Government

Published on
21/10/2026 – 11:49 GMT+2

French yields have been rising for weeks as lawmakers wrangle over a 2027 budget that calls for billions of euros in spending cuts to reduce a debt pile that now stands at around 120% of France’s GDP – one of the highest levels in the eurozone and well above the EU limit of 60%.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

The French Treasury’s OAT bond is also used to set interest rates across a wide swath of the economy, meaning borrowing costs could begin rising for businesses and households.

The last time it was that high was during the dot-com financial crisis.

The spread between the 10-year yield and the German 10-year bond, considered the European benchmark of creditworthiness, also surged to nearly 160 basis points.

The bond selloff puts further pressure on the government ahead of a decision Friday by the ratings agency Moody’s on France’s sovereign credit rating, with most economists expecting a downgrade that would automatically raise the government’s borrowing costs.

Prime Minister Sebastien Lecornu is trying to get a 2027 budget approved in parliament despite not having a political majority for the €43 billion ($48bn) in spending cuts he seeks.

Even if approved, the budget would bring France’s deficit down to only 5% of GDP next year, well above the 3% limit for EU members.

Meanwhile, protests over the weekend calling in part for more spending on schools and other public services, degenerated into the worst street violence seen in years.

Additional sources • AFP

Italy has approved the deployment of troops and tougher legal penalties in a bid to quell cost-of-living protests in the north of the country that occasionally turned violent over the weekend.

The Italian cabinet on Tuesday approved sending 500 troops to Milan, a new legal offence covering violent participation in a demonstration, tougher penalties for rioters and financial liability for parents whose children take part in vandalism and looting.

Italy’s Ministry of Defence said the military will help reinforce security at key sites, step up surveillance of sensitive locations and enhance monitoring.

Unrest swept northern Italian cities at the weekend, including the financial capital Milan, where groups of mainly young people looted shops, smashed windows and clashed with the police. The demonstrations were driven by anger over soaring fuel and energy prices, high rents, low wages and the state of public services.

Public safety

As part of the new legal measures, which take effect immediately, anyone who takes part in a group of at least five people and endangers public safety during protests faces up to five years in prison and a maximum fine of €20,000 ($22,460).

Penalties increase if faces are concealed or people are injured.

Authorities can order prompt compensation for any damage inflicted and, in the case of minors, hold their parents liable.

Police will be allowed to detain youths aged between 14 and 17, even if they have not committed a crime, provided there is evidence they pose a danger, extending powers that previously applied only to adults.

But the cabinet did not approve giving soldiers policing powers, as expected, after opposition from President Sergio Mattarella, Italian media reported.

“Destroying and stealing is not protest, it is crime, and the state’s response must be firm,” Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni said in a social media post after the cabinet meeting.

Echoing protests

The disturbances in northern Italy echoed riots in neighbouring France, where hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets on Saturday in some of the country’s most violent turmoil in years.

Meloni’s government is also facing mounting pressure from a separate wave of protests in southern Italy, where truck drivers angered by soaring diesel prices and the rising cost of living have staged roadblocks that are disrupting supply chains.

Protesters in both the north and the south say rising prices are pushing families into poverty, a concern for Meloni ahead of the 2027 national elections.

Police have arrested 55 people after protesters camp in Lisbon and Porto.

Thousands of protesters have returned to two central squares in Portugal for demonstrations against an intensifying housing crisis, hours after police cleared their camps in the capital, Lisbon, and the city of Porto, arresting 55 people.

Activists have demanded the centre-right government withdraw a bill that makes evictions easier and ends rent caps on new leases, which passed a first parliamentary reading.

The demonstrators in Lisbon sought to rebuild their sit-in camp at Rossio Square on Tuesday, while those in Porto were returning to the northern city’s Dom Joao I Square.

Organisers said more than 1,000 people had gathered at each square. Activists have occupied Lisbon’s Rossio Square since Saturday, pitching around 200 tents, and Porto’s Dom Joao I Square for around 10 days.

‘Enough is enough’

Debora Miranda, 41, a communications consultant, told Reuters she joined the Rossio Square protest to represent generations struggling with soaring costs. “If people don’t feel at home, in every sense of the word, they can’t move forward with their lives…enough is enough.”

The camps mirrored housing protests in neighbouring Spain, and coincided with unrest over rising living costs in countries such as France, Belgium and Italy.

Shortly before 6am, after warning protesters that the camps were illegal, police launched coordinated operations in both cities. Demonstrators in Porto followed orders and dismantled their own tents. Officers cleared Lisbon’s Rossio Square in what Carla Valadao, a spokesperson for the camp, described as “very aggressive”.

