Far-Right Leader Le Pen Guilty of Embezzlement, Banned From Running for Public Office
The ruling, announced in Paris on Monday, found that from 2004 to 2017, Le Pen, 8 members of the European Parliament, and 12 assistants from her Rassemblement National (RN) party, then called the Front National (FN), illegally siphoned off European Union funding to bankroll RN activities within France. The court estimated the damages at just over $3 million (€2.9 million). The case concerned EU funds allotted to Le Pen and her party when she was a member of the European Parliament. The fraud came mainly in the form of no-shows: Staff hired with money from Brussels were, in reality, working for her party inside France. Le Pen had denied any wrongdoing.
More from The Hollywood Reporter
'Adolescence' Co-Creator Responds to Theory About Show Being "Anti-White Propaganda"
Richard Norton, Actor, Martial Arts Expert, Trainer and Stuntman, Dies at 75
Jason Momoa and Jack Black Think the World Needs 'A Minecraft Movie' Right Now: "So Much War and Hatred ... We've Got to Work Together"
Le Pen appeared in court on Monday but left before sentencing was complete.
A three-time presidential candidate, Le Pen is head of France's official opposition, and a leading contender to succeed President Emmanuel Macron in elections in two years. In her last two attempts, Le Pen made it to the final run-off, losing to Macron. Term limits mean Macron, who has served as president since 2017, is ineligible to run again.
Earlier in the trial, Le Pen said a ban on public office would mean her 'political death.' She argued such a move would be 'deeply anti-democratic,' with the courts overruling the will of the electorate.
She has previously said she would appeal if convicted. But given France's slow-moving legal system, a new trial is unlikely before 2026, just months before the presidential election, giving Le Pen little time, even if her conviction is overturned, to mount a campaign.
Le Pen is at the forefront of a growing right-wing movement across Europe. Giorgia Meloni took power as part of a right-wing coalition in Italy in 2022. Elections in Germany earlier this year saw the far-right Alternative for Deutschland (AfD) party double its share of the vote, coming second with 20.8 percent.
Prosecutors called for a five-year prison sentence for Le Pen, with three of those suspended, a fine of up to $350,000 (€325,000), and a five-year ban, effective immediately, on running for public office.
Le Pen's disqualification is certain to draw attacks from Washington. Vice President JD Vance has been outspoken in his criticism of European countries for their supposed suppression of right-wing voices. Moscow has already responded, with Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov on Monday decrying the verdict, claiming 'more and more European capitals are taking the path of violating democratic norms.' Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, another prominent European far-right figure, tweeted his support of Le Pen, posting 'I am Marine!' on X.
The natural successor to Le Pen within the RN is her 29-year-old protégé Jordan Bardella, who has seen his status rise with several slick media appearances during last year's election campaign.
During the trial, prosecutors claimed Le Pen used EU funds to bankroll her political 'war machine,' breaking the law to build up RN's presence in France. At the time of the crimes, the RN was a much smaller and poorer party than it is now, with few elected officials. French banks boycotted RN's campaigns, refusing to provide financing. Le Pen took out a loan from a Russian bank in 2014, which she repaid shortly after Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Her 2022 presidential campaign was backed in part by a loan from Hungary, which she repaid shortly after the election.
RN was the big winner in last year's snap election, taking 123 seats, making it the single-largest opposition party in France's parliamentary assembly. France's public financing system, which allocates funds to political parties based on the number of elected offices held, means RN is entitled to a reported $15 million (€14 million) in public financing over the legislative term, more than double its previous allotment.
In a key decision on Friday, March 28, France's Constitutional Council, ruling on a separate case, upheld the principle of political ineligibility, but stressed such bans had to be 'proportionate' and take into consideration 'the preservation of voters' freedom.'
This isn't the first time the French courts have ruled against a prominent national politician. In a similar case last year, 8 members of France's MoDem party, including former Minister of Justice Michel Mercier and MoDem president François Bayrou, were found guilty of misappropriation of European public funds. Mercier was given a suspended sentence and banned from running for public office for two years. Bayrou was acquitted on appeal and later became Prime Minister of France.
In 2021, former French President Nicolas received a three-year prison sentence, including two years suspended, and was banned from holding public office for three years after being found guilty of corruption charges.
