Is France entering in the eye of the storm?

By Odile Mojon-Cheminade

While Germany has been Europe’s economic engine in recent decades, France has traditionally been its political, cultural, and military heart. Political because of the balancing role it used to play, plus as a permanent member of the UN Security Council; cultural because of its universalist vision; and military because of its status as a nuclear power.

However, as we are told ad nauseam, France would be today a cause for concern. Now, if one looks carefully, it is primarily the financial markets that are worried as they consider it to be financially unstable. Two rating agencies, Fitch and MorningStar DBRS, have just downgraded its rating to AA+ and AA respectively, the main reason being a debt that has been rising steadily for 50 years and an economic outlook that is considered worrying.

It is also, and above all, a cause for political concern. The French population no longer believes in the government, no longer believes in the promises made to it by the opposition and knows full well that it can no longer count on the political class in power. For the French people, this political class has not only betrayed France’s fundamental interests, it is also the mouthpiece of the feudal lords of money, whether European or American.

It is in this context that former Prime Minister François Bayrou, after duly consulting the Elysée Palace, called for a vote of confidence on his 2026 budget, which provided for €44 billion in savings to reduce France’s public debt and trade deficit. As everyone expected, the National Assembly (the parliament) refused to give him its confidence, leading to the fall of his government and the immediate appointment of a new Prime Minister, Sébastien Lecornu.

The whole sequence unfolded according to a script that was perfectly known in advance, the only uncertainty being what Emmanuel Macron would decide after the fall of the Bayrou government: a new dissolution of the National Assembly, a referendum (a possibility recently mentioned), withdrawing, or appointing a new head of government? He chose the latter option, with a swift appointment of the new Prime Minister, in stark contrast to his predecessor, whose appointment had raised many questions due to the length of time it took. It should be added that by opting to form a new government, which automatically entails the appointment of a Prime minister, Emmanuel Macron chose, of all the possibilities available to him, the only one that allowed him to avoid consulting the sovereign people (as defined by the Constitution of the French Republic), which is a huge advantage for a head of state whose popularity rating stands at 17 %…

Apply pressure to get the bitter “medicine” down

Sébastien Lecornu will therefore inherit the thorny issue of France’s economic situation. With its €3.345 trillion debt, high unemployment rate, growing number of companies going bankrupt, and impoverishment affecting primarily the working classes, France is undoubtedly in a situation that requires intervention. This situation is also part of Emmanuel Macron’s electoral platform, whose two terms in office have been characterized by an unprecedented surge in debt and the closure of numerous government services, replaced by private audit firms, one of the best-known being McKinsey, at exorbitant costs. The media are, of course, playing their part by imposing a one-sided debate on the French people.

So, is France, as claimed by circles close to Medef (the employers’ union), on the brink of collapse, like Greece when it was placed under IMF supervision after the great financial crisis of 2007-2008?

Let’s hear what economist Eric Heyer, director of the analysis and forecasting department at the French Economic Observatory (OFCE – an independent body that forecasts and evaluates public policy), has to say:

“The situation is not good, public finances are incredibly unbalanced, we have crisis deficits even though we are not in a period of crisis. But we are not on the brink of bankruptcy, the IMF is not at France’s doorstep. In fact, it is very easy to find money. When France goes to the financial markets to borrow 20 billion, we receive 60 billion in offers. (…) The borrowing rate is 3.5%, whereas rates are generally around 3%. (…) It’s just scaremongering (…) We have a fever, we need to treat it, but we’re not in mortal danger.”

More than just unbalanced, public finances are above all highly dysfunctional. While Emmanuel Macron’s ideological choices play a predominant role in this, it must be acknowledged that they are part of a trajectory that began under Nicolas Sarkozy’s presidency with a policy that outrageously favored private interests over the interests of the nation and brought these interests to the top of the state, as illustrated by the case of billionaire Bernard Arnault, a close associate of Donald Trump, whom some have dubbed the vice president.

Thus, in the name of and in the form of aid to businesses, Emmanuel Macron organized a generous transfer of wealth, using public funds, amounting to €211 billion (out of a total budget of around €1.5 trillion), which we now know has brought virtually no benefit to the community in terms of job creation or “return on investment.” A report by the Senate Commission of Inquiry into the use of public aid to large companies, published just before François Bayrou announced his proposal to cut €44 billion, examined this “modest” budget, which benefited large companies such as Auchan and Michelin, among others, without any counterpart or verification mechanism being put in place. Similarly, procedures such as employment-research contracts and the CICE (Tax credit for competitiveness and employment) have been diverted from their intended purpose to benefit almost entirely very large companies, most of which generate more than 50 % of their turnover abroad.

Narrative vs reality

The official narrative, carefully relayed by all the media, is that France is living beyond its means. It is based on a biased interpretation that leaves out crucial elements of the economy. Thus, an indicator as alarming and crucial as the fall in the number of births—now below the number of deaths—is not taken into account. Incompetence, blindness, ideological bias? The fact that the French social system, considered too generous, has long been accused of being the main culprit for the spiral of public spending provides part of the answer.