Public Security Police superintendent Sergio Soares told reporters that the eviction had been “calm, proportionate and appropriate, with no police charge”.

The 55 detainees were later released pending a court appearance in Lisbon on Wednesday.

One of Europe’s worst housing crises

Portugal is grappling with one of Europe’s worst housing affordability crises as purchase prices have more than doubled since 2017 and rents for new leases have nearly doubled.

Jorge Paixao, 19, a history student, called it “a societal crisis”, saying his generation needed “the ability to live with dignity, start families and rejuvenate Portugal”.

The squeeze is most acute in the major cities, where there has also been opposition to excessive tourism and an influx of so-called digital nomads, people who travel while working remotely.

Federal authorities this week teased a “separate batch” of 17,000 potential noncitizen voters in their federal court challenge to California’s handling of alleged voter fraud.

In response, Los Angeles County officials questioned the accuracy of the government’s earlier list of 20,000 alleged noncitizen voters — saying a preliminary review of a subset of those voters found evidence that nearly 40% were born in the U.S.

The claims came in filings shedding new light on the unprecedented Homeland Security inquiry into California’s voter rolls just weeks before the Nov. 3 election.

On Monday, Nicolas Bartell, a Homeland Security official, wrote in a sworn affidavit that — in addition to developing the disputed list of 20,000 “likely noncitizen” voters at the heart of the litigation — his agency has also developed a “separate batch of more than 17,000 voting records potentially tied to noncitizens.”

“Our review is ongoing as USCIS receives records on a rolling basis before the election date,” wrote Bartell, the associate director of the Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

On Tuesday, Monica Flores, a top official in the L.A. County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk’s office, wrote in an affidavit that staff members had reviewed a sample of 200 registrations from the list of 20,000 voters whom the Justice Department alleged last week were “likely noncitizens.” The office found that more than half — 112 — had been canceled or were inactive, meaning no ballot was sent to those voters.

In instances where those voters’ birthplace was “meaningfully reported, 38.9% indicate that they were born in the United States, which is strong evidence of citizenship,” Flores wrote, while 71.2% showed no record of ever voting.

Flores wrote that similarly vetting the citizenship of thousands of additional voters before the election would not only be “administratively impossible and take key personnel away from their critical election duties,” but would also “risk disenfranchising voters who are validly registered.”

Also Tuesday, Rachel Evans, an attorney in the California secretary of state’s office, wrote in an affidavit that the office since August has received and been complying with grand jury subpoenas for the detailed voter records of about 300 people.

Evans’ acknowledgment came a day after federal prosecutors charged 28 people across California with federal election-related crimes, including fraudulent voter registration and making false statements in a naturalization application, and suggests federal prosecutors are pursuing criminal cases against hundreds more.

Taken together, the filings indicate that the legal battle between the Trump administration and California over alleged fraudulent voting is only just gearing up — with no end in sight before Nov. 3 — as is the political sparring over the issue.

First Assistant U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli, the lead federal prosecutor in Los Angeles, posted to X on Tuesday that Flores’ acknowledgment that her office could not possibly vet voters’ citizenship before the election was a “massive concession,” proving the federal government’s case.

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office said that “any credible allegation of voter fraud should be taken seriously and investigated,” but that federal officials charging just 28 people in a state with 23 million voters showed they have no evidence of widespread fraud.

“Yes, non-citizen voter registration and voting does happen in isolated instances — in California and the rest of the country alike — but it is so rare that the Trump admin is parading around town about .0001% of California voters,” Newsom’s office wrote on X.

The broader case

On Monday, Justice Department lawyers filed a request for an emergency restraining order requiring state election officials to segregate any ballots from the 20,000 voters flagged on the initial Homeland Security list until their citizenship is proved. They argued the state is violating the law — and harming the federal government — by refusing to do so.

State attorneys argued Tuesday that the federal government has no authority over California elections and seeks to violate federal law precluding voter roll purges in the 90 days before an election.

State officials wrote that the Justice Department appeared to have “individualized evidence” of noncitizenship for the 28 people it had charged, and that nothing was preventing it from working through existing “statutory channels” to block those individuals’ ballots. But they argued that it does not have evidence to back its claims against all 20,000 voters whose ballots it is seeking to sequester.

Those contentions — and Bartell’s claim of a second list of 17,000 potential noncitizen voters — only add to an already heated debate about the scope of the inquiry and its legitimacy.

