Mediapart claims to have uncovered and independently verified dozens of private conversations dating mainly from 2013, when Jordan Bardella was 17 and then 18 years old and was already active in the National Front. Among the remarks attributed to him are statements echoing classic themes of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, notably the idea of Jewish domination of the banking sector or of Jewish and Israeli interests controlling French politics. The media outlet claims to have cross-checked these documents against several witness accounts. Jordan Bardella formally disputes their authenticity, calling them “crude forgeries”, and has announced that he will file a defamation complaint against Mediapart.
The reaction from Yonathan Arfi, president of the CRIF, has been particularly harsh. He says he is “stunned” by the virulence of the remarks attributed to the RN president and believes the affair illustrates the “limits of the National Rally’s efforts to shed its demonised image”. In his view, the fact that Bardella was young at the time of the alleged incidents is not sufficient to explain or excuse them. He also points out that the RN has historically developed in an environment where identity-based movements and conspiracy theories have coexisted.
Yonathan Arfi does not, however, call for Jordan Bardella’s resignation. When asked about this, he believes that this decision rests with the RN president, but that he “owes the French people the truth” and will have to provide a clear answer regarding the authenticity of the documents. Above all, the CRIF president highlights a political contradiction: if these writings are genuine, how can such remarks be reconciled with the image Bardella has cultivated over several years as a leader committed to combating anti-Semitism, particularly during his trip to Israel and his visit to Yad Vashem?
This question is all the more significant given that the RN has considerably altered its public discourse on Jews and Israel since the time of Jean-Marie Le Pen. Jordan Bardella had, for instance, taken part in an international conference in Jerusalem in March 2025 dedicated to the fight against anti-Semitism. His presence had already caused divisions: the Chief Rabbi of France, Haïm Korsia, had criticised the invitation and several European religious leaders had refused to attend the event, whilst other Jewish and Israeli figures had agreed to meet the RN leader.
It is precisely for this reason that it would be an overgeneralisation to portray ‘the Jews’ today as either unanimously in favour of or unanimously opposed to the National Rally. For several years now, this debate has been ongoing within the French Jewish community. Some regard the fight against antisemitism stemming from Islamist movements or certain sectors of the radical left as a priority and have watched the RN’s development with greater interest. Others categorically reject any attempt to normalise the party, pointing to the history of the National Front and the numerous instances of anti-Semitic outbursts by certain candidates or activists.
The ‘Nous Vivrons’ collective, formed in the wake of the massacres of 7 October 2023 and particularly active in the fight against antisemitism, had, for example, adopted a very clear position as early as 2024: combating anti-Semitism from the radical left must under no circumstances lead to lending support to the RN. The collective had summarised its position with the slogan ‘not in our name’ and organised actions against the National Rally. The Union of Jewish Students in France had also consistently rejected the idea that the RN could naturally become the protector of French Jews.
Mediapart’s revelations therefore directly undermine one of the central elements of the RN’s normalisation strategy since 7 October: its desire to present itself as one of the main defenders of Jews against anti-Semitism. Mediapart also notes that the organisations fighting racism and anti-Semitism which it interviewed have condemned the remarks attributed to Bardella.
However, a word of caution remains essential. At present, there are two directly contradictory claims: Mediapart maintains that it has a body of documented evidence that has been authenticated and cross-checked; Jordan Bardella claims that these messages are fabricated and is taking legal action. Until further evidence has been made public or examined as part of the announced legal proceedings, this dispute over authenticity must be acknowledged.
What can, however, be observed at this stage is that the affair places some French Jewish institutions in a particularly sensitive position. The rapprochement between the RN, Israel and certain figures within the Jewish community was based largely on the idea that Marine Le Pen’s party had broken with the anti-Semitism that had marked part of its history. If the documents published by Mediapart were definitively proven to be genuine, this issue would no longer concern only the National Front’s past: it would personally affect the current president of the RN.
The CRIF’s initial reaction thus reflects less the existence of a sudden consensus amongst French Jews against Jordan Bardella than a demand: to establish the facts. And in this case, whether or not the conversations revealed by Mediapart are genuine will be decisive. For it is this that will determine whether we are dealing with a fabrication, as Bardella claims, or with a major contradiction between his political past and the image he presents today.
