Jean-Luc Mélenchon, founder of the left-wing party La France Insoumise, speaks during the meeting “From France to New York: fighting the right, building the left” hosted by the Democratic Socialists of America in Brooklyn, New York, on April 22, 2025.
(Charly Triballeau / AFP via Getty Images)French politics are rarely predictable—and today is no exception. Ahead of the next presidential election, not only is incumbent Emmanuel Macron barred from running, but longtime poll leader Marine Le Pen has also been ruled ineligible after an embezzlement conviction this past March 31.
For Jean-Luc Mélenchon, the head of the left-wing France Insoumise, the hope is that this turmoil can change France’s political direction and the country will break out of a binary contest between the neoliberal center and a rising far right. The scale of protests against Macron’s recent pension reforms and then the New Popular Front’s breakthrough in last summer’s parliamentary elections suggest that the left is at least still in the fight. Yet its future remains uncertain.
Mélenchon’s message of social conflict is polarizing and draws hostile responses not only from right-wing adversaries, but even much of the liberal left. Yet his movement has often shown itself the left-wing force best able to mobilize a mass electorate. In the last presidential contest in 2022, Mélenchon scored 22 percent—a level otherwise unheard of for openly anticapitalist candidates in today’s Europe.
In late April, Mélenchon was in New York City, where he received rapturous welcomes at a series of talks and panels. His visit coincided with the publication of Now, The People—a guide, which I translated into English, to what he calls the “citizens’ revolution” in the 21st century. In the book, he analyzes the new bases of solidarity created by modern, urban civilization and examines the need to take collective control over resources amid mounting environmental disaster.
I spoke with him about the purpose of his visit, the meaning of the Trump administration internationally, and how the left can expand beyond its existing electorate.
—David Broder
David Broder: At a New York DSA rally on April 22, you said that democratic socialists in the US are fighting for the benefit of more than just Americans, but for people elsewhere, too. How has the swing to the right in the US fit together with a reactionary shift in Europe and in France particularly?
Jean-Luc Mélenchon: As soon as he returned to power, Donald Trump gave the world a full-fledged political manifesto. First and foremost, this meant climate denialism. His first decision in the Oval Office was to withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement. Climate change is the most pressing issue facing humanity. All the time we spend talking about other things or looking elsewhere is a waste of our time. And the president of the United States denies this.
This is no small issue. Especially since it also means denying a new understanding of our human condition: All human beings depend on the same ecosystem for survival, so there is indeed a general human interest, and we are all indeed peers. This justifies our equality under the law. But Trump has also denied that the human condition is universal. For him, there are Americans by family descent—and then everyone else. That was why he suspended birthright citizenship.
Trump asserts these two kinds of denial in the crudest, most forceful way—but they’re also something shared by the far right on both sides of the Atlantic. The difference is that the US has the largest military arsenal in human history. So its imperialism and escalation against China are a danger to us all.
DB: The Trump administration imposed, then partly suspended, major tariffs, including on the European Union countries. In what sense is this a paradigm shift in the neoliberal Western order—and what would a left-wing government in France do in response?
JLM: Trump is a president who has admitted something really important: The free market does not work! For decades, neoliberals have been telling us that there is nothing above free and undistorted competition and free trade when it comes to organizing the collective well-being. But now their latest enfant terrible is saying that the state itself must set prices through tariffs! It’s extraordinary. The entire neoliberal ideological edifice is collapsing. In reality, of course, neoliberalism has always functioned as state intervention to organize the market and competition—but never has this intervention been so spectacular.
That said, I find the European Union’s response absolutely stupid. The concept of “retaliation” leading to an escalation of tariff-setting is absurd, because it will import inflation, as in the United States. The other proposal put forward by the president of the European Commission, that of a “total free trade zone” between the European Union and the United States, is just as harmful. This would amount to abdicating our ability, as Europeans, to set our own ecological, social, and cultural standards.
France Insoumise has suggested instead that, if we want to find ways to respond to Trump’s trade war, we should hit where it hurts, for example by imposing real taxes on US Big Tech companies. On the other hand, we need to implement a policy to replace imports and exports both to and from the United States. Let’s negotiate with China, it will bear more fruit! And if we do have to introduce protectionism, we have always said that it must be “solidarity-based.” Today, we would add that this should also be “negotiated” in order to clearly distance ourselves from the chaos of Trumpism.
DB: In the United States, there has been troubling repression against protests over Gaza, including the arrest and abduction of pro-Palestine activists. In what sense does this have echoes also in France? What is the importance of “free speech” for the left?
JLM: During my stay in New York, I was really struck by the accounts of repression. The leader of the mobilization at Columbia was kidnapped in the street: These are methods we have seen in South American dictatorships. So, this is a serious, grave situation. It reflects a desire to silence the most determined internal opposition to imperialism and a way of testing out repressive methods.
