(No "Policy News You Need To Know" today.)

We apologize, we know this is a US domestic policy newsletter, but your correspondent just spent the past 8 hours watching the end of democracy in France, which is a regionally important US ally located in Western Europe (they also make really good cheese and nuclear submarines).

We are referring of course to today's judgement by the Paris Tribunal sentencing Marine Le Pen, who is currently the leader of the parliamentary opposition in France, for "embezzlement" (more on which below).

"The end of democracy" may or may not be hyperbole. The future will tell. But we should note that this is certainly the most worrying recent development in a nation that has been perilously backsliding towards authoritarianism.

First, the case. Marine Le Pen is not accused of personally profiting in any way. Here is what is at stake in the 10 year old case: that several of Ms Le Pen's parliamentary assistants, at the time when she was a Member of the European Parliament, worked on party political work and not parliamentary work, which is not allowed by European Parliament rules.

A few bits of context should be noted here. The first is that this was common practice at the time. Several other French parties have been similarly implicated. In one case, regarding LFI, the main far-left opposition party, the investigation is "ongoing" though seems to be indefinitely stalled for some reason. In another case, regarding the Democratic Movement, a small centrist party, the party received a fine but the party leader received no sentence due to insufficient evidence; that party leader, François Bayrou, is currently the prime minister of France. The second is that, especially for members of small populist or anti-establishment party, there is little parliamentary work of note to be done in the European Parliament; the European Parliament is a machine where the leadership of the two major parties (EPP, center-right, and S&D, center-left) agree on legislation behind closed doors and members can only vote legislation up or down. There is very little lee-way for members outside those two groups to offer amendments or run investigations or do the kind of legislative work that requires staff. If you are an anti-establishment Member of the European Parliament there is simply very little to do except show up once a week to push the "No vote" button (since almost all legislation, even when its goals are desirable in the abstract, hands more power to the EU, which you oppose on principle).

In any case: it is not disputed that at various time Ms Le Pen's assistants did party political work instead of parliamentary work; that Ms Le Pen did not personally benefit from EU funds (or attempt to do so).

Second, the sentence. The sentence seems unusually harsh. (More on which below.)

Ms Le Pen is barred from running for elected office for 5 years. This sentence has received "provisory execution" meaning that it applies starting today and cannot be suspended pending appeal. (More on this, too, below.)

Ms Le Pen must pay a fine of 100 000 euros (on top of the multimillion euro fines as well as civil damages her party has been sentenced to).

Ms Le Pen has received a sentence of 4 years imprisonment, with the first two years to be served under house arrest and the remainder suspended.

Third, the law.

First, a disclaimer: while your correspondent has legal training, he is not a lawyer, and the decision has not been published yet, so we are relying on reports of the decision that was read from the bench today by the judge.

That said, this decision, in terms of law, seems indefensible on the merits. There are several elements that seem plainly contrary to law.

A big issue is that the charge against Ms Le Pen is that she engaged in "fictitious employment." Under French law, "fictitious employment" means that the person receiving the salary does no work. And it is not in dispute that the people employed as Ms Le Pen's assistant did work, just not the kind of work that they were officially hired to do. However, the tribunal said that Ms Le Pen engaged in "fictitious contracts," a concept which seems to be entirely novel. In French law, French criminal law is considered "of strict interpretation," which means that (unlike in civil law) judges cannot stretch the definition of terms. A crime either has been committed, exactly as described in the statute, or it has not.

The other glaring issue is the issue of "provisory execution." Under the French Code of criminal procedure, a sentence can only receive "provisory execution" if there is a risk of a repeat offense. In Ms Le Pen's case, this is plainly absurd. The reason why the "provisory execution" is key is that unless Ms Le Pen gets an expedited appeal, it means she cannot run for President, as she has clearly expressed her intent to do (according to the latest polls, dating from before the judgment, she was the leading candidate).

Given that what Ms Le Pen did with her assistants was improper, it would have been appropriate to fine her party and perhaps herself personally. The sentences of ineligibility and prison, however, are inexplicable except as politically-motivated. The sentencing judge in her case said previously in an interview that she wanted to become a judge because she was inspired by Eva Joly, a French judge who later became a far-left politician.

Fourth, the politics.

What's going to happen? Nobody knows. Ms Le Pen is set to give a live interview during France's premier news broadcast tonight at 8pm (France time). Presumably this is when she will make any announcements. Ms Le Pen is a fighter, so we would bet that she will deny the charges and announce that she will keep fighting. But this would have to mean running a campaign while fighting a high stakes lawsuit; what's more, that campaign would be a kind of Schrödinger's campaign, where at any moment an appeals court decision could confirm her ineligibility and force her to drop out. Could this rebound back to the RN's benefit? It's quite possible, but it's too early to say.

The broader point is: JD Vance was right. Democracy is backsliding in Europe in a very big way. The kind of "lawfare" tactics that were pioneered against the first Trump Administration have been turbocharged in Europe. We can only hope that the current Administration steps up its campaign to get Europe to strengthen its democratic norms.