US offer of support seen as liability by Le Pen's far-right French party
A US State Department delegation met with senior officials from France's National Rally (RN) in late May, but their offer to publicly support figurehead Marine Le Pen after a court barred her from office was rebuffed by the far-right party, two sources said.
Le Pen, one of the most prominent figures of the European far right, was a frontrunner for the 2027 French presidential election before a court in March banned her from the contest after she was convicted of embezzling EU funds.
US President Donald Trump and other right-wing leaders were quick to rally behind her, alleging political censorship.
The US delegation that visited Paris was led by Samuel Samson, an official at the State Department's Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labour (DRL). He is part of an influx of young conservatives rising up the ranks of Trump's administration.
Samson met with senior RN officials but Le Pen and her popular No. 2, party president Jordan Bardella, were not present, the two sources said.
The aim, one of the sources said, was to discuss ways the Trump administration could offer public support to Le Pen, who wants to overturn her conviction.
However, the offer was declined, the two sources said. The RN officials said an endorsement from Trump's State Department could hurt the party's hopes of winning the 2027 election, one of the sources said.
The RN officials also told Samson there was no need to support Le Pen as Bardella stands a good chance of winning if she cannot run, the source said.
A longtime pariah for many in France, Le Pen has worked hard to clean up the image of her eurosceptic nationalist party, pitching it more broadly as a defender of family incomes, jobs and French identity.
A senior State Department official, speaking on condition of anonymity, confirmed the meeting took place, but disputed the characterisation that an offer for help was rebuffed.
The official said RN representatives "indicated the fact that they need to act in their own interest as independent parties."
The RN welcomed Washington's engagement, the official added.
The RN's response is an illustration of how despite areas of ideological proximity, Trump's support is seen as a liability by some European nationalists.
A source close to Le Pen confirmed the meeting, saying "support for our party from a foreign administration isn't exactly something we're accustomed to."
The RN did not respond to a request for comment.
Samson's meeting with RN officials and their rejection of US support have not been reported.
Earlier this month, the DRL said on X that its officials "met with French officials, political parties, and other stakeholders to reaffirm a shared commitment to free speech, democratic choice, and religious freedom ... Echoing (Trump) we are concerned by those in Europe 'using lawfare to silence free speech and censor their political opponent.'"
Polls show a majority of French people did not take issue with her ban.
The day before the RN meeting, writing on the State Department's Substack, Samson cited Le Pen's case as evidence that "Europe has devolved into a hotbed of digital censorship, mass migration, restrictions on religious freedom, and numerous other assaults on democratic self-governance."
The State Department official rejected criticism from Trump's opponents that his administration was only concerned about the "censorship" and human rights of far-right figures.
"The unfortunate reality of the current human rights discourse is that it is politicized and it does cherry pick," the official said, adding that the Trump administration was simply trying to "fix" that.
Samson has been the driving force behind a push to support UK anti-abortion protesters, one of the sources said. In March, the DRL wrote on X, he met with anti-abortion activist Livia Tossici-Bolt. She was found guilty in April of breaching an order which banned protest outside a clinic in southern England.
His stated concerns about a European attack on free speech echo those made by US Vice President JD Vance during a bombshell speech in Munich earlier this year.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Straits Times
2 hours ago
- New Straits Times
With Iran, risk-taker Trump places his biggest bet yet
Like the casino owner he once was, President Donald Trump has shown an appetite for risk during the first months of his administration. The United States airstrike on Iran, however, may represent Trump's largest gamble yet. For now, Trump appears to have won his bet that he could limit US involvement and force the parties to a ceasefire. "He wagered," said Firas Maksad, managing director for the Middle East and North Africa practice at Eurasia Group. "Things went his way." It remains to be seen whether the ceasefire will hold. Early on Tuesday, Trump expressed frustration that Israel had launched an attack on Teheran hours after the president had declared a break in the hostilities. If the agreement doesn't stick - or if Iran ultimately retaliates militarily or economically, Trump risks fragmenting the America First coalition that helped power him back into office by rendering what his movement stands for increasingly nebulous and ill-defined. "If six months from now, Iran continues to be a problem, it will grind down the MAGA coalition," said Chris Stirewalt, a political analyst with the conservative American Enterprise Institute. Trump, in a sense, had already diluted the MAGA brand, Stirewalt said, by doing what he swore on the campaign trail he wouldn't: involve the US in another conflict in the Middle East. And Trump's messaging may already show the challenges that could be faced with winning approval from his base. Last Thursday, Trump said he would take as long as two weeks to determine whether the US would join the war on Israel's side, arguing the time was needed to lower the temperature. Instead, two days later, he approved the bomber run, not only likely catching the Iranians off guard but many Americans as well. His choice to hit Iran could also pose problems for whichever Republican tries to claim his mantle in the next presidential election. "In 2028, the question of foreign intervention will be a dividing line. It will be a litmus test as people struggle to define what MAGA is," Stirewalt said. The White House largely left it to Vice-President JD Vance, one of the most isolationist members of the administration, to defend the Iranian strike on a Sunday news programme. Iran has not been the only example of where Trump has bet big and the payoff remains elusive. His on-again-off-again use of tariffs has sparked uncertainty in markets and stoked inflation fears. His efforts to slash the government bureaucracy have lost momentum with the departure of Elon Musk from his circle of advisers. His hardline immigration push sparked protests across the country. A Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Monday, and conducted before the ceasefire was announced, showed that only 36 per cent of those surveyed supported the strikes against Iran's nuclear programme. Overall, Trump's approval rating fell to 41 per cent, a new low for his second term. His foreign policy received even lower marks. Dave Hopkins, an expert on US politics at Boston College, said that Trump neglected to make a case in advance to the American people that the strike was in the country's interests. "We have not seen discussion of Iran as a major enemy of the US or a threat to the US," said Hopkins. Trump's boast that he had forced a ceasefire was part of a pattern, he added. As a candidate, Trump promised he could end the wars in Ukraine and Gaza, but has since discovered he cannot bend Moscow and Tel Aviv to his will. In fact, in striking Iran, Trump followed Israel's lead, not vice versa. The strike fits with how Trump has approached his second term, with a willingness to govern in broad strokes and act boldly without widespread public backing. He does not need to worry about facing voters again and works with a largely compliant Republican-controlled Congress. Political payback might not happen immediately, said Allison Stanger, a political scientist at Middlebury College, but could come in the form of continued civic unrest in America or Democratic gains in next year's midterm elections. "Trump's political risk isn't immediate escalation," Stanger said. "It's the slow burn of resentment he has built across multiple fronts, both foreign and domestic."