It is worth noting that this system was created in the aftermath of World War II, under the impetus of Charles de Gaulle, with the communist Ambroise Croizat and the Gaullist Pierre Laroque, on the basis of the program of the National Council of the Resistance, a program that clearly identified the feudalism of money as responsible for the outbreak of war. The French social system, explicitly based on the principle of “redistribution of wealth” in the name of “national solidarity,” has long been the target of the financial oligarchy. It is being methodically dismantled, with social benefits (unemployment, health insurance, etc.) being gradually eroded, to the detriment of everyone, especially the most disadvantaged.

Contrary to the official narrative, the reality experienced and denounced day after day by the population is that of a disengagement of the state from its citizens, organized from within, and reflected on the ground by the gradual breakdown of public services, from hospitals to schools to security. Added to this is the explosion of drug trafficking, which is increasingly affecting small and medium-sized towns that had previously been largely untouched by this scourge, while several large cities are falling under the control of mafias that no longer hesitate to commit crimes in the open, without any of this seeming to bother Emmanuel Macron. Corruption has taken hold in a country where it was relatively low fifty years ago, and the people can see who has tolerated and encouraged it.

This is why many are asking, “What is Emmanuel Macron playing at?” In a context where everyone is expecting an uncontrollable social explosion, an initial response is that, faced with the deep anger of the population, Macron is clearly playing the fear and division card.

The “September 10, let’s block everything” movement was only a partial success, and the September 18 strikes called by the unions certainly drew crowds, but not on a massive scale. Above all, the alternative remains to be defined, both in international and domestic politics.

A second response is that the confusion and pessimism induced in the population do not allow for an organized expression of anger and are consistent with the logic of war promoted by the European Union; a logic of war that is, moreover, perfectly consistent with the appointment of Sébastien Lecornu as Prime Minister.

Enters Sébastien Lecornu

Known for being a loyal supporter of Macron, he has already held several ministerial portfolios since Macron’s election in 2017, most recently as Minister of the Armed Forces! Appointed to this position in May 2022, he has not only been in office almost since the start of the war in Ukraine, but has also overseen the transformation of the institution announced by the head of state in 2022 at the Eurosatory security exhibition, when he announced that France was now entering a war economy. While the United States’ policy is to push European countries towards the Ukrainian front and the European Union, in a resolutely pro-war stance, has just decreed that member states must devote 5 % of their budgets to defense, this appointment risks strengthening France’s integration and its capabilities in this suicidal project. Far from General de Gaulle’s policy of national independence.

Moreover, how could Emmanuel Macron contest this decision, he who never misses an opportunity to weaken French sovereignty, he who worked for the appointment of Ursula von der Leyen as head of the European Commission? Will he be able to openly oppose her decision, announced in early September, to deploy European soldiers to Ukraine? Or will he put himself forward in the hope of becoming the “Little Prince” of a NATO-ized Europe?

Ultimately, is it so surprising that at a time when the government is asking the French people to make sacrifices to find $44 billion in savings, it is accepting the prospect of leading the country into a war that does not concern it and that will, at best, ruin it or, at worst, destroy it?

At this stage, war is no longer a hypothetical scenario but a prospect for which France is preparing. The satirical (and intelligence) newspaper Le Canard enchaîné reported on August 26, 2025, that according to internal documents, the Ministry of Health is preparing hospitals and healthcare workers for the possibility of a massive influx of wounded soldiers on French territory.

Unfortunately, there is no indication that the President is seeking to oppose such an eventuality, despite his implausible gestures in favor of ending the conflict in Ukraine.

Not only does such a policy serve Emmanuel Macron’s interests, but it would also result in an even more decisive erosion of French sovereignty through two measures that the head of state appears to be considering: sharing France’s permanent seat on the UN Security Council and sharing France’s strike force (the nuclear triad) with the European Union or Germany, the latter being very active on this issue.

These proposals have so far met with strong resistance, particularly from the military, but there is no evidence that Emmanuel Macron has learned to listen to wise advice when it comes to presenting himself as a “master of the clocks.”

Looking at Emmanuel Macron’s actions, only one element of his policy stands out positively: France’s decision to recognize the State of Palestine. It will remain one of the few positive contributions of his presidency, provided that it does not remain a recognition on paper without the necessary means to turn it from a political symbol into a functional reality. A development and security plan to make the Palestinian state viable and the release of Marwan Barghouti are two necessary pillars that Macron has never mentioned.

However, if he wants France to worry the financial markets for the right reasons and not the wrong ones, then we can suggest, as first emergency measures, that he invest our capital in real physical production, restore public services, and make up for France’s lag in public infrastructure, roads, bridges, railways, etc. In other words, to break with predatory finance.

We must also suggest that he work hand in hand with the BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization in the name of a principle that de Gaulle presented as “détente, entente et coopération” (détente, understanding, and cooperation).

In this way, he would gain massive support behind him; otherwise, he will disappear from history faster than some people think.