nation.
None of this, they will insist, has anything to do with events in Germany, where court judgements that brand the populist Alternative fur Deutschland guilty of being far-right extremists have emboldened other parties to call for an outright ban on the AfD, which is now the choice of millions of German voters and vying for national leadership in the polls.
There are many other similar examples of state and European courts trying to obstruct or outlaw national-populist parties and politicians, from Italy and Poland to Slovenia. Meanwhile the EU courts continue to target Hungary's elected conservative government as if it was Europe's most-wanted criminal conspiracy.
On the EU's doorstep, the UK Labour government—led by former top state prosecutor Sir Keir Starmer—has cancelled local elections due to take place in several English counties next month, denying more than five million Brits their right to vote. Labour insists of course that this suspension of democracy is a purely technical matter, to do with their plans to reorganise regional government; we are expected to believe that it has nothing at all to do with the fact that Nigel Farage's insurgent Reform UK was expected to win in several of the counties where elections have been cancelled.
And the war on democracy doesn't stop at Europe's borders. Across the Atlantic, Donald Trump had to defeat various courts' campaigns to discredit and disbar him before he could stand for re-election as U.S. president. Since he won that election and assumed office in January, President Trump's radical reforms—from stopping USAID spending to slashing government waste—have repeatedly been balked by a collection of politically liberal district court judges. These entitled pygmies of the legal system appear to assume that they should have more authority over U.S. affairs than a leader doing what he was elected to do by more than 77 million Americans.
Call me an old cynic, but I find it hard to swallow that this is all a series of coincidences. If something looks and sounds this much like a campaign of political lawfare against populist politicians across the West, then that's almost certainly what it is.
Conservatives have of course always supported the rule of law as the basis of a stable and secure society. It is time to accept, however, that the 'rule of law' the authorities call on today no longer means what it did. It amounts instead to the rule of a politicised judiciary, acting as the agents of liberal globalist elites.
For their part, exhausted old Western political elites which now lack the authority or support to rule confidently in their own names are hiding behind the 'rule of law' and the grandeur of the judiciary. Fearful of the electorate and unable to combat the rising populist revolt, they instead seek to outlaw the opposition.
These judges are no longer 'above politics.' We are witnessing politics being brought into the courts as never before in the modern West. And in the process, big political battles are being removed from the arena of democratic debate.
What does Western democracy really mean if voters are denied their choice of candidates, or those elected are denied the chance to fulfil their promises to the electorate?
As I have argued on europeanconservative.com before, these questions come back to the origins of the concept of democracy in ancient Athens, as a marriage of the demos—the people—and kratos—power or control. The aim of the oligarchy is always to keep those two as far apart as possible, to maintain its monopoly on power. The increasing concentration of kratos in the courts is the clearest case of the anti-democratic instincts of Western oligarchs.
Outrageous assaults such as the Le Pen show trial may well backfire and lead to a further upsurge in support for national populists. People do not like being told who they are allowed to vote for. The populist revolt against the old order cannot be ended by the stroke of a judge's pen. But we have yet to see just how far the establishment is prepared to go to contain the threat to its power.
It is time for all those who want a chance to shape the future of a free Europe to take a stand and fully embrace the populist revolt. Democracy remains our one hope of challenging the globalist elites who have taken control of Western institutions, from the courts to the universities.
The stakes are high. As Frank Furedi argues elsewhere on europeanconservative.com this week, the West is in crisis as the old world order is pulled apart. It is time to decide what we stand for and what it is that we want to defend. Reclaiming and advancing the founding principles of democracy, popular sovereignty, and free speech will be key to securing the future.
That is why, when it comes to the confrontation between state or EU courts and national populist politicians, we must say without conditions: Je Suis Marine, Donald, Viktor, or whoever is next in the legal firing line. The war for Western democracy is now one in earnest. No surrender."