‘The EU
is completely obsolete’: France’s far-right leader wants to shake up Europe
Jordan
Bardella lays out how he would lead France as president.
June 15,
2026 4:02 am CET
By Marion
Solletty
BRUSSELS
— Jordan Bardella was never meant to be his party’s presidential candidate.
The
30-year-old member of the European Parliament is the protégé of Marine Le Pen,
the far-right leader of France’s National Rally. For years, the two
complemented each other. Le Pen was the party’s face and standard-bearer;
Bardella ran its operations, led its delegation in Brussels and waited for his
mentor to win so he could become prime minister.
Le Pen’s
2025 conviction for embezzling EU funds changed everything, handing her a
five-year ban from public office and propelling Bardella into the presidential
fray. On July 7, an appeals court will decide whether to uphold the conviction
— and, with it, which of the two will be the party’s candidate.
As the
French far right’s possible standard-bearer, Bardella is being forced to
clarify where he stands on defining issues: the party’s pivot toward economic
moderation, its approach to the European Union and how he would manage France’s
nuclear arsenal.
Bardella,
long used to being grilled by the media, appeared unfazed as he discussed all
this and more in an exclusive interview in POLITICO’s Brussels office ahead of
a trip to Poland — the kind of high-profile visit once reserved for his mentor.
This
conversation has been edited for length and clarity.
You’re
quite selective about your international trips. You’ve been to the United
Kingdom, Israel and the United Arab Emirates. Why did you choose Poland as your
next stop?
Poland is
a country that counts, and each day it counts a little more on the European
stage. Poland is now the sixth-largest economy in the European Union, and on a
number of issues in recent years, Poland has made a very clear commitment to
protecting its borders in the face of migration flows that pose a significant
challenge to European nations. Faced with the need to regain strategic
autonomy, Poland has been making very clear efforts in terms of rearmament and
defense.
I am
scheduled to meet with leaders of the PiS to discuss and prepare for the Europe
of tomorrow.
Do you
see PiS, the Law and Justice Party, as natural partners if they win Poland’s
general election next year?
Today,
the PiS party sits in the European Parliament within the ECR group, which is
also [Italian Prime Minister] Giorgia Meloni’s group, with whom we regularly
work.
Our
ambition is to think big and to build a new European architecture capable of
addressing the major challenges of the 21st century — and we will certainly
need the largest group possible.
Is this
alliance already a done deal, then? Can there be two big dogs in the same
group?
It’s not
a done deal. The European Parliament involves complex balances. It’s driven
both by alliances and ad-hoc coalitions but influenced by the people. Giorgia
Meloni will be an indispensable partner for France if we win the next election.
You have
also recently reached out to German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, even though he
is not from your political camp. Are these visits, your numerous references to
Giorgia Meloni, a way of saying that if the National Rally comes to power, it’s
not the end of the European Union?
We do not
wish to leave the European Union. We wish to change everything without
destroying anything.
For
several years now — for a decade — we have been witnessing all over the world
the return of everything the European Union has sought to deconstruct,
dismantle and even destroy: the nation, borders, the defense of the national
interest, the people in their fully sovereign capacity. We are seeing all these
grand concepts, which also pertain to national pride, making a comeback across
the major powers operating within globalization.
So we
simply say that Europe must change the way it functions.
Do you
still want to withdraw from NATO’s integrated command, and if so, when?
I am a
French sovereigntist. I defend my country’s freedom. We are not in favor of
leaving NATO. But we are in favor of leaving NATO’s integrated command to
regain room for maneuver, to regain freedom and independence on diplomatic and
military matters.
But as I
have said, we do not wish to leave the integrated command as long as there is
war at Europe’s doorstep.
Marine Le
Pen recently said withdrawal during the next five-year presidential term, which
isn’t exactly the same wording. Do you still hold that France should not
withdraw before the end of the conflict?
One
doesn’t redefine the framework of treaties in times of war.
Our
priority — if tomorrow we win the presidency — will be to work, through new
French leadership, to restore peace at Europe’s doorstep, first through a
ceasefire in Ukraine and then to the establishment of security guarantees that
would allow Ukraine to defend its borders.
Is
Russian President Vladimir Putin a danger to France?
President
Putin’s Russia is today a multidimensional threat to French interests and to
European interests. But Russia is a nuclear power. France is a nuclear power.
This reality gives us a unique responsibility in how we approach dialogue with
powers that possess the ultimate weapon.