In July, Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin alleged in a letter to California Secretary of State Shirley Weber that there “may be as many as 190,832 noncitizens registered to vote in California,” and demanded that the state work with federal authorities to investigate. The state asked that Homeland Security first provide more information, including about its methodology for identifying that figure.

Last week, acting Deputy Atty. Gen. Trent McCotter wrote follow-up letters to Weber and Dean Logan, head of the L.A. County registrar’s office, asserting that 20,000 “likely noncitizens” were on state rolls, and again demanding state cooperation within 48 hours to remove them. Weber balked, arguing that federal law precludes systematic roll purges within 90 days of an election to protect eligible voters.

Weber and other state officials also questioned the drop from 190,000 to 20,000, and the reliability of the federal government’s underlying data and methodology. “What happened to the 170,000? You just got those wrong?” California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta asked.

On Monday, McCotter said the 190,000 figure was “the ceiling,” inclusive of cases that federal authorities had high, medium and low confidence in, while the 20,000 figure was “the floor,” inclusive of only high confidence cases.

Potential flaws in the list have been a major point of contention among California officials, who have pointed to substantial inaccuracies in lists elsewhere, including in Nevada, where a state review found that the 185 voters whose citizenship was questioned by the Trump administration were all citizens.

Now, it appears the federal government’s disputed list of 20,000 voters won’t be the last in California.

How voters were identified

In court filings, federal officials described purchasing California voter registration information before USCIS and Homeland Security Investigations agents worked to identify any voters who are not citizens. They said that they did so in part by comparing the state data with “third party commercial data” sets and law enforcement data sets, and that they further vetted their list by culling dead people.

Essayli pointed to those descriptions to dispel arguments that federal authorities have not provided their methodology for identifying potential noncitizens on voter rolls. He said that the federal process was robust and trustworthy and that federal authorities had compiled “overwhelming evidence of tens of thousands of ineligible voters on the state’s rolls.”

Independent election experts saw it differently.

“They admitted to using some of the same tools amateur election conspiracy theorists use, like unidentified third party software, commercial lists, and public versions of [the state’s] voter roll,” Gowri Ramachandran, an election administration expert at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law. “These amateur data matching efforts don’t get any better merely because the Department of Justice relies on them.”

“If DOJ could prove many more cases, we would have heard about it,” Rick Hasen, director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project at UCLA School of Law, wrote in a blog post. “They’ve been on an aggressive hunt nationally for such fraud. It’s not surprising they’ve found little because it is a small problem.”

The top 1 percent in Peru captured 42 percent of all new wealth generated between 2019 and 2025, an analysis by the nonprofit group Oxfam has found.

The report, released on Tuesday, highlights growing inequality in the South American country and raises questions about how the government is addressing deepening social divisions.

“Economic inequality in Peru has remained stubbornly high for decades. And when people feel that the same people always win, that nothing changes and nothing can change, inequality starts to look less like an injustice and more like the natural order of things,” said Alejandra Alayza, the executive director of Oxfam in Peru.

“That is a dangerous kind of fatalism, and we must tear it down.”

The nonprofit told Al Jazeera in an email that the 42 percent figure represents an increase from the 2000 to 2019 period, when the top 1 percent captured about 39 percent of all new wealth.

Just 1.4 percent of new wealth from 2019 to 2025 went to the poorest 50 percent of the country’s population, according to the group.

Experts warn the trend bodes poorly for public faith in government and democratic institutions.

Oxfam worked with the Institute for Peruvian Studies, a think tank in Lima, to publish a report this month on Peruvians’ perceptions of inequality in their country.

The groups found that 84 percent of Peruvians believed their country is governed by powerful interests that shape politics to their benefit. More than 75 percent also said that wealthy corporations and individuals avoid paying their fair share of taxes.

The survey also suggested that public opinion was in favour of action to address the issue.

About 70 percent of respondents said they want the government to do more to reduce inequality, which a majority felt had limited access to services such as healthcare, employment, education and justice.

“The undeniable scale of public support for action to reduce inequality leaves no room for complacency,” Alayza said.

“Inequality is not a force of nature; it is made by political choices. And different choices can build a different Peru.”

Political instability

Peru’s rising inequality has been accompanied by a period of political turmoil, particularly in the presidential palace.

A stream of probes, scandals and impeachments has led to Peru being governed by nine presidents in the last 10 years.

The latest, right-wing President Keiko Fujimori, was sworn into office in July after a narrow race that saw voting delays and heated recriminations among the leading candidates.

Experts believe powerful interests have found opportunity amid the political tumult.

“It’s sort of a paradox. How can you have such a rotation among elites but still have a relatively narrow political-criminal-business elite that holds a lot of power? I think both things are true in Peru,” Will Freeman, a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, a US-based think tank, told Al Jazeera.

Part of the political upheaval has come from clashes between the presidency and Peru’s powerful Congress, which has the power to impeach executive leaders on the basis of “moral incapacity”, an ambiguous term.

The repeated leadership shakeups have weakened Peru’s democracy, according to analysts.

In December 2022, for instance, then-President Pedro Castillo announced that he would illegally dissolve Congress in response to repeated attempts to impeach him.

His subsequent removal and arrest prompted widespread protests. The government of Castillo’s successor, Dina Boluarte, implemented a months-long crackdown on the demonstrations that rights groups say included widespread abuses for which there has been little accountability.

In the years since, the Peruvian government has also taken steps to weaken judicial oversight and hollow out anticorruption watchdogs.

The nonprofit Freedom House, which measures political freedom in countries around the world, ranked Peru as “free” in 2022. But its ranking dropped the following year to “partly free”, in light of the deadly clashes between security forces and protesters.

In its 2026 report, Freedom House maintained that Peru was only “partly free”, citing in part the denial of full political rights to certain groups, including Indigenous peoples.

“High-profile corruption scandals have eroded public trust in government, and the weakening of judicial independence has impacted the country’s governing bodies,” the nonprofit said.

Powerful interests, both licit and illicit, have taken advantage of those changes.

“The groups themselves are unstable and fluid,” said Freeman. “And yet, I think Peruvians are right to conclude that, generally, they are wielding outsized influence in defence of their own commercial interests or political power rather [than] in service of some kind of general welfare.”

Vice President JD Vance declined Monday to endorse Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for reelection a day after President Trump endorsed the embattled Israeli leader.

“The president has the most influential endorsement in American or international political history,” Vance said during an interview with journalist Mark Halperin.

“I endorse American candidates, and that’s where I’m focused on the midterms,” Vance said, while traveling Monday to campaign for Republican Senate nominee Michael Whatley of North Carolina. “So, I’m not getting involved in Israeli elections.”

Vance has campaigned for a foreign leader — then-Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, last spring before the right-wing leader’s party lost that country’s parliamentary election.

Vance’s deference to Trump on Netanyahu comes at an extraordinarily sensitive time for Jewish Americans and the U.S. alliance with Israel. Concerns about antisemitism have surged across the political spectrum ahead of the midterm elections.

Republicans have been eager to portray Democrats, notably Michigan Democratic Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed, as hostile toward Jews and Israel, while they deal with their own internal schisms.

Vance has faced skepticism from Jewish Republicans about his commitment to Jewish Americans and the U.S. alliance with Israel.

Last month, Vance spoke privately in Las Vegas to the Republican Jewish Coalition, a leading GOP group committed to advocating for a strong U.S. relationship with Israel and against antisemitism.

Vance left a positive impression on his RJC audience while stopping short of disavowing influential conservative podcast host Tucker Carlson.

Vance has faced general questions about his association with Carlson, a former Fox News host who faced backlash last year for interviewing antisemite Nick Fuentes on his podcast.

In June, Vance sharply criticized members of Israel’s government for opposing Trump’s efforts to resolve the war with Iran.

In July, Vance said elements of the Israeli government had tried to influence American sentiment to derail negotiations.

“There are some people within their system that we know beyond a shadow of a doubt are manipulating and trying to change American public opinion to keep the war going on indefinitely,” Vance said during an appearance on Joe Rogan’s podcast.

Beaumont writes for the Associated Press.

In what may be one of the most comical self-owns in recent politics, the esteemed attorneys of the U.S. Department of Justice announced Monday that despite the extravagant and terrifying misuse of their investigative power under the Trump administration, they have so far been able to identify only 28 people in all of California who may have voted illegally.

“The announcement today by the United States DOJ makes the point that there is no widespread voter fraud,” California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said after the news conference announcing the results of “Operation Protect the Vote.”

Twenty-eight people out of about 23 million registered voters in the state — and not all of them even tried to vote, according to the feds. That’s about 1 in 820,000 folks allegedly registering or voting illegally, a rate that roughly matches how often people in the United States get struck by lightning in a given year.

So much for Trump’s endless claims that there is a vast, organized conspiracy between Democrats and undocumented people to have them vote in large numbers to steal elections. I’ll point out here that none of those charged Monday have been accused of colluding with one another or with Democratic overlords.

All the power of the government — investigative, technological, legal — has been thrown at finding these mysterious, diabolically clever ballot baddies. And now, thanks to Bill Essayli, first assistant U.S. attorney for the Central District of California, and his colleagues across this great state, we now know that all 28 of them will be held accountable, if the government can prove wrongdoing. And let’s be clear — people who vote illegally should be held accountable.

But wait, there’s more, because this election-stealing plot by immigrants certainly doesn’t stop at the state line. Seamus Hughes of Court Watch, an excellent site that tracks federal litigation, reported Monday that since the start of this administration, 169 people have been charged federally with illegally registering or voting.

That number includes the new California cases, so it means an additional 141 potentially illegal voters have been charged across the U.S. — all told about 1 in 1.25 million registered voters being accused of illegally registering or voting, making this crime slightly less likely than guessing a six-digit pin code on the first try.

There. Is. No. Election. Stealing.

But that’s where the funny part ends, because this attack on California elections is serious and just getting started.

The federal government, you’ve probably read, is suing California, claiming it gave the state a janky thumb drive with 20,000 names of registered voters that it sort of strongly suspects maybe aren’t legal voters. Important note here: The government has been very careful not to claim that these people voted illegally, just that it might be so based on questionable data, which I’ll get to in a minute.

The feds gave the state a silly 48-hour deadline to agree to change constitutional law, dump common sense and sequester these 20,000 ballots, if they were even returned, to double-check they were cast by valid voters.

When California rightfully refused — because elections are run by states, not the federal government — the federal government sued on the thinnest of legal grounds. It basically claimed that voting illegally is illegal, and if California doesn’t do exactly what Trump wants, it could be violating the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution by impeding the feds from enforcing the crime of voter fraud.

First Assistant U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli speaks at a news conference Monday at which officials announced that 28 people in California had been charged with voter fraud.

(David Butow / For The Times)

Which is basically arguing that if the state government fails to stop voter fraud using the flawed methods Trump likes, then the state is somehow stopping federal authorities from prosecuting voter fraud themselves. But didn’t they just enforce it with 28 cases?

Get ready, because “state-facilitated voter fraud,” is a new right-wing thing.

California is “being complicit in non-citizens voting in our elections, and as they were warned last week, not only is it a civil violation, but they could also face criminal consequences,” Essayli said, which if it happened would give Trumped-up charges a whole new meaning.

Essayli said state officials are not being “good faith actors,” but I’ll argue that shoe is on the other foot. The list of 20,000 alleged, suspected, maybe-maybe-not illegal voters was likely drawn from the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program, created by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, if you can remember that unfortunate relic.

It sought to draw data from more than a dozen government databases that were not only not compatible with such information sharing, but which had been kept separate until now for privacy reasons. Americans in general did not want the government collecting unified, know-all records of every citizen.

Luckily for us, I guess, the SAVE system can’t actually create reliable, unified records. It confuses people, convolutes them, merges records of people with similar names, and in general has been deemed unreliable by data experts.

In September, the good folks at the UCLA Voting Rights Project joined with the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights to sue the federal government over its use of that system to target naturalized citizens for removal from voter rolls. Turns out, the government appears to be targeting immigrants who are now citizens with these voter fraud accusations.

As I wrote about a few weeks ago, naturalized citizens make up about 1 in 10 eligible voters, and nearly a quarter of them live in California. But they also live in swing states such as Michigan, where Democrat Abdul El-Sayed may draw such voters, and in other places such as Georgia and Nevada where races might be decided by only a few votes.

These arrests and lawsuits while voting is already underway in the midterms are a not-subtle form of voter suppression. Imagine being a naturalized citizen in the Central Valley, where ICE is driving rampant fear and where Republican Rep. David Valadao is running against Democrat Randy Villegas in California’s 22nd Congressional District — one of the nation’s most closely contested races.

Would you consider sitting this election out just in case your ballot draws the frightening eye of the federal government? Even knowing that your vote is legal, what if you lived in a mixed-status household? Would it be worth risking voting if it meant a knock at the door from immigration checking on your status, and maybe finding that family member who lacks it?

Why take the risk?

“Basically, what they’re doing now is just completely harassing and intimidating naturalized citizens who are legally eligible to vote through these actions,” said Matt Barreto, co-founder of the Voting Rights Project.

And if the vote isn’t suppressed enough to give Trump the results he wants, these prosecutions and lawsuits feed the beast of conspiracy, giving Trump fodder to claim the results are fake, the election stolen.

And round and round we go, reckoning with Trump’s claims that lightning is striking everyone, everywhere, all at once, because the vote didn’t go his way.

On October 16, King Mohammed VI of Morocco appointed a new government headed by Prime Minister Fatima Zohra Al Mansouri. This is the first time in Moroccan history that a woman is leading the government – a precedent that was covered widely in international media.

In the Moroccan context, however, what is important is that Al Mansouri hails from the Authenticity and Modernity Party (PAM), which won the most seats in parliamentary elections in September. The party was founded by Ali Himma, a close associate and adviser to the king.

PAM, which has formed a coalition with three other parties, dominates the new government. This signals continuity rather than potential for change.

A party aligned with the monarchy

When thinking about what trajectory the new government is likely to take, it is important to consider PAM’s evolution.

The party was established in 2008 with the aim of countering the rise of political Islam in Morocco and in particular, the Justice and Development Party (PJD). The Arab Spring, which saw mass protests across the country, brought changes to the Moroccan political scene, allowing more space for political forces like the PJD and, to an extent, curbing the influence of the establishment, known as the Makhzen.

In 2011, Himma distanced himself from PAM and became an adviser to the king. Yet, the party continued to be perceived by other political groups as tied to the Makhzen.

For years, PAM carried the stigma of its origins, but it persisted in trying to gain acceptance. In the 2016 elections, it challenged the PJD and secured the second-biggest number of votes, thus establishing itself as a legitimate political force. Yet this was still not enough to enable it to lead the government.

The party subsequently reinvented itself by rejuvenating its ranks and gaining experience in public affairs through its participation in the 2021 government as a coalition partner. In the latest elections, PAM finally won.

This election victory, however, needs to be put into perspective: 62 percent of eligible voters stayed away from the polls. On election day, the authorities had to call on people to go out and vote.

Apart from the low turnout, there were suspicions of irregularities, but because in some cases the official election records were not released, observers and political parties were unable to obtain tangible evidence.

There was also the familiar phenomenon of influential figures being brought into political parties at the last minute to boost electoral prospects. For example, just two months before the election, Faouzi Laaqjea, president of the Royal Moroccan Football Federation, whose popularity stems from the achievements of Moroccan football, officially joined PAM.

To secure a majority in parliament, the party has had to form a coalition with forces which had previously questioned its legitimacy. While PAM has gained legitimacy through this alliance, the other parties and their leaders may now lose credibility.

The newly formed government has retained more than half the members of its predecessor, not to mention the so-called sovereign ministries, which fall directly within the king’s reserved powers. Some Moroccans are already asking what was the point of holding elections if the same people are brought back to govern.

Challenges ahead

The new government has an ambitious programme to respond to growing domestic pressure as the cost-of-living crisis deepens. At the first Council of Ministers meeting chaired by the king on October 17 , a 2027 Finance Bill was put forward that featured greater emphasis on addressing social issues, citizens’ purchasing power and youth inclusion.

However, this agenda is facing an unfavourable international economic and financial environment, marked by rising energy prices and increasing costs of inputs for some of Morocco’s leading sectors, including phosphate production.

The state-owned OCP Group, which is in charge of phosphate extraction and the industrial processing of phosphate derivatives and is one of Morocco’s principal sources of wealth, is now experiencing difficult times.

There are also concerns about the potential effects of El Nino, which could bring more dry weather and threaten food security in a country that just endured seven consecutive years of drought.

Tourism, another major source of revenue, could also suffer from the global slowdown in travel, rising transport costs and the uncertainties arising from tensions in the Gulf and Europe.

The circumstances are therefore far from favourable for the new government, and public opinion appears broadly sceptical.

Last but not least, this government will face an experienced and outspoken opposition, represented by both the Islamist PJD and the radical left.

Even the ministers holding the so-called sovereign portfolios face serious challenges. The foreign minister must contend with public opposition to the normalisation of relations with Israel. The interior minister has to tackle allegations of electoral manipulation.

The minister of religious affairs is facing the fallout of controversial statements concerning Morocco as a secular country and remarks about Ceuta, known in Morocco as Sebta, made during a religious ceremony. These comments were poorly received by the Spanish authorities.

The new government has an ambitious agenda, indeed, but its tenure will be shaped by difficult circumstances – both at home and abroad – that are largely out of its control.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

Hegseth has travelled to Israel to meet Netanyahu ahead of a closely contested election, Axios reported, citing sources.

US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during an undisclosed visit to Israel, according to Axios.

The meeting between the hawkish ally of US President Donald Trump and the veteran Israeli premier facing a knife-edge election occurred on Monday, Axios reported, citing two sources with knowledge of the matter.

The Reuters news agency could not immediately confirm the visit. The Pentagon and Israel’s embassy in Washington did not immediately respond to requests for comment, and there was no immediate indication of what they discussed.

Trump endorsement

President Trump took to his social media platform Truth Social on Sunday to endorse Netanyahu in next week’s parliamentary election, the first vote since the Hamas-led October 7 attacks in 2023 and Israel’s genocidal campaign in Gaza began.

Trump praised the prime minister for being an ally of the US in its war on Iran. He added that Netanyahu had his “Complete and Total Endorsement”.

“BIBI NETANYAHU WILL NEVER LET YOU DOWN!” Trump wrote.

Netanyahu’s religious-nationalist coalition is projected to lose its governing majority, although the opposition may also struggle to form a government, opinion polls suggest.

US Vice President JD Vance, however, declined to endorse Netanyahu in an interview earlier on Monday, saying he was not getting involved in Israeli elections.

“I endorse American candidates, and that’s where I’m focused on is the midterms,” Vance, who travelled to Budapest and endorsed Viktor Orban in Hungarian elections earlier this year, said in an interview with digital media outlet 2WAY.

“I’m not anti-endorsing him, but I’m not pro-endorsing him; I’m not getting involved in Israeli elections,” Vance said.

Tehran summons envoy in tit-for-tat move after Berlin summoned ambassador to Iran.

Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has summoned Germany’s ambassador after a court in Hamburg found two men guilty of plotting to kill two leaders of Jewish organisations at Tehran’s behest, accusing Berlin of leveling “baseless political allegations”.

The decision to summon envoy Axel Dittmann came after Germany summoned the Iranian ambassador, Majid Nili Ahmadabadi, on Monday over allegations that Tehran was behind the plot to assassinate the two pro-Israel public figures.

“Levelling security-related accusations against Iran has long been a tactic employed by the Zionist regime and certain Western nations,” Iran’s Foreign Ministry said in a statement broadcast by official news agency IRNA.

“Attempting to provide a judicial face to baseless political claims not only fails to lend any credibility to such allegations but also undermines the standing of the German judiciary itself,” the statement added.

Hamburg conviction

Berlin’s allegations stem from a court case involving two men, a Danish national and an Afghan national, who were convicted in a Hamburg court on Thursday for planning to target the president of Germany’s main group representing the Jewish community and the head of the German-Israeli society.

The German Foreign Ministry said on X that the Iranian ambassador had been summoned, adding Tehran would not be allowed to “threaten our free society”.

“The malicious assassination attempts against Josef Schuster and Volker Beck will have legal consequences,” it added.

“We do not tolerate attacks on Jewish life and on those who defend it anywhere, and certainly not in Germany.”

The Dane, partially identified as Ali Hassan S, was jailed for eight-and-a-half years. The Afghan, who was recruited as his accomplice, was sentenced to four-and-a-half years.

Iran’s intelligence service steered the two men, the court said. The pair were arrested in Denmark last year and extradited.

In sentencing the men, the judge said they were guilty of “terrorist activities orchestrated by Iran”.

At the time they were charged, the Iranian embassy in Berlin released a statement rejecting what it called “unfounded allegations made at the behest of Iran’s enemies”.

Lawmakers adjourn second session as one party tells members to abstain over unclear commitment.

Egypt’s parliament has delayed a vote on authorising its armed forces to support Saudi Arabia, which has come under increasing attack from the Iran-aligned Houthis in Yemen.

The vote has been adjourned to October 26, the House of Representatives said on Monday. The move prolongs the debate over Egypt’s role in the Yemeni conflict.

The opposition Egyptian Social Democratic Party said it had told its lawmakers to abstain.

The party said parliament had not been given enough information about the mission’s objectives, duration, cost, or the risks to Egyptian troops.

However, the party, which holds nearly a dozen seats, said most of its lawmakers support the measure, according to two members of parliament who spoke to the AFP news agency.

The parliament has been tasked with authorising President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi to approve any request from Saudi Arabia for defence assistance amid attacks on the kingdom by Yemen’s Houthis.

The call for support came after the Iran-backed rebel group attacked Riyadh’s international airport and the state oil company Saudi Aramco last week. Saudi authorities say 13 people were killed in the October 10 attack on the airport.

El-Sisi said on Saturday that Egypt would take “any measure” needed to protect its Gulf allies.

“I’m not talking about confronting or attacking anyone,” el-Sisi said. “We’re talking only about defence.”