In France, we have not yet reached this stage. But the activists we met in New York also emphasized the responsibility of the Democrats. In the period just before this one, the Democrats had accepted and even taken part in the various stages of demonizing the pro-Palestine movement and the escalation of repression. This is also the case in France, with the bans from speaking in universities, to which I have been subjected in Lille, Rennes, and Bordeaux, and the legal proceedings against Rima Hassan, a [France Insoumise] member of the European Parliament, as well as our parliamentary group president Mathilde Panot, for so-called “apologia for terrorism.”
DB: It seems that a broad alliance is forming in European politics, from the liberal center left to parts of the far right, in favor of rearmament and even collective European borrowing for this purpose. Is “military Keynesianism” the future for economic growth in Europe?
JLM: Most of all, it’s an expression of an imperial tribute imposed by Trump’s United States. He has demanded that European countries increase their military spending to 5 percent of GDP. That is what’s behind the current hubbub about “rearmament” in Europe—and the joint borrowing decided by the 27 EU member states. But what are most European countries going to do with this money? Buy American weapons!
France is the only country on the continent with a more or less independent defense industry. In fact, many countries have already announced new orders for American equipment. But buying this equipment means accepting a position as American vassals. An F-35 fighter jet, for example, can’t take off without permission from the United States. So it’s not really about “military Keynesianism” but a tribute levied by the US empire on Europe, in order to finance its race to war.
DB: In last summer’s parliamentary elections, the New Popular Front (NFP) was the biggest bloc, but was not allowed to govern. What do you think is the Macron camp’s strategy for remaining in power, and what can you and other forces on the Left do to defeat it?
JLM: The New Popular Front won the July 2024 parliamentary elections despite the fact that during the election campaign, 27 out of 27 polls predicted a victory for the far right. This shows that there is no inevitability about their success. But then Emmanuel Macron decided to ignore the results of the elections he himself had called. This is simply unheard of. Our line was: We will not let this pass. We cannot accept such a violation of the most basic republican principles. That is why we proposed a motion of no confidence and succeeded in bringing down Michel Barnier’s government last November. This was done at the initiative of France Insoumise. The left in France brought down a right-wing government without having to put up any barricades.
Following that, our proposal to our allies in the New Popular Front was to continue the same tactic with the next government under François Bayrou. Just think about it: Mr. Bayrou comes from the smallest party in Emmanuel Macron’s coalition, which lost the elections! But the problem was that the Socialist Party decided to break with the New Popular Front. Four times, it refused to vote for a motion of no confidence against the Bayrou government. Instead, it negotiated a political agreement in secret with it, overnight. It was the Socialist Party that saved Macron. The French people immediately paid for this mistake with an austerity budget coupled with planned cuts of €40 billion in spending on hospitals, schools, unemployment benefits, etc. We, as France Insoumise, have distanced ourselves from these rotten deals. The most important thing is to avoid appearing, once again, as a deceitful left that’s ever ready to betray its promises. We instead want to be the embodiment of honesty, in this political arena so full of lies.
DB: Some figures in your movement speak of a “fourth bloc” of nonvoters, as distinct from the three other more recognized ones: the left-wing bloc, or what you call the “popular” bloc; the nationalist/far-right camp; and the Macronite/center-right forces. What, concretely, is stopping these nonvoters from voting for you, and what more needs doing to win them over?
JLM: We have already done some good work. Among young people and in working-class neighborhoods of the cities [les quartiers populaires], we have already managed to increase participation. Half of young people vote for us, and 70 percent of the working-class neighborhoods do. But there is still a long way to go. Let me say first that this strategy is essential for us. We are building a popular base for a program of change, rather than trying to chip away at the centrist or far-right bloc. It was thanks to this method that we pushed back the far right last June. So much so that we can say without exaggeration that in France, working-class neighborhoods and young people saved the Republic.
To achieve this result, we have adopted a radical discourse and earned our standing by not backing down in the face of what the system tells us to do. Take, for instance, Palestine or the fight against Islamophobia. We have been insulted, prosecuted, and defamed, but among young people and in working-class neighborhoods, we have proven our courage and sincerity. These are the things that matter. In moments like these, there’s a kind of osmosis between a political movement and certain parts of society. We have also developed considerable grassroots activism. We have conducted a large-scale voter registration campaign. In working-class neighborhoods, we do actions with immediate benefits, such as food drives or helping people with school equipment. All these methods and many others are at the heart of our strategy to win over the “fourth bloc.”
DB: You spoke with Bernie Sanders and other figures on the US left. What can these different lefts internationally learn from each other: Why is your message not only about France?
JLM: I broke with a certain dismal tradition on the European left, which habitually came to the Americas in order to lecture others and to tell them what to do. Instead, I like to go out into the field to learn and to provide concrete support.
Before going to the United States, I went to Mexico and Quebec to offer moral and practical support to these two neighbors of the US, threatened by Trump. Then, I felt it was also important to support the American left, whose job is to resist from within!
From my point of view, the emergence of a left autonomous from the Democratic Party is the only way to defeat Donald Trump. To everyone I was engaged in discussion with, I shared my analysis: that Trump won because there was no left-wing candidate running against him. Everyone agreed. That’s why I think what Bernie Sanders is doing right now is very important.