There was
recently an update to France’s nuclear doctrine, and Poland is one of nine
countries that have joined an advanced form of cooperation put forward by
President Emmanuel Macron. Would a National Rally-led France be willing to
launch a nuclear strike to come to the aid of allies such as Poland?
We adhere
strictly to the philosophy and doctrine of [France’s former president General
Charles] de Gaulle, who rightly reminded us that the defense of the French
nation’s vital interests does not stop at France’s borders. He said that
France’s vital interests are threatened from the moment the Benelux region
itself is potentially in danger.
But we
are extremely attached to national sovereignty in matters of defense, and
therefore the nuclear launch button must remain exclusively in the hands of the
French president.
Regarding
deterrence — and this must be emphasized — before being nuclear, it is first
and foremost conventional. We are bound by defense agreements with our European
partners that include mutual assistance clauses, particularly within the
framework of the European Union but also under Article 5 of NATO. And so, if a
European Union country were to be attacked tomorrow, this would elicit a
reaction from all the other European countries.
You would
honor these commitments?
Yes, of
course. But France must restore its defense capabilities, and that is why we
support the NATO objectives to gradually increase defense budgets.
I want to
show you this editorial from 1939 in a French newspaper called “Dying for
Danzig?” The author argues that France shouldn’t die for the Polish city now
known as Gdańsk. What do you think?
It’s
extremely dangerous to draw parallels between that period of history and what
we’re experiencing today. There’s no Nazi army. There’s no Third Reich today.
No, but
there are parallels.
It’s
extremely perilous to compare situations that, strictly speaking, have
absolutely nothing in common. What is certain is that there are European
interests today that are being challenged, a resurgence of Russian ambitions in
Eastern Europe. Faced with this, the only viable and acceptable policy is to
prevent France and European nations from transferring their defense sovereignty
to the European Commission. I refuse to allow the European Commission to have
the power to send French soldiers to die.
We have
weaknesses that are very well documented and widely recognized: long-range
strike capability, enhanced surveillance using drones, missile defense, for
example. So industrial cooperation needs to be on the table.
I regret
that the French president was unable to honor the deal that had been negotiated
between the French and Germans on FCAS [a flagship Franco-German
next-generation fighter jet program.]
Are you
saying this is his failure?
It is a
failure of Franco-German cooperation, but it is first and foremost a personal
failure for the president.
But you
were against this program?
From the
start, we said we needed to encourage the best-athlete policy. I am in favor of
industrial cooperation, but to be free, we must first buy European equipment
and buy French equipment.
The
message I wish to convey to all our European partners is to buy [French]
Rafales rather than [American] F-35s, so you exempt yourselves from the
extraterritoriality of U.S., effectively placing in the hands of our
transatlantic partners the ability to stop these planes from taking off.
It’s very
expensive to develop these sixth-generation aircraft. How do you approach this
going forward, if you say we’re staying 100 percent French on the aircraft of
the future, but we also have German competition?
We need
to support French industry. We need to start by removing all constraints and
tax and regulatory barriers currently weighing on the French industry. We must
fight in Europe for European preference. Now, you’re right, we need resources,
and we need investment.
Let’s get
back to Ukraine — you mentioned that many French presidential candidates are
visiting Ukraine today.
For them,
it’s just a show.
You’re
making fun of them a bit. You don’t plan to go there?
Perhaps
I’ll have the opportunity to go if we’re in power, but Ukraine is a theater of
war. It’s not a stage for political posturing. When you see [centrist
presidential candidate] Edouard Philippe getting off the train with his pajamas
and moccasins in a war zone, I don’t think that’s very serious.
What
about French troops in Ukraine after a ceasefire?
No, we
are opposed.
Even
after a ceasefire as part of a peace and security guarantee agreement?
The only
way we would agree to send soldiers would be as United Nations peacekeepers
following a ceasefire agreement.
How would
you define the transatlantic relationship today?
The
Americans are allies, and they will remain so, but they no longer intend to
come to Europe’s rescue or to remain the protector of European countries.
How do
you view U.S. President Donald Trump’s attitude today?
It
depends on the day. There’s a Monday attitude, a Tuesday attitude, a Wednesday
attitude. His positioning is not only erratic, but also extremely unsteady and
constantly shifting.
If Trump
calls you to offer his endorsement, what would you say?
I don’t
need his support. The support I’m seeking, and the support we’re seeking with
Marine Le Pen, is the support of the French people, the support of French
voters.
