Skip to main content

Le Pen says she’ll run for French presidency next year despite court-ordered monitor

PARIS (AP) — Far-right leader Marine Le Pen says she’ll run for the French presidency next year despite being sentenced Tuesday to wear a court-ordered electronic monitor for embezzlement.

The decision by the 57-year-old veteran of three presidential races sets up a fourth campaign like no other: potentially seeking votes while subject to monitoring and with a judge possibly deciding how, and for how long, the punishment is applied.

Le Pen said she will appeal the ruling to France’s highest court and that the process will suspend the sentence that she be electronically monitored for a year.

“I will therefore campaign without an electronic bracelet,” she said in a television interview Tuesday night. “Tonight, I am a candidate for the presidential election.”

Appeals court clears her pathway for another run

The appeals court ruling earlier Tuesday cleared the way for Le Pen by shortening a ban handed down by a court last year that kept her from seeking public office for five years.

But it also said she must wear an electronic monitor, a constraint Le Pen previously said would make campaigning impossible.

But after huddling for hours with other leading figures of her National Rally party, Le Pen made clear Tuesday night that she believes she won’t be subjected to monitoring at all, and that her appeal to the Court of Cassation will vindicate her.

“My hands are clean,” she said.

The highest court previously said it would be able to rule before the presidential election, with the first round in April and a knockout round in May.

“I want to pursue all the legal avenues available to me so that I can defend my innocence,” she said.

A similar situation arose in former President Nicolas Sarkozy’s corruption case. An appeals court sentenced him in 2023 to serve part of his sentence under electronic monitoring. Sarkozy appealed to the Court of Cassation, which suspended Sarkozy’s sentence pending its review before ultimately upholding the conviction. He wore an electronic ankle monitor last year.

Appeals court confirms Le Pen’s guilt but reduces punishment

s

The appeals court ruled that Le Pen oversaw years of misuse by her National Rally party of European Parliament funds by paying staff with money intended for European Union parliamentary assistants. She denied criminal wrongdoing but said during the trial that the party had made a “mistake.”

The ruling upheld guilty verdicts for all 11 accused, including Le Pen and other party members. The party itself also was declared guilty. The court ruled that it embezzled 2.8 million euros ($3.2 million) over more than 11 years.

“The facts are serious,” said the chief judge, Michèle Agi.

But the court scaled back punishments handed down by a lower court last year.

From five years handed down in March 2025, Le Pen’s ban on seeking office was cut to 45 months, with two-thirds of it suspended. Le Pen has already served 15 months of the ban, meaning that the potential obstacle is now removed.

The verdict also cut her prison sentence from four years, two of them suspended, to three years with two suspended.

Le Pen previously said that not being able to make a fourth run in 2027 would amount to “political death.”

Le Pen went straight to her party’s office

From the courthouse, Le Pen went to the National Rally’s headquarters in Paris, to consult her protégé Jordan Bardella and others. Bardella, a European Parliament lawmaker, would have been Le Pen’s replacement as the party’s presidential candidate if she had decided that electronic monitoring prevented her from running.

But a Le Pen has been on ballot papers at every presidential election since 1988: four times for her father and three times for her.

Her embezzlement conviction leaves her open to attacks from critics and potential election opponents. But she quickly sought to turn the verdict into a campaign message, making the point that the court ruling restored the option for voters to cast ballots for her next year.

The party was called the National Front when her father, Jean-Marie Le Pen, founded it in 1972. It ditched that name in 2018, part of Marine Le Pen’s efforts to broaden her appeal by moving away from her polarizing father’s legacy. His associations with people who collaborated with France’s Nazi occupiers in World II and his multiple hate-speech convictions, including Holocaust denial, made the National Front anathema to many voters.

The court, in written notes detailing the verdict, made clear that it had the 2027 election in mind. It noted “the voter’s freedom of choice” and said the ban from seeking elected office that Le Pen has already served repaired harm done to public integrity by her wrongdoing.

“Disregarding this would undermine the principle of freedom to stand for election, an essential condition for the democratic expression of universal suffrage,” the court said.

___

Associated Press journalists Nicolas Vaux-Montagny in Paris contributed to this report.

Trump declines to rule out declaring a national security emergency to control the 2026 election

(CNN) — President Donald Trump in a new interview declined to rule out declaring a national security emergency as a means to try to assert more control over the 2026 midterm elections.It’s merely the latest warning sign that Trump could try to mess with the election not just by baselessly claiming voter fraud and challenging the results afterward — as he did in 2020, leading to a violent riot at the US Capitol — but by trying to unilaterally take control before votes are cast.In the interview, Wayne Allyn Root of Real America’s Voice pitched such a scenario to Trump. He suggested it as an alternative, given the Senate has failed to pass Trump’s coveted elections bill, known as the “SAVE America Act.”“If they never get the SAVE America Act done, you have the right to declare a national security emergency for elections,” Root said. He added that “if you declare a national security emergency as the president of the United States, they can’t challenge it. It can only be overturned by a two-thirds vote by both houses of Congress. So if you do this in the next month, we will get photo ID, proof of citizenship (for voter registration) and a limit to mail-in ballots.”It’s at this point that Trump cut Root off and coyly suggested such an option was indeed in play.“Let me just say that stranger things have happened, OK?” Trump said. “I’ll leave it at that.”Despite Root’s comments, it’s far from clear such a gambit would even work. And CNN has asked the White House for more detail on what the president meant.Trump often responds to hypotheticals by declining to rule them out — no matter how extreme the proposal might be. So it’s possible to read too much into this.But as CNN’s Jake Tapper has noted, there are plenty of signals that Trump at least aspires to try to exert more control over elections. And these methods often appear transparently geared toward helping Republicans.A major one is the administration’s threat to have the US Postal Service not deliver mail ballots for states that don’t comply with its demand that they hand over their voter lists. This is a request that even many red states have rejected, citing privacy concerns.Democrats are much more likely to use mail ballots, which Trump has baselessly connected to widespread fraud. So curtailing them could greatly help Republicans.(Federal courts have blocked this Trump executive order, and the administration recently appealed to the Supreme Court.)Trump has also gone to great lengths to try to substantiate his still-baseless claims of widespread fraud. That includes the administration seizing 2020 ballots in Fulton County, Georgia, and Trump’s recent primetime address about election security that some read as a statement of intent — a pretext for more direct federal involvement in elections, which are run by states.Ty Cobb, who served as White House counsel in Trump’s first term, said he interpreted the speech last month as a “predicate that he needs to declare an emergency.”And Trump has occasionally said things, like he did in the new interview, suggesting he would like to take control of US elections.Back in February, he urged his party to “take over the voting in at least 15 places,” adding: “The Republicans ought to nationalize the voting.”The Washington Post also reported in March that pro-Trump activists were circulating a potential executive order that claimed Chinese interference in the 2020 election gave Trump emergency authorities over the 2026 election. And Trump’s primetime address focused on China, despite the tenuous evidence.Trump’s intense focus on the “SAVE America Act,” which has never appeared to have a chance to pass but Trump has said is vital, could also be read as part of building the case for more drastic action.But whether Trump could take over elections himself, as Root posits, is far from certain.As CNN’s Marshall Cohen and Michael Williams reported in February, the Constitution makes it difficult for Trump to truly “nationalize” elections. Courts have overwhelmingly upheld the principle that states are in charge of elections.Presidents generally have more authority to act unilaterally when national security is involved — hence the significance of invoking China — but some experts are skeptical that Trump’s effort would pass legal muster.The-CNN-Wire™ & © 2026 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.
Read Next Story