分类： politics

As France gears up for its 2027 presidential election, the entire political landscape is hanging on a court decision set to be handed down Tuesday that will make or break far-right leader Marine Le Pen’s bid for the country’s highest office — a contest where her National Rally (RN) party currently holds its strongest ever shot at seizing power.

The 57-year-old three-time presidential candidate was first convicted last year by a Paris lower court over a decade-long fake jobs scheme that misused European Parliament funds to pay RN staffers based in France. The initial ruling handed down a four-year prison sentence (two suspended) and a permanent five-year ban from holding public office, which would automatically bar Le Pen from running in the April 2027 first round vote. Now, Le Pen, her party, and 10 other convicted co-defendants have appealed the verdict, with prosecutors urging the appeals court to uphold the original five-year ban and a four-year prison term with three years suspended.

Legal observers have laid out a range of possible outcomes Tuesday, when the ruling will be read from 1:30 pm (1130 GMT). The most damaging outcome for Le Pen would see the court uphold the full five-year public office ban, ending her presidential bid immediately. A middle ground could see the court uphold her conviction but reduce the ban length or replace active prison time with home arrest and electronic monitoring. Even a shorter ban or ankle-tagged house arrest would likely derail her ability to mount a national campaign, Le Pen has confirmed.

Le Pen has struck a defiant tone in the lead-up to the ruling, dismissing the case as a politically motivated ‘witch hunt’ against her movement. ‘We will never be discouraged, we will always fight,’ she told cheering RN supporters at a party event over the weekend, echoing remarks she made last week where she asserted, ‘I’m not scared. If I can run, I will — as long as I can campaign.’

If she is forced to step aside, Le Pen has a clear successor lined up: 30-year-old Jordan Bardella, the current president of the National Rally and her long-time lieutenant. The plan for a handover of the party’s presidential nomination has been in place for months, and recent polling suggests the younger candidate could actually outperform Le Pen in some matchups, even as rival politicians acknowledge Le Pen remains a formidable contender.

The original 2004–2016 scheme, prosecutors argue, was informalized by Le Pen’s father, RN co-founder Jean-Marie Le Pen, before Marine Le Pen ‘professionalised’ the system of diverting EU funds after taking over party leadership in 2011. Le Pen has repeatedly denied all wrongdoing, telling the appeals court the party operated in ‘complete good faith’ and did not run a systemic embezzlement scheme. The initial verdict drew intense backlash from RN supporters, who have targeted the trial judges with violent threats including death threats.

Le Pen’s political track record sets the stage for the high-stakes 2027 contest: she placed third in the 2012 presidential election, then advanced to run-off matches against incumbent centrist President Emmanuel Macron (who will step down next year after two terms) in both 2017 and 2022, falling short both times but steadily growing the RN’s electoral support.

Current polling paints a mixed but broadly favorable picture for the far right. Most recent surveys project the RN will place first in the 2027 election’s first round, though projections for the second round run-off vary. A late May Harris Interactive Toluna poll of more than 1,700 registered French voters found Le Pen would beat all three of her most likely centrist and left-wing rivals — hard-left candidate Jean-Luc Mélenchon, former prime ministers Gabriel Attal and Édouard Philippe — in a second round. Other polls, however, show Philippe, who has positioned himself to appeal to conservative right-wing voters, would defeat a far-right candidate in a run-off.

Even opposition politicians have acknowledged Le Pen’s strength as a candidate. ‘This woman is very intelligent, she’s not here by chance. And if she does also run for a fourth time, she won’t be an opponent we can sneer at,’ Mélenchon said recently.

On a recent Monday, China conducted a test-firing of a long-range missile into the Pacific Ocean, a development that sparked immediate alarm from the United States and amplified global scrutiny of Beijing’s accelerating military modernization and nuclear expansion efforts. This test marks the second major Chinese intercontinental-range missile launch into international Pacific waters in two years, following a 2024 test that sent an ICBM toward waters near French Polynesia — an event that broke a 40-year lull in such over-water ICBM tests by major nuclear powers.