After approval from the National Defence Council, chaired by el-Sisi, Egypt’s constitution requires a two-thirds parliamentary majority to send troops on a combat mission abroad. The council gave its approval on Sunday.

Egypt’s rocky economy

The Grand Imam of al-Azhar urged Arab and Muslim leaders on Sunday to mediate Egypt’s parliamentary decision and avert further bloodshed.

Saudi Arabia holds an important role in financing Egypt’s rocky economy. It is due to deposit $5.3bn into Egypt’s central bank this month, plus $267.39m in interest.

Egypt’s EGX30 stock index fell early on Monday amid concerns about possible military involvement but recovered to close 0.4 percent higher.

Nematallah Choucri, head of research at HC Securities, told the Reuters news agency that geopolitical developments are the main driver of recent market losses.

Egypt is also affected by the shortage of oil and gas exports from the Middle East due to the United States war on Iran and fighting in Yemen.

Egypt’s economy is heavily dependent on remittances from Egyptians working in the hydrocarbons industry in Saudi Arabia.

Suez Canal threat

Political analyst and Gulf studies expert Thomas Bonnie James told Al Jazeera that the Houthi security threat to Saudi Arabia also threatens the Suez Canal, which Egypt’s foreign minister says has lost about $11bn since the Houthis launched attacks in the Bab al-Mandeb strait in solidarity with Gaza in 2023.

James also said Egypt does not want to be seen as the regional ally that “stood aside while others defended the kingdom”.

Turkiye and Pakistan have made their own pledges after activating the Mecca defence pact with Riyadh, signed in August, amid the deteriorating security situation in the Middle East.

First Lady Melania Trump has championed the executive action as a ‘transformative moment’ for US women’s health.

United States President Donald Trump has signed an executive order that will establish a dedicated women’s health division within the National Institutes of Health (NIH), as well as a White House task force focused on the subject.

During a signing ceremony in Washington on Monday, First Lady Melania Trump praised the initiative as setting “a new standard for women’s health in America”.

“This is a transformative moment for women in America. Beginning today, we will change the reality of women’s health,” she said.

“Previous generations fought for women’s rights. Our generation will fight to discover the cures that will ensure a woman can live her life in health and to the fullest.”

The newly minted project, spearheaded by the first lady, requires the new health division to be established within 90 days.

It aims to accelerate scientific discoveries, expand clinical access for women’s health and modernise care throughout every stage of a woman’s life.

The new division at the NIH will not replace the agency’s Office of Research on Women’s Health but will have a broader mandate beyond research, according to the White House.

Melania Trump gestured to “super intelligence, advanced biotechnology and groundbreaking therapies” as tools that offer a “unique chance to reinvent women’s healthcare”.

The first lady’s office has identified “five pillars” for innovation in the field. One involves funding targeted research to develop cures for diseases that affect women, such as endometriosis.

Another calls for a quicker timeline for “promising therapeutics” to reach female patients.

“In 2026, medical advances can do more than just prolong life,” said Melania Trump. “It should give women the freedom to live life to its fullest, to pursue our dreams, experience love, discover, create, travel and lead.”

The White House task force will be co-chaired by the newly cancer-free White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, as well as Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr.

While Monday’s executive order mandates that the HHS must fund the administrative costs of the task force, the order itself does not include any specific funding targets or dollar amounts.

Experts have noted that Melania Trump has kept a relatively low profile during Trump’s second term.

Her public appearances have been fewer than during Trump’s first term, though she has stepped into the public spotlight to promote improvements to foster care and the role of technology, such as artificial intelligence in education.

During Trump’s first term, the first lady launched the “Be Best” campaign focused on child well-being, safe social media and countering opioid abuse.

But critics have questioned how effective Monday’s executive order might be, given the cuts Trump has made to the federal workforce since his second inauguration.

Thousands of employees have been laid off at the NIH alone, with Kaiser Health News reporting that its workforce is at its lowest level in decades.

The NIH was also given a deadline to slash spending by 35 percent across all of its divisions, amounting to a massive $2.6bn budget reduction.

In April 2025, the HHS drew widespread condemnation and a multi-state lawsuit after abruptly moving to terminate regional contracts for the Women’s Health Initiative, the nation’s largest longitudinal study on older women’s health at the time.

Critics warned that the move would jeopardise life-saving research on cardiovascular disease, cancer and osteoporotic fractures for senior women.

In the rest of the world, the Israeli PM is often blamed for the Iran war. His opponents say he hasn’t been tough enough with Tehran.

When Israel launched a sweeping military assault on Iran with the United