You had
expressed a certain admiration for him, though. Do you see him differently
today?
I find
that President Trump’s second term is very different from his first. His first
term was defined by a desire to withdraw America from major global conflicts
and to defend America First — that is, to prioritize American interests first
in terms of the economy, identity and the defense of certain values.
President
Trump’s second term is based on this U.S. Security Strategy that foreshadows
this revival of the Monroe Doctrine, which holds that the United States is no
longer a nation but is once again becoming an empire with exclusive influence
over the Western Hemisphere.
Is
Trump’s second term more dangerous or more threatening?
It is
harder to read. It is threatening to Europe in the sense that it impacts many
European countries fearful of the United States of America’s disengagement.
The Trump
administration also comments on current events in Europe. U.S. Vice President
JD Vance commented on a murder in the United Kingdom, saying that the migrant
invasion was responsible for this kind of atrocity.
The fact
that there is a fear today that tomorrow Europe will no longer be Europe and
France will no longer be France, is perhaps shared by the leaders of the U.S.
administration, but it is also shared by many people across the world.
There are
many countries in the world that are deeply in love with France and believe
that the world is what it is today because France exists and because of what
France contributes to it, through its beauty, its elegance, its values. There
are many people in Europe who are extremely unhappy to see France weakened and
submerged by massive immigration that profoundly changes its identity and its
values.
You find
that their diagnosis isn’t wrong?
The
diagnosis is our own. I’m not going to tell you otherwise just because
foreigners think the same thing.
One of
the flagship measures you have defended many times is to cut France’s
contribution to the European Union. The long-term budget is currently being
negotiated, and many want to finalize it before the presidential election.
Just by
chance.
Do you
condemn that?
The idea
is obviously to lock in the budget before a potential change in France. The
European Union is again pursuing its profoundly anti-democratic policy and
philosophy.
We need a
new European architecture. The pace at which Europeans and the European Union
are moving today no longer matches the pace of the world. What the European
Union stands for — globalization, powerful open markets, uncontrolled
immigration, economic decline, and excessive regulation — is profoundly
outdated. The European Union is completely obsolete and, in its current form
and scope, is no longer capable of addressing the major challenges our country
will face.
We must
change the way the European Union functions, and that is why tomorrow we want
France to contribute less to a budget currently projected to increase at a
delusional rate on the eve of the presidential election. It is a democratic
scandal.
The next
French executive, whoever it may be, must have a say.
In
practical terms, how does that work? If you’re elected, do you go to Brussels,
bang your fist on the table and say, no, we’re not going to pay?
The
European Union is like a big co-op, and France has one of the largest
apartments with some of the most spacious terraces and the most parking spaces.
But France is no longer capable today of defending its interests on the
European stage. We saw this with energy. Thanks to nuclear power, France should
be able to benefit from the cheapest and most carbon-free electricity.
Germany
allows its major industrial firms to benefit from electricity at 50 euros per
megawatt-hour. Our hope for the future is that France too can benefit from
electricity priced at 50 euros per megawatt-hour.
This does
not mean we are leaving the European market. France will continue to export
energy, but it will allow French families, French businesses and startups
investing in artificial intelligence to benefit from abundant, carbon-free
electricity that is among the cheapest in Europe.
I’m
sorry, I digressed a bit. On the budget, we will negotiate as Germany did and
as the Netherlands did.
But those
are a posteriori adjustments
We’ll go
see the president of the European Commission and we’ll tell her that France
will lower its contribution because we’re asking everyone to make sacrifices.
The
French are being asked to make savings in times of crisis. But we’re telling
them that the European Union’s budget is increasing 80 percent, that we’re
raising the European commissioners’ private jet budget by 50 percent? Don’t you
think that’s shocking? Don’t you think that outrages millions of French people?
[The EU
says the proposed annual EU budget for 2028-34 is a nominal 38 percent higher
than the one covering the previous seven years. POLITICO reported in February
that the EU would spend as much as €16 million over the next four years on
private jet travel, an increase of €3 million from the previous four-year
period and 50 percent higher than the period before that.]
There are
27 countries that have to agree — it’s very complicated. The Commission could
say OK, France stops paying, we’ll reduce French returns and freeze CAP
subsidies. What would you say to the farmers?
It
doesn’t work that way. France’s net contribution to the European Union budget
is voted on by parliament. Instead of voting for a contribution to the European
Union budget of 12 or 15 billion euros, it will be cut in half. And it’s this
money that we’re going to get back.
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário