Sébastien Lecornu was appointed Prime Minister of France on September 9, before resigning 26 days later, stating that “the conditions were not right for governing.” Like his two predecessors, Lecornu did not have a parliamentary majority and was therefore unable to govern effectively. In other words, he anticipated a vote of no confidence that would have prematurely ended his term. 

However, in a surprising turnaround, President Macron reinstated Lecornu just 48 hours after his resignation. This unprecedented decision illustrates Macron’s stubbornness and may foreshadow his own political downfall. The French Fifth Republic seems increasingly fragile, as this constitutional crisis reveals a minority party clinging to power while refusing to compromise. As a French citizen, I find this situation deeply troubling, as it reflects a growing divide between the political elite and the general population.

What’s Different About the Lecornu II Government?

Twenty-four hours after he resigned, Lecornu appeared on national television to discuss the political impasse in France. In front of millions of viewers, he outlined, in an unconvincing manner, what he considered to be the “necessary conditions” for the next government: a cabinet based on compromise with the main parliamentary parties and ministers motivated by serving the nation rather than their personal ambitions. His words raised hopes that he might finally break free from Macron’s influence and appoint ministers more representative of the political diversity of the National Assembly. 

However, these expectations were quickly dashed. The partisan balance in Lecornu’s new government remains virtually unchanged: All ministers come from a center-right party that has historically been allied with Macron. 

Although Lecornu promised a streamlined and more autonomous cabinet of about 25 ministers, the new government has 34 ministers, all from the same political circle. He also promised that no ministers with presidential ambitions would be appointed, but Gérald Darmanin, a likely future candidate, remains in place.

Lecornu presents his administration as “technical,” but technocracy does not necessarily mean neutrality. Expertise alone does not guarantee independence from Macron’s overall agenda. The central challenge lies not in the competence of ministers, but in the president’s persistent interference in parliamentary affairs. Macron’s repeated interference contradicts Charles de Gaulle’s institutional vision, which called for the president to remain above political divisions.

The dissolution of the National Assembly, briefly considered in recent weeks, was ultimately abandoned as it would only have benefited the far right, projected to gain even more seats in recent polls. Meanwhile, two urgent issues dominate the government’s agenda: the budget and pension reform, both of which risk reigniting public discontent.

What Can We Expect from Lecornu Going Forward?

The absence of an absolute majority for any single party makes governance impossible without coalitions or alliances. This is precisely why Lecornu resigned, but he will ultimately be forced to make compromises if he wants to survive the vote of no confidence already scheduled for the end of the week.  In his address to the National Assembly on Tuesday, October 14, Lecornu announced that he would suspend the pension reform adopted by Macron a few years ago in order to secure the support of the Socialist Party (PS), without which he would not have enough votes to pass the no-confidence vote. During his 30-minute speech, he also invoked the rhetoric of “duty” and “mission,” presenting himself as a pragmatic leader ready to “act in response to crises.” His formula for renewal consists of “political innovation” and governing “with the Assembly, not against it.” However, what he claims to be political innovation is in fact the normal functioning of the legislative branch, which, according to the Constitution, is separate from the executive branch.

He also repeated the phrase “I will propose, you will debate, you will vote” seven times, presenting his renunciation of Article 49.3—used to pass laws in Parliament—as a gesture of democratic openness. Article 49.3 of the Constitution allows the executive branch to bypass Parliament to pass a law in the event of a negative vote. The use of this article is highly controversial and has been invoked numerous times over the past decade. By renouncing Article 49.3, Lecornu hopes to restore trust with Parliament and make it more sovereign, or at least that is how his statement is understood.

This so-called break is nevertheless timid. The second Lecornu government still relies on the same technocratic core as the first, and its supposed “renewal” masks continuity. The interruption of pension reform may temporarily guarantee the support of the Party Socialist (PS), but the National Rally (RN) and La France Insoumise (LFI)—the two most powerful political forces in the Assembly—are openly opposed to Lecornu. Who knows if his possible compromise with the PS will last? In reality, the PS now holds the balance of power and is the key to the government’s survival.

Conclusion 

The second Lecornu government is marked by a fundamental contradiction: it claims to embody renewal while recycling the same political formulas and the same faces. It promises compromise but continues to defend Macron’s policies. It invokes parliamentary sovereignty but remains dependent on the president’s will. This fragile balance cannot last indefinitely. Unless Lecornu manages to reconcile France’s fractured political landscape, his second term could prove as short-lived as his first and further erode citizens’ confidence in the Fifth Republic. As everyone wonders about the causes of France’s difficult situation, attention is now turning to Lecornu and the issues surrounding his budget proposal. Amid political anger and growing polarization, will France’s political elite be able to find a compromise and reach a consensus on the 2026 budget? Nothing is certain, and Lecornu’s legacy will most likely be judged by the outcome of the budget negotiations.

France is entering one of the most turbulent phases of its Fifth Republic. President Emmanuel Macron’s second term, beginning in 2022, has been marked by legislative gridlock, spiraling debt and a deep constitutional crisis. In June of 2024, Macron dissolved the National Assembly triggering early elections that left parliament fragmented and nearly ungovernable. Under the French Constitution, the president may dissolve the National Assembly and call new elections. This power is rarely exercised, as effective governance typically requires a stable majority in the Assembly. In 2024, however, Macron’s lack of parliamentary support provided the rationale for dissolution, as he hoped to secure a broader coalition. Instead, the resulting legislative elections plunged France into deeper political turmoil. In less than 15 months, three prime ministers have succeeded one another at the Hôtel de Matignon (The prime minister’s official office) each tasked with maintaining the cohesion of a Macronist project that has long lost its popular and parliamentary success. In such a context, what does France’s immediate political future look like?

Sébastien Lecornu: Chaos as a Political Strategy

A few weeks ago, ex-Prime Minister François Bayrou was ousted from the government after losing a confidence vote. Bayrou called for this confidence vote as a last-ditch act of desperation. Indeed, his budget proposal was deeply unpopular, and Bayrou feared being ousted through a vote of no confidence initiated by the deputies themselves. He chose instead to take the initiative and directly test the Assembly’s support for his proposal. Lacking a majority and with no clear plans to form a coalition, this move proved politically suicidal, and few understood how he expected to benefit from it. Unsurprisingly, Bayrou lost the vote of confidence. 

However, it took Macron only one day to appoint his new protégé: Sébastien Lecornu. Macron’s new prime minister, described by the French journal Le Nouvel Obs as “ Macron’s favorite” has become Macron’s longest-serving high-level ally, weathering all the government changes since Macron’s first term in 2017. He is a product of Macron’s center right liberal style of governance, and he will most certainly continue to support Macron’s pro-market “supply-side economics.” Lecornu is tasked with protecting the president’s liberal economic reforms—cutting capital taxes, easing labor regulations, and prioritizing competitiveness—while managing an increasingly hostile and fractured parliament.

His appointment highlights the growing divide between the French left and Macron’s market-driven economic agenda. The PS (Socialist Party) , emboldened by its recent electoral successes, advocates for higher taxes on wealth and corporations in order to fund public services and combat income inequality. Lecornu, on the other hand, is expected to protect the status quo and defend the interests of industrial groups. His critics argue that his rhetoric skews heavily to the right and raises concerns about his ability to find compromise on social issues.

Lecornu faces an unenviable balancing act. He must defend Macron’s pro-market reforms, reassure investors worried about France’s rising debt and negotiate with opposition parties on both political extremes to pass even basic legislation. Some analysts expect him to double down on constitutional shortcuts while others predict that he will attempt limited compromises with the left on social protection and public services issues in order to stabilize his government. In any case, the impression that Macron is governing in chaos will likely persist.

A polarized National Assembly

The French National Assembly has not been so divided in decades. As previously noted, Macron’s center-right no longer holds a legislative majority, and the assembly is now divided between a fragmented left that struggles to find compromises with a weakened Macronist bloc, and a rising far right that seems to gain public legitimacy in the face of this political crisis. Legislative gridlock has become commonplace, with budget bills and key reforms regularly blocked or watered down. Instead of forming cross-party coalitions, Macron and his former prime ministers are increasingly resorting to constitutional tools such as Article 49.3, which allows the executive to pass bills without parliamentary consent, reinforcing accusations of abuse of power by the executive.

Who is to blame?

Responsibility for the political crisis in France is the subject of widespread debate. Critics, such as former Prime Minister in the mid 2000s Dominique de Villepin, argue that the problem lies less with the institutions than with Macron’s style of governance. According to them, the president has shifted from the role of impartial arbiter to that of a hyper-presidential “monarch,” centralizing decision-making and sidelining Parliament. This approach, they say, has eroded public trust and strengthened the extremes.

Public opinion

French citizens themselves are divided over the nation’s political future. Polls show widespread frustration with the high cost of living, pension reform, and what many see as the government’s arrogance. In addition, a recent poll by the Odoxa institute showed that 69% of French people believe Sébastien Lecornu is not fit to govern France. The polarization within Parliament is also reflected in public opinion: while left-wing voters are calling for higher taxes on the rich and increased social investment, right-wing voters favor immigration controls and measures to maintain public order.

Conclusion: A Republic in shambles?

The lack of a unifying agenda has created fertile ground for the far right, particularly the National Rally, which has positioned itself as the authentic voice of disillusioned voters and could well become the leading political force in France in the coming years. As Macron’s second term enters its final stretch, the central question remains: Will Sébastien Lecornu succeed in transforming chaos into consensus, or will his term mark the definitive failure of the centrist experiment in France?

Critics allege recent amendments approved by France’s Senate to an anti-separatism bill infringe on civil liberties and reflect rising Islamophobia among French political elites. 

The amendments were offered to a broader anti-separatism bill backed by French President Emmanuel Macron in response to recent terrorist attacks. The bill is intended to strengthen France’s policy of strict secularism. In particular, the French political elites widely viewed the murder of Samuel Paty, a public school teacher executed by 18-year-old Abdoullakh Anzorov after using cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed in a class, as an attack on France’s secularist tradition. 

The Senate-approved amendments include controversial provisions that would ban girls under the age of 18 from wearing a hijab and prohibit hijab-wearing parents from accompanying school trips. Critics condemn the bill for regulating girls’ bodies and also question the age demarcation in the Senate amendment, noting that the Senate recently backed a bill to impose 15 as the age of consent in France. 

To be enacted, the amendments would have to be approved by France’s lower parliamentary house, the National Assembly. The amendments face uncertain prospects in the Assembly where Macron’s La République En Marche! Party holds the largest bloc of seats. However, the party and Macron’s rightward shift in the last few months fuel concern.

Even if the amendments were to be included by the National Assembly in the final bill, experts contend that they would likely be struck down by France’s constitutional council. 

Lurking in the background of this debate is a charged political environment about France’s secularist tradition and the looming presidential election in 2022. 

Like the United States, France’s Constitution requires religious neutrality on the part of the state. This tradition in France is known as laïcité. Laïcité is a term commentators have struggled to translate into English. Its intended purpose is to impose a strict separation between religion and public policy. Different historical and cultural experiences underpin the American and French conceptions of the separation of religion and state.

Both originate in the intellectual ferment of the Enlightenment. Whereas the historical roots of the American principle of separation of church and state are rooted in a conception of individual religious freedom, laïcité is rooted in the idea of collective freedom from religious domination. In the French context, laïcité is historically identified as being in opposition to the traditionally powerful role that the Catholic Church played in France. 

During the convulsions of the French Revolution, the first glimpses of a laïcité policy are visible in legislation advanced in 1795 but were quickly discarded in the midst of political turmoil. 

The policy would resurface after the dissolution of the Second French Empire and the formation of the French Third Republic in 1870. Opponents of the Catholic Church’s continuing role in French politics successfully passed a version of laïcité in 1905 and the principle has largely proven a pillar of the French political system since. Both the Constitution of Fourth Republic and the current Fifth Republic enshrine laïcité. 

Though the policy was initially entrenched as a bulwark against Catholic influence, as France’s Muslim population has grown to one of the largest in Europe, fraught debates began between Islam and laïcité in French society. This ongoing debate between laïcité and Islam has drawn repeated accusations of Islamophobia on the part of the French government by critics in the past 30 years.

In seeking election in 2017 and during his first years in office, Macron cultivated a personal image as a political moderate and social liberal. However, following Islamist-inspired terrorist attacks, Macron has shifted towards the right.

To orchestrate and serve as a symbol of this governmental shake-up, Macron elevated Gérald Darmanin, a youthful lightning rod of French conservatism, to the powerful Ministry of Interior. 

This position – a combination of the duties of the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security in the U.S. who also has charge over France’s police force – is one of the most prominent in France.  

Darmanin remains under investigation for a 2009 rape allegation as well, drawing criticism to Macron for selecting him to head one of the most powerful ministries in France.

Moreover, Darmanin has polarized the electorate with staunch support for French police that draws strong support from powerful police unions while alienating much of the left. Further, critics accuse Darmanin of playing into Islamophobia with inflammatory rhetoric and action, such as criticizing halal shelves in stores. 

Darmanin’s appointment and tenure already have proven to be controversial. Loathed by the left for many of his stances, Darmanin is viewed suspiciously by the right for his defection from the traditional conservative party, Les Républicains, to join Macron. Darmanin remains close to former conservative French president, Nicolas Sarkozy.  

In a vivid illustration of the Macron Administration’s rightward shift, Darmanin recently accused Le Pen of being soft on radical Islam. 

Many have portrayed the anti-separatism bill as a strategy on the part of Macron ahead of next year’s presidential election. Analysts predict that Macron’s most formidable opponent will be Marine Le Pen, the leader of the far-right National Rally Party. 

Facing a fractured field on the left, pundits predict Macron is trying to lure some right-leaning voters away from Le Pen through taking actions on some of the far right’s focal issues.

This has included rhetorical changes to emphasize law and order and the introduction of this anti-separatism legislation that many see as explicitly targeting Islam. Macron and his ministers have also begun warning against “Islamo-leftism” in speeches. Macron also supports a controversial security bill that would toughen restrictions on filming police. 

Political experts and analysts warn Macron’s rightward shift risks alienating those on the left who Macron needs to turn out in a run-off election against Le Pen. In response to Macron’s strategy and recent tactics, critics repeat versions of Macron’s past statements, cautioning against weaponizing laïcité.