Military analysts widely view the latest test as clear evidence of China’s growing capability to strike the continental United States, a dynamic that reinforces long-standing U.S. perceptions of China as its primary global strategic adversary, even amid ongoing reconciliation outreach from the Trump administration. The U.S. State Department has framed China’s nuclear buildup as directly counter to global non-proliferation efforts. “At a time when the United States is working harder than ever to prevent nuclear proliferation, China is doing the opposite,” said State Department spokesperson Tommy Pigott in an official statement, adding that “Beijing’s rapid and opaque nuclear weapons buildup is of great concern to the region and the world.”

The current friction around arms control comes months after the last major bilateral nuclear pact between the U.S. and Russia, New START, expired in February. The U.S. has refused to extend the existing agreement, insisting instead on a new treaty that formally includes China in binding arms control commitments — an overture Beijing has repeatedly rejected. While China’s nuclear arsenal remains far smaller than Russia’s, its stockpile has expanded at a far faster pace in recent years than Western intelligence initially projected. The U.S. has now called on China to enter substantive arms control negotiations and establish a formal, consistent system for notifying the international community of all intercontinental ballistic missile and space launch activities.

Taiwan’s national security authorities identified the tested missile as a JL-2, a submarine-launched ballistic missile that U.S. defense experts assess has a minimum range of 8,000 kilometers (5,000 miles). Joseph Wu, secretary general of Taiwan’s National Security Council, said the missile traveled over the Philippines and accused Beijing of undermining regional stability. “China just proved itself again to be a bully on the block,” Wu wrote in a post on social media platform X.

The Philippine government, which has engaged in repeated territorial standoffs with China over disputed claims in the South China Sea, issued a harsh rebuke of the test, calling it a “reckless display of military power.” In an official statement, the Philippine Department of National Defense said, “This launch serves no peaceful purpose and is a calculated act of taunting and provocation against those who reject China’s illegal expansionism and coercive conduct.”

In response to the international criticism, a spokesperson for the Chinese Navy, Wang Xuemeng, said the test was “a routine arrangement of China’s annual military training,” and emphasized that “relevant countries were informed in advance.” New Zealand officials confirmed that China notified Pacific island nations of the planned launch two hours before it took place, though it remains unclear whether advance notice was provided to the United States. Independent defense monitors tracking the test reported that the missile, launched from a Chinese nuclear submarine, landed in waters near the Solomon Islands — a South Pacific nation that drew international attention in 2022 when it signed a controversial security pact with Beijing. A new Solomon Islands government elected last year has announced it is reviewing the agreement.

Other regional powers have joined the U.S. in voicing concern. Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong called the test “destabilizing to the region.” Japan, which did receive advance notification of the launch, said it had issued a formal diplomatic urging for China to reconsider such activities and registered “serious concerns” over the steady increase of Chinese military activity in the Indo-Pacific.

Only Russia, China’s key strategic ally, has defended the test, framing it as a legitimate exercise of national sovereignty. A Kremlin spokesperson stated that China’s missile test was its “sovereign right” and emphasized that China “is not threatening anyone in the world.”

Regional security analysts say the test marks a key milestone in China’s development of its nuclear deterrent. Lyle Morris, a senior fellow at the Asia Society Policy Institute, explained that the launch demonstrates China is expanding its nuclear strike options beyond ground-based missiles. “A test of this length is a major development and would indicate that China is moving toward a significantly more survivable and longer-range sea-based nuclear deterrent capability,” Morris said. The capability also means China’s navy “is capable of targeting the continental United States from bastions close to Chinese waters.”

Notably, the Chinese missile test coincided with the signing of a major new defense treaty between Australia and Fiji, a move that comes as Canberra — a close U.S. ally — works to rebuild its influence in the South Pacific following the 2022 China-Solomon Islands security deal. Most analysts have ruled out a direct causal link between the two events, however, noting that major military missile tests are typically scheduled months or years in advance, making a last-minute alignment unlikely.

As U.S. President Donald Trump touched down in Ankara for a critical two-day NATO summit, alliance leaders are pulling out all the stops to ease tensions with the American leader, whose recent public fury over European responses to the U.S.-Iran conflict has cast a shadow over the gathering. The summit, hosted at Turkey’s sprawling presidential palace, comes exactly one year after NATO members committed under U.S. pressure to ramp up collective defense spending to five percent of GDP, a target that forms the centerpiece of allies’ efforts to placate Trump.

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte has pushed back against Trump’s criticism, insisting that European allies are already delivering on their spending pledges, moving to take greater ownership of continental defense in the face of Russian threats. “Just one year later, we already see transformational progress,” Rutte told reporters on the eve of the summit, framing the shift as the dawn of “NATO 3.0: A stronger Europe in a stronger NATO.”

Trump departed Washington late Monday alongside Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, arriving in Turkey still stinging from European restrictions on U.S. forces using regional bases for strikes against Iran. In the weeks leading up to the summit, he has lashed out at allies for moving too slowly to meet his demands, writing in a Truth Social post last week: “Ridiculous for the U.S.A. to continue along this one-sided path when the relationship is not reciprocal. They were not there for us!!!”

To demonstrate progress to the U.S. president, NATO has prepared a suite of high-profile announcements, capped by the unveiling of tens of billions of dollars in new arms deals at an industry forum opening the summit on Tuesday. Canada reinforced the alliance’s push Monday when it announced a multi-billion-dollar contract to build its new submarine fleet with Germany’s Thyssenkrupp Marine Systems, a move Ottawa framed as a deliberate step to deepen defense ties with European NATO allies. A senior anonymous European diplomat summed up the moment bluntly: “This is showtime.”

Diplomatic efforts to keep Trump in a constructive mood are leaning on his established warm relationship with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, paired with a sustained charm offensive from Rutte. European leaders’ top priority is avoiding a public clash that would further erode NATO’s credibility, after Trump spent months casting doubt on the U.S.’s long-standing commitment to the alliance’s collective defense clause. Still, tensions remain high: Trump has had high-profile fallouts with a string of European leaders in recent months, most recently Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, leaving plenty of room for unexpected friction.

On the Iran front, European allies led by France and Britain have attempted to meet Trump halfway by drafting a plan for a joint naval mission in the Strait of Hormuz, and have repositioned vessels closer to the region to stand by for deployment. But leaders have declined to commit fully to the mission, saying they need clearer clarity on the fragile interim U.S. deal with Tehran before moving forward. For many European capitals, the summit has also underscored a growing acceptance of a long-term shift: the U.S. is steadily drawing down its military commitment to the alliance, and Europe must take greater responsibility for its own security. Washington has already made clear it expects allies to lead conventional defense on the continent, and recently announced cuts to the military assets it makes available to NATO commanders.

Beyond internal alliance shifts, the summit will also center on continued support for Ukraine, which European allies have taken over almost entirely after Trump rolled back U.S. military aid to Kyiv. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who will attend Tuesday’s leaders’ dinner and hold one-on-one talks with Trump, is set to secure a NATO commitment from European backers to maintain at least 70 billion euros ($80 billion) in annual military aid to Ukraine for both 2026 and 2027. Ahead of the summit, Zelensky urged NATO to take “strong decisions” to boost Ukraine’s air defenses, following a devastating Russian airstrike that killed nearly 30 civilians across the country. The Ukrainian leader will also push Trump, who held a pre-summit phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin, to pressure Moscow to return to the table for substantive peace negotiations, while making the case that Kyiv is gaining ground in the war.

### Introduction
Under the second Trump administration’s hardline immigration crackdown, a little-known and highly controversial policy has pushed hundreds of deportees from across the globe into African nations, secured through a toxic mix of U.S. visa bans, financial incentives and diplomatic coercion. Two former senior U.S. State Department officials have confirmed to Agence France-Presse (AFP) that the initiative, conceived by anti-immigration advisor Stephen Miller and the White House Homeland Security Council, strongarms African governments into accepting third-country deportees — individuals who have no connection to the nations they are sent to, and often face abuse, indefinite detention and legal limbo after arrival. The White House declined to respond to specific allegations, while the State Department confirmed that enforcing the administration’s immigration priorities remains a core commitment, focused on curbing unauthorized migration and strengthening U.S. border security.

### The Mechanics of Coercion: Carrots and Sticks for African Nations
The first wave of third-country deportations under the Trump administration focused on Central and South America, but Africa quickly emerged as the second major destination. Washington uses two key levers to pressure African governments: punitive restrictions, including full or partial travel bans targeting majority-African nation lists, and financial payoffs for cooperation. According to Democratic U.S. Senators and non-governmental organizations, two-thirds of the 39 countries hit by Trump administration travel bans are African, and nearly half of all nations that have signed secret deportation deals with Washington are located on the continent.

Human Rights Watch documentation shows Eswatini, Africa’s last absolute monarchy ruled by King Mswati III, agreed to accept 160 deportees in exchange for $5.1 million in U.S. funding. Rwanda has reportedly sealed a similar $7.5 million aid agreement to take 250 deportees. For nations that refuse to comply, consequences are swift and severe. Burkina Faso’s junta, which has adopted a hostile stance toward Western influence, rejected the U.S. push to accept expelled migrants, with Foreign Affairs Minister Karamoko Jean-Marie Traore calling the pressure “blackmail” and affirming the nation “is a place of dignity… not a place of expulsion.” Shortly after the refusal, Washington halted visa processing in Ouagadougou and imposed a full travel ban on the country. When Nigeria declined to accept Venezuelan deportees in 2023, visa restrictions were quickly implemented in response. For cooperative nations, rewards are immediate: after Ghana agreed to take West African deportees, the U.S. reversed existing visa restrictions and lifted a 15% tariff on Ghanaian cocoa and agricultural exports.

### The Human Cost: Deportees Trapped in a ‘Legal Black Hole’
For the deportees caught up in the policy, the outcome is almost universally grim. Lawyers across the U.S. describe the system as creating a “legal black hole,” where detainees are transferred to nations with no ties to them, held without charge, and stripped of basic human rights. Many of those sent to Africa already held legal protections against deportation to their countries of origin under the U.N. Convention Against Torture (CAT), which bars sending individuals back to places where they face risk of torture. The Trump administration has argued these protections only bar deportation to a individual’s home country, allowing transfer to any third nation — a legal interpretation that has been widely condemned by human rights advocates.

Pheap Rom, a 43-year-old Cambodian national who completed a 15-year U.S. prison sentence for attempted murder, told AFP he could not understand why he was expelled to Africa instead of his home country. He was detained for months in Eswatini’s most notorious maximum-security prison, a facility long known as a tool for political repression under King Mswati, where pro-democracy activists and government critics are routinely held. For two months, Rom said he and other deportees were allowed only 15 minutes of outdoor time per day and just one phone call per week. “We went through misery,” he recalled.

The case of 23-year-old Khalid, an East African man who fled torture in his home country and was granted deportation protection by a U.S. immigration judge in 2024, illustrates the policy’s disregard for existing legal safeguards. After crossing the Mexican border, a judge welcomed him to the U.S. and granted him formal protection from forced return. But in January 2025, Khalid was deported without documentation to Equatorial Guinea, a nation routinely criticized for systemic human rights abuses. The Equatorial Guinean government refused to allow him to stay, so he was put on a flight back to his home country — but border officials there turned him away for lack of valid travel documents. Stuck back in Equatorial Guinea, he has no ability to apply for asylum, as the country does not have a formal asylum system, per the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees. “They don’t know if we’re alive or not and they don’t seem to care,” Khalid said of the U.S. officials who oversaw his deportation.

Even long-term U.S. residents with deep roots in the country have been targeted. Roberto Mosquera, a Cuban-born plumber who moved to Florida as a child and was an open supporter of Donald Trump, served time in his youth for a gang-related shooting, but rebuilt his life after release: he married, raised four daughters, and became an outspoken critic of gang violence. After he was detained for a routine check-in with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), his family was falsely told he had been deported to Cuba, which rarely accepts deported Cuban nationals. He was eventually revealed to be held without charge in the same Eswatini prison as Rom, where he has remained for a year. After a recent video call, family friends said he had lost significant weight and hair, held in harsh conditions alongside political prisoners. The Department of Homeland Security even publicly mislabeled him a “murderer” to justify his expulsion.

Deportees sent to other African nations face similarly grim outcomes. Those sent to Ghana were held in secret at a remote military base without charge; some were dumped across the border in Togo without any documentation. A bisexual Gambian deportee was sent back to Gambia, where homosexuality is criminalized, forcing him into hiding. In the Democratic Republic of Congo, deportees are held in hotels near Kinshasa airport, where multiple people have fallen ill, and the International Organization for Migration (IOM) pressures detainees to sign up for “voluntary” repatriation to their home countries. “They’ve got us cornered because they tell us: ‘If you don’t accept the repatriation programme, you’ll be stuck in a mess here in Congo,’” said Gabriela, a 30-year-old Colombian deportee who spoke to AFP in Kinshasa. The IOM has denied any wrongdoing, saying its assistance is strictly voluntary and based on full informed consent.

### Secrecy and Impunity Amid Ongoing Policy Expansion
The entire third-country deportation program is shrouded in secrecy, with no public accounting of how many people have been sent to Africa, which countries have accepted them, or what conditions they face. An investigation by Senate Democrats found that at least nine African governments have agreed to take deportees as part of 25 global agreements, while nonprofit tallies put the number at 14 out of 34 countries with confirmed or alleged deals. The Senate report does not even include Sierra Leone, which accepted its first group of deportees in May 2025, or the Central African Republic, which received Iranian and other deportees in June 2025.

Human rights lawyers warn the policy amounts to “chain refoulement,” a violation of international law that occurs when one country transfers a person to another nation to facilitate their onward deportation to a place where they face harm. “These governments are receiving money from the U.S. for the purpose of processing individuals who are deported there, just to be deported back to their countries — it’s chain refoulement and that is illegal,” said U.S. immigration lawyer Meredyth Yoon. One former State Department official described the administration’s approach as deliberate indifference: “Once they’re out of U.S. hands, you can do with them whatever you want. Hands washed. That’s how the administration approached it.”

Despite growing legal pushback and widespread international criticism, the Trump administration has shown no sign of rolling back the policy. Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran immigrant who became the public face of the administration’s wrongful deportation scandals after being mistakenly sent to El Salvador, remains at risk of expulsion to Uganda, Eswatini, Ghana or Liberia even after a U.S. judge dismissed all criminal charges against him in May 2025. When a judge ruled that the deportation of a woman to the DRC was illegal because the Congolese government could not provide her required medical care, U.S. officials claimed bringing her back to the U.S. was too dangerous due to the Ebola outbreak in the region, leaving her stranded. One former State Department source summed up the policy’s core ideology simply: “There was no real guiding philosophy, it was just xenophobia.”

As recently as May 2025, a new deportation flight landed in Accra, Ghana. An AFP reporter attempted to access the heavily guarded hotel where deportees were reportedly being held, but was turned away. Staff confirmed the hotel was fully booked, but added there would be plenty of vacancies in two days — a signal that the deportees would be moved out to make room, continuing the cycle of secret transfers and forgotten people.