The statements reproduced are particularly serious. In particular, Mediapart attributes to the young Bardella claims regarding an alleged Jewish domination of the banks and other classic themes of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. However, we must use the conditional here: Jordan Bardella categorically denies having written these messages. He describes them as “crude forgeries”, accuses Mediapart of a campaign designed to undermine him, and states that he has instructed his solicitor to take legal action. Marine Le Pen immediately came to his defence, also suggesting that they could be forgeries.
The real question, therefore, is this: what is the basis of Mediapart’s report? The newspaper does not simply claim to have received a few anonymous screenshots. According to the available information, its investigation is said to have lasted several months and covered dozens of conversations. Mediapart claims to have carried out an independent verification of the exchanges and to have gathered testimonies from former party members. Reuters also reports that these witnesses are identified in the investigation by their first name and the initial of their surname.
These elements lend greater substance to the investigation than the mere publication of isolated screenshots. However, on their own, they do not allow an outside reader to regard the authenticity as having been established in a court of law. At this stage, no publicly available counter-expert report, no court ruling and no independent legal analysis has settled the matter. AFP also notes that the recipient(s) of the conversations are not publicly specified in the initial reports on the investigation.
This is therefore probably the most important point to bear in mind: given the current state of publicly available information, it would be excessive both to claim that Mediapart has definitively proven that Bardella is the author of these writings and to claim that the theory that they are forgeries has been proven. Two radically incompatible versions are at odds with one another. The true value of the case will now depend on the ability to verify the original data: the accounts used, complete conversation histories, dates, any metadata, testimonies from those involved, and technical evidence capable of ruling out fabrication.
The legal action announced by Jordan Bardella may, moreover, prove crucial. If he does indeed bring proceedings against Mediapart, the dispute could move beyond the purely political arena. A legal dispute concerning the newspaper’s publications could lead each party to produce before the court the evidence on which it bases its claims. This does not mean that a trial will automatically resolve all the technical issues, but it could provide much more solid evidence than the current media row.
As for the messages themselves, the fact that they are so old greatly reduces the likelihood of any direct criminal consequences for their possible author. French law provides, in particular, for a one-year limitation period for several press offences of a racist or discriminatory nature, with rules also applicable to certain non-public offences. The precise legal classification would obviously depend on the content and context of each message. However, posts dating from 2013 or 2015 do not automatically, thirteen years later, give rise to new criminal proceedings simply because they have been discovered.
The issue is therefore primarily political.
The case directly concerns the strategy of normalisation pursued by the National Rally for years and the personal image cultivated by Jordan Bardella. In particular, he took part in a conference in Israel in 2025 dedicated to the fight against anti-Semitism. If the published messages were irrefutably authenticated, the discrepancy between these old writings and his current public stance would inevitably become a major political issue. Conversely, if Bardella were to succeed in proving that they are fabrications, the affair would backfire on Mediapart and raise serious questions about the methods and checks carried out prior to publication.
One institutional question remains: could this affair prevent Jordan Bardella from becoming Prime Minister if Marine Le Pen were elected President of the Republic in 2027?
As things stand, no – there is no constitutional mechanism by which this controversy would automatically prevent his appointment. Article 8 of the Constitution stipulates that the President of the Republic appoints the Prime Minister. Marine Le Pen has announced Jordan Bardella as her candidate for the post of Prime Minister should she be elected.
Even a major political controversy does not, therefore, in itself constitute a legal barrier to taking up the post at Matignon. The consequences would depend much more on the context: what has been established regarding the authenticity of the messages, the position adopted by Marine Le Pen, the composition of the National Assembly, and the government’s ability to retain the support necessary to govern. The Constitution allows the National Assembly to call the government to account through a motion of no confidence.
It is also important to avoid any confusion: the 2027 presidential election has, of course, not yet taken place. The question arises only in the hypothetical scenario where Marine Le Pen were to be elected and were to maintain her intention to appoint Jordan Bardella as Prime Minister.
With just a few months to go before the presidential election, the matter is therefore serious, given the nature of the published texts and the verification methods that Mediapart claims to have employed. However, the piece of evidence still missing from the public record is crucial: an independent verification to establish with sufficient certainty who actually wrote these conversations.
This is likely to be the deciding factor in what happens next. Not in the immediate heat of the accusations and denials, but in the concrete evidence that Mediapart and Jordan Bardella will now be able to produce.
