Who manages the influence? Why is France being targeted?
According to observers, the “MAGA” system appears in the form of a wide network that includes American officials, businessmen, digital platforms, research institutions, conservative activists, media outlets and European political figures. They believe that France is an important target for this network. Because it is the European country whose political transformation could change the balances of the “European Union” on issues of defense, immigration, sanctions, and the relationship with Washington.
Indeed, a recent analysis published by Le Monde newspaper indicated that the French candidates competing with Marine Le Pen have begun to move their battle to the field of foreign policy. Because they believe that the proximity of the “National Rally” to the American and Russian Presidents, Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, represents a weakness that can be exploited. In this direction, the leader of the Green Party, Marine Tondillier, said in a speech in the city of Strasbourg - in the far north-east of France - that the French elections will have a major impact in Europe, and therefore, “it is not a coincidence that Elon Musk, Vladimir Putin, and Donald Trump have shown this amount of interest in them.”
Also, an article published by Le Monde newspaper on its English-language website stated that France is now a major target of the ideological campaign led by the “MAGA” movement in Europe. She saw that the rapprochement between the National Rally Party and the American right-wing movement is no longer just a matter of mutual admiration, but rather is emerging in positions related to immigration, sovereignty, and the European Union.
Three motives
Three motives intersect here: the first motive is “geo-political.” Because the rise of a nationalist French government may weaken the “European integration” project and strengthen the idea of a Europe composed of conflicting national states, which is a vision more consistent with Trump’s perception of international relations.
The second motive is economic and technological. Because Musk and American technology companies are in a constant clash with European rules and regulations related to regulating digital platforms, data protection, and competition. Hence, supporting forces that describe European regulation as “surveillance” can serve commercial interests as well as political goals.
The third motive is ideological; American conservative circles want to transfer their battle against cultural liberalism, immigration, judicial institutions, and traditional media to the European arena.
In fact, this does not mean that the immigration problems or the crisis of confidence in French institutions... are “American made.”
Of course not, as these are real issues rooted in French society. But experts distinguish between producing the crisis and exploiting it. The foreign power does not need to invent the division, but rather it is sufficient for it to amplify it, give it a unified language, and connect it to media and digital networks capable of rapid access to voters.
“gray areas”
The government warnings come at a time when researchers are increasingly concerned about the exploitation of artificial intelligence and digital platforms in elections. Ophélie Coelho, a researcher associated with the Institute of International and Strategic Relations (IRIS) and specializing in digital geopolitics, believes that artificial intelligence not only accelerates the production of fake news, but also reduces the cost of manufacturing it and customizing it to a specific audience. It is then easy to produce thousands of different messages about the same candidate, with each audience receiving the narrative that best suits its concerns: immigration for the security-anxious voter, censorship for the conservative voter, and declining spending power for the classes angry with the government.
As for Julie Martinez, Director-General of the Positive France Center and author of the book “Artificial Intelligence and Fake News,” she participated in a parliamentary debate and warned that citizens may find themselves faced with content that appears journalistic or personal, but is in fact automatically produced and designed to influence their choice. The danger lies in the fact that the “false message” does not need to convince everyone. Rather, it is sufficient for it to reach a small group in close electoral districts, or to sow persistent doubt about the integrity of a candidate or institution.
Indeed, last July, a report by the French Senate sparked debate about “gray areas in the media,” and proposed the establishment of an independent observatory for domestic disinformation, in addition to strengthening the powers of the “Audiovisual and Digital Regulatory Authority” (ARCOM). The report pointed out that France has a “Vigenome” device to monitor foreign digital manipulation, but it does not have a similar mechanism to monitor organized operations that start from within or in which internal sources are mixed with external funds and networks.
Warnings...
French Prime Minister Sebastien Lecornu tried to reassure the parties that the state was not targeting a specific political movement, but he warned in a press conference of “heavy threats” that could affect the presidential elections. He added that the government will propose a draft law that will triple the penalties imposed on publishing false content during the electoral period, while introducing an urgent judicial procedure to deal with fake materials spread on social networks. In Senate sessions, representatives from the right and center linked protecting elections and reducing candidates’ dependence on foreign funds.
In response to concerns about campaign financing, the government discussed with French banks to facilitate candidates’ access to loans, because using French or European banking institutions reduces the possibility of campaigns being exposed to pressure or external financing. The Prime Minister's interests have confirmed that providing French funding to all candidates, regardless of their political affiliation, is necessary to ensure the integrity of the electoral process.
But some right-wing voices warned against anti-interference becoming an excuse for political censorship. This was evident in the controversy raised by the Senate report on “domestic interference.” A number of its members objected to expanding the definition of “disinformation” to include controversial opinions or local campaigns, fearing that a new body would become a tool for monitoring political discourse.
On the other hand, the left is pushing for tighter censorship of the platforms. Marine Tondillier, the leader of the “Greens,” had explicitly called for preventing the “X” platform from influencing electoral campaigns, or for imposing strong restrictions on its work during the electoral period, and Musk responded to her, demanding, according to what the European press reported, that she be “silenced” after he accused her of “treason,” which revealed that influence is no longer limited to supporting a candidate, but rather includes attacking his opponents directly.
A double test of French democracy
The facts available so far prove three things:
First, an American figure with global influence publicly supported a specific French candidate on a platform whose algorithms she owns.
Secondly, the US government studied funding European organizations with an agenda close to the priorities of the conservative right, and then excluded French organizations due to fears of electoral interference.
Third, the French government, parliament, and monitoring agencies deal with the digital environment as an actual field for attempts at influence and manipulation. Therefore, the 2027 elections appear to be a double test for France: on the one hand, it is a test of the institutions’ ability to protect voters from manipulation, and on the other hand, it is a test of their ability to do so without confiscating freedom of expression. The democratic rule does not necessarily require silencing Elon Musk, Marine Le Pen, or their opponents, but it does require disclosing sources of funding, monitoring algorithms, distinguishing political advertising from press releases, and requiring platforms to make information available about coordinated campaigns. However, the greatest danger, as Le Monde analysts saw, is not that a foreign party imposes a specific candidate, but rather that it convinces the French that the elections themselves are no longer capable of producing free will.