Best of The Hollywood Reporter
Most Anticipated Concert Tours of 2025: Beyoncé, Billie Eilish, Kendrick Lamar & SZA, Sabrina Carpenter and More
Hollywood's Highest-Profile Harris Endorsements: Taylor Swift, George Clooney, Bruce Springsteen and More
Most Anticipated Concert Tours of 2024: Taylor Swift, Bad Bunny, Olivia Rodrigo and More
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
5 minutes ago
- New York Post
Trump's narrow road to Ukraine peace has three milestones for success — or failure
When it comes to peace in Ukraine, President Donald Trump has said it takes 'two to tango' — but while Vladimir Putin continues Russia's attacks, only Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelensky looks ready for a deal on realistic terms. Monday's White House meeting with Zelensky and European officials revealed that peace is now possible, but the road ahead will not be straight or wide. Zelensky shined at the White House, even as Putin bombed Ukrainian civilians. Cool under pressure, Ukraine's president showed he's learned how to navigate the currents of American diplomacy. Advertisement He swapped the military fatigues from his last visit for more formal attire, showing his respect for Trump's office. His words also struck the right notes, expressing genuine gratitude to the American people for their unwavering support and demonstrating his new rapport with Trump. When statecraft called for stagecraft, Zelensky nailed his part. Advertisement Trump also rose to the occasion. He honored the iron law of successful American diplomacy: When dealing with Moscow, don't cut deals involving the Europeans without them in the room. President Franklin Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill made that fatal mistake at Yalta as World War II was ending, carving up the world with Russian leader Josef Stalin. Trump has done the opposite, bringing Europe's heavyweight leaders into the room with Zelensky to plot the course to peace. Advertisement America holds powerful cards. Trump should play them. Trump wants to get Putin and Zelensky in the same room, but he should prepare for poison pills from the Kremlin. For starters, Moscow is demanding Ukrainian territory it doesn't control. This is a classic Putin negotiating strategy: If Kyiv rejects his maximalist demands, he'll frame the Ukrainians as obstacles to peace, even as his armies keep fighting. Advertisement Three tests will determine whether peace talks succeed or fail. First, sequencing matters. Trump wants to secure lasting peace, but the onus must be on Putin to prove he's negotiating in good faith by halting military operations. Even then, Moscow could use any pause to reload and reinvade. Hard security guarantees for Ukraine are essential to deter this outcome after Russia's guns go silent. Second, land for peace is the wrong framework for this conflict's end — and Trump should be wary of this pitfall. Putin claims he wants to address the war's 'root causes,' but his real goal is conquest and the reabsorption of all Ukraine into Russia. By fighting for their survival, Ukrainians have earned the right to chart their own course: full integration in the European Union and a future free from Russian aggression. Major territorial concessions on Moscow's terms could abandon millions of Ukrainians to Russian rule and shrink the very nation that Kyiv's soldiers have died to defend. Advertisement Trump has pledged to defer to Ukraine on the details. That's the right call: Washington must not pressure Kyiv to bend to Putin's extreme demands. Third, Ukraine's 'stolen children' must be a non-negotiable issue. Russia has kidnapped at least 19,500 Ukrainian children from occupied regions — as Putin aimed to both conquer Ukraine's territory and steal its future. Ukraine's first lady has made their return her mission, and Melania Trump has joined it, writing a personal letter to Putin. Her personal diplomacy is needed and inspiring. Advertisement If Putin drags his feet on peace, land and Ukraine's stolen kids, the White House must use its overwhelming economic leverage to squeeze him harder. Trump can join Europeans in lowering the oil price cap set by sanctions, forcing Russia to accept less revenue for each barrel it sells. Secondary sanctions on Russia's shadow fleet of tankers could compel its oil customers to comply with international sanctions and starve Moscow of the money it needs to continue the war. Sen. Lindsey Graham is rallying the Senate to help Trump do just that, giving him expanded authority over sanctions and tariffs. Advertisement For an endgame strategy, Trump can borrow from his Iran playbook and require Russian oil payments to sit in escrow accounts, rather than flowing directly to Moscow. Military pressure is also essential. A top priority should be to create a 'fortress belt' around Ukraine. European allies say they'll provide troops, and the United States can assist by selling NATO allies more arms and equipment from American stocks, allowing them to provide necessary weapons to Ukraine. Advertisement This should include more air defense, artillery and long-range systems capable of striking Russia's military-industrial sites. Washington should also push Europeans to tap their share of the $300 billion in frozen Russian assets for Ukrainian rearmament and reparations. Trump is right that it takes two to tango. But when one partner keeps stomping on the other's feet while demanding he must lead, it's time to change the music. Putin will come to the table when the costs of staying away become unbearable — and not a moment before. Peter Doran is an adjunct senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.
Newsweek
6 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Zelensky's Red Line for Putin Peace Talks
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Ukrainian President Zelensky may have some red lines on concessions as he considers negotiations to reach an end to the Russia-Ukraine war, analysts told Newsweek. Why It Matters Zelensky met with President Donald Trump and other European leaders at the White House on Monday to discuss potential peace talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin, who launched the invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. World leaders have for years sought to reach a deal to end the bloody conflict, but Zelensky and Putin have remained divided on key points to reach a ceasefire to end the conflict. What To Know Security guarantees from the West, Ukrainian membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), and territorial issues are among the key obstacles to a peace deal. Putin has pushed for maximalist concessions from Ukraine, including Russian control of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions and no NATO membership for Ukraine. Those terms, however, would be difficult for Zelensky to accept. While Ukrainian support for continuing the war has dropped, according to some polls, Ukrainian leadership is unlikely to end the war under Putin's conditions, foreign policy analysts told Newsweek. Matthew Pauly, a historian at Michigan State University, told Newsweek that Zelensky may "concede temporary Russian control of occupied Ukrainian land, including Crimea," but that he "will not and cannot accede to the legal recognition of Russian annexation." Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky speaks to reporters in Brussels, Belgium, on August 17, 2025. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky speaks to reporters in Brussels, Belgium, on August 17, 2025."Any proposal for a 'land swap' is a misnomer," he said. "Russia is not proposing giving up Russian land, but rather Ukrainian land that it illegally occupies. It is demanding gains that it has not achieved on the battlefield. As Zelensky quite rightly argues, Russia seeks to deceptively secure through negotiations what it has been unsuccessful in gaining on the battlefield over the course of twelve years." When it comes to security guarantees, the details are critical, Pauly said. "A security guarantee 'like NATO' sounds good, but the devil is in the details. Why not just be granted NATO membership then?" he said. NATO membership and maintaining Ukrainian land are at the "core of Ukraine's right to self-determination and sovereignty as a nation" and are unlikely to be concessions Zelensky is willing to make, Mai'a Cross, an international affairs professor at Northeastern University, told Newsweek. "While Ukraine may not join NATO any time soon, especially while the war is still ongoing, it will want to leave this option open down the road, as it should. This is also in the interest of the EU who will want to ensure that Russia does not threaten Ukraine again if there is eventually an end to this war," she said. What Concessions Would Ukrainians Support? Zelensky remains popular at home and has to "balance various sides" as he works to bring the war to a close, Dani Belo, director of the Global Policy Horizons Research Lab at Webster University, told Newsweek. While the U.S. wants to reach a ceasefire "as soon as possible," European nations would like to maintain deterrence against Moscow, he said. "Concurrently, from Kyiv's perspective, maintaining the military campaign against Russia comes at the cost of Ukrainians' lives, the economy, and democracy. Nobody knows what Zelensky will choose, but he will have to consider these interests," Belo said. Pauly said most Ukrainians may be able to accept "the temporary loss of Ukrainian land" but not Ukrainian sovereignty. "Ukraine has built up a network of defenses on land in the eastern part of the country that Russia is now demanding. Forfeiture of this land would expose Ukraine in the same way Czechoslovakia was fatally harmed by the handing over of the Sudetenland to Nazi Germany in 1938," he said. Robert B. Murrett, professor of practice of international affairs at Syracuse University, told Newsweek many Ukrainians feel "resentment" and "fury" over the war, and that the Ukrainian public would likely not be willing to accept forfeiting NATO membership or land from the Donetsk or Luhansk regions. Crimea, however, "was never in the cards for being returned to Ukraine," he said. Still, Zelensky admitting that could be a mistake as "you don't want to give up your negotiating positions before you actually negotiate," he said. What People Are Saying Historian Matthew Pauly told Newsweek: "It is imperative that the burden of surrender does not fall on the victim when the aggressor demonstrates no significant concessions. Russia's insistence on a peace agreement rather than a ceasefire appears to be a strategic maneuver designed to prolong hostilities and allow Russia to continue bombing Ukrainian cities." Mark Storella, former ambassador to Zambia and professor of diplomacy at Boston University, told Newsweek: "The fundamental issue everyone is wrestling with is whether Putin wants peace on any terms short of his maximalist demands to swallow big chunks of Ukraine territory and turn Ukraine into a vassal state of Russia. Unless Russia is losing on the battlefield or it's economy is crumbling, Russia will accept peace only if it gets Putin's demands or if Putin sees it as a step toward eventual complete capitulation by Ukraine over time." What Happens Next Trump is pushing for a meeting between Zelensky and Putin to discuss peace talks. Whether either side is willing to make some concessions, or whether the war will continue for the near future, is yet to be seen.
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
5 takeaways from the Trump-Zelensky White House meeting
President Trump met Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at the White House on Monday as the search for an end to the three-and-a-half-year war intensifies. Major European leaders also jetted in for the meeting. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, French President Emmanuel Macron, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni were all in attendance. So too were European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte. In a relief for all concerned, the meeting was vastly different from the late February contretemps in the Oval Office, in which Trump and Vice President Vance berated Zelensky at length. Here are the other main takeaways. A positive tone but few specifics The mood music was positive Monday, but huge hurdles remain on the road to peace. Trump was civil and solicitous toward Zelensky throughout the day, and he was also conspicuously affable to the European leaders, with whom he has had volatile relations. Trump argued that 'while difficult, peace is within reach.' He also held out the promise of an imminent trilateral meeting between Zelensky, Russian President Vladimir Putin and himself at which the knottiest issues of the conflict could be unpicked. Zelensky, for his part, enthused about his 'really good' conversation with Trump — a far cry from February's debacle. Rutte said he was 'really excited' about the prospects for peace, while Starmer asserted there was a chance of 'real progress toward a just and lasting outcome.' Reaching that goal will be enormously difficult, however. Nothing that was said Monday changed the underlying contours of the conflict. The Europeans lauded Trump for committing to provide security guarantees to Ukraine in the event of a settlement — but the pledge came with no specifics. Starmer, Meloni and von der Leyen all talked about guarantees akin to NATO's Article 5, which holds that member nations will come to the defense of any ally that is attacked. But what exactly is an 'Article 5-like security guarantee,' as termed by von der Leyen? And how would Putin accept such a thing, given its practical resemblance to NATO membership for Ukraine, to which he is implacably opposed? Conversely, Zelensky said he would be willing to discuss territorial changes at a trilateral meeting — but said nothing more on the topic, making it impossible to gauge how much pain he would be willing to take in that regard for peace. The overall lack of concrete detail makes it hard to argue a settlement is any closer. Europeans succeeded in shoring up Zelensky The fact the European leaders trooped to Washington as reinforcements for Zelensky was one of the most notable elements of the day. By and large, they succeeded in their two intertwined aims: making sure there was no repeat of the earlier Oval Office humiliation of the Ukrainian president and defending Kyiv's interests more broadly. In their remarks to the media, the Europeans talked about the degree to which they believe the war has enormous ramifications for other nations across the continent. 'We are on the side of Ukraine,' was the straightforward message delivered by Meloni, who is usually seen as more simpatico with Trump than counterparts such as Macron and Merz. There is still plenty of European unease as to whether Trump will be too accommodating of Putin's imperatives — but Monday quelled some of their worst fears. Interim ceasefire is rare point of contention A topic central to Trump's meeting with Putin last week in Alaska reared its head again. Prior to that Alaska meeting, Trump wanted Russia and Ukraine to quickly agree to a ceasefire, which would then set the stage for more comprehensive peace talks. After Anchorage, he appeared to have shifted significantly in Putin's direction, suggesting it would be better to move to a full settlement without any halfway measures. Putin's fondness for that framework is based on the widely accepted reality that Russia has the upper hand on the battlefield. The Kremlin fears an interim ceasefire would disrupt its momentum and allow Ukraine to regroup. On Monday, Merz was the most assertive about the need for a ceasefire right away. The German chancellor said he found it impossible to imagine a next step on the path to peace without a ceasefire. 'Let's try to put pressure on Russia,' Merz said. Trump seemed ambivalent about the idea, at best. That's an important divide — and one Putin might try to exploit. Trump vouches for Putin's desire to make peace The Europeans view Putin with the deepest suspicion, not only because of the February 2022 invasion of Ukraine but because they fear his expansionist instincts in general. They also regard him as fundamentally untrustworthy. By contrast, Trump on Monday vouched more than once for the Russian leader's interest in making peace. To a skeptical Zelensky, the president insisted that 'I think you'll see that President Putin really would like to do something else. … I think you're going to see some really positive moves.' Toward the end of the public remarks with the European leaders, he again argued that 'I think President Putin wants to find an answer, too.' Time will tell whether those assertions are true. Even Trump admitted, in apparent reference to his campaign trail pledge to end the war on day one of his second term, 'I thought this was going to be one of the easier ones [to solve]. It's actually one of the most difficult — very complex.' Huge stakes if a trilateral meeting happens Monday's events did at least create some momentum in the search for peace. Trump wants to capitalize on that with a trilateral meeting soon. Such a meeting could truly be a make-or-break moment. If Putin, Zelensky and Trump get together in one room, there will be no way to avoid the most difficult issues that underpin the war. The stakes would also be enormous for each participant — including Trump, who could either emerge as the consummate dealmaker or end up looking naive in his belief that he could get a peace agreement. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