The Star
2 hours ago
- The Star
Analysis-Europe placates Trump with NATO pledges it can ill afford
LONDON (Reuters) -In their rush to retain Donald Trump's support for NATO, the alliance's European members have promised to more than double the amount of wealth they set aside for military spending. The snag is that most can ill-afford to spend 5% of output on defence - so while there will be some unpalatable sacrifices in national budgets, there will also be some creative accounting to divert existing spending to the effort. "They will not get there," Guntram Wolff, senior fellow of the Bruegel think-tank, said of the 5% goal. "If you are a highly indebted country you can't issue more debt, it means very difficult budgetary choices," he said of the hefty tax hikes or spending cuts that it would require. As a piece of political theatre, the Hague summit at least won over its intended audience: Trump himself. Amid concerns about his commitment to NATO's mutual defence clause, he said the United States stood with its European allies "all the way". While few dispute that Europe needs to do more to ensure its own security as tensions with Russia rise, the fixation on the 5% target cut short a separate debate about how it could be using its existing military budgets more efficiently, for example with national governments agreeing on joint procurement. Now it has saddled itself with pledges which - with the notable exception of Germany, whose finances are solid after years of fiscal frugality - most members will find hard to keep. To hit the 5% threshold, European Union countries, whose debt pile already tops 80% of output, would between them have to nearly triple the 325 billion euros ($377 billion) they spent on defence last year to more than 900 billion. Non-EU Britain - whose debt is 100% of output and which already pays more in debt servicing than for every spending item apart from health - would need an extra 30 billion pounds ($41 billion). "The potential losers are not just future generations saddled with huge debts, but today's societies," said Nick Witney at the European Council on Foreign Relations. "Disgruntled populations, whose sense of economic wellbeing has never recovered from the global economic crash of 2008, will likely become even easier prey forpopulist or nationalist politiciansgathering strength across Europe." GUNS OR BUTTER? To be sure, the closer a country sits next to Russia, the less domestic angst there is about finding the extra cash - Poland, the Baltics and Finland are all cases in point. Years of rivalry with neighbouring Turkey have meanwhile attuned Greek public opinion to accept higher defence spending. But Spain's Socialist Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez - whose country is alone in not expressly signing up to the new target - voiced the concerns of others when he said the goal was "incompatible with our welfare state". Slovakia, one of the central European countries whose budgets face the greatest strains from the defence build-up, has also baulked at the target, arguing that raising living standards and cutting its borrowing were equally important. Bruegel's Wolff said it remained to be seen whether countries increase their defence quotas by shaving the odd billion here and there off other areas, or whether big-ticket areas such as pensions take a sizeable hit. "But keep it in proportion - there will still be a welfare state but perhaps less generous," he said of social protections across Europe that can account for anything up to 30% of the economy. As leaders depart the Hague summit venue, the national conversations on defence will sound strikingly different to those that were had in the run-up to the gathering. The 5% breaks down into 3.5% to be spent on "core" defence - troops and weapons - and 1.5% on defence-related measures such as adapting roads and bridges to handle military vehicles. The room to wedge existing spending items into the second category will likely prove generous. In France, for example, there is discussion about whether that could include the gendarmes policing country lanes, who are formally part of the defence ministry but whose existing running costs currently lie outside the defence cost tally. The long deadlines aired for hitting the target - in some cases up to a decade - are also an opportunity for those pledges to be fudged as the political spotlight shines elsewhere. "Spending goals will simply be missed," said Witney. "The transformation required will begin to take shape, but less rapidly and less coherently than if more realistic targets had been set." ($1 = 0.7344 pounds) ($1 = 0.8613 euros) (Writing by Mark John; additional reporting by Jan Strupczewski in Brussels; Leigh Thomas in Paris; Maria Martinez in Berlin; William Schomberg in London; Eleftherios Papadimos in Athens; Anne Kauranen in Helsinki; Simon Johnson in Stockholm; Gergely Szakacs in Budapest; Jan Lopatka in Prague; Editing by Alex Richardson)
The Star
2 hours ago
- The Star
Trump says he will speak to Putin soon about ending Ukraine war
THE HAGUE (Reuters) -U.S. President Donald Trump said on Wednesday after talks with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskiy that he is considering sending more Patriot missile batteries to Ukraine to help Kyiv fend off Russian attacks. Trump said the anti-missile missiles are "very hard to get" but that "we are going to see if we can make some of them available." Trump, at a press conference after attending the annual NATO summit, said Zelenskiy would like to end the war. Trump said he will speak to Putin about it soon. "Look, Vladimir Putin really has to end that war," Trump said. (Reporting by Jeff Mason and Steve Holland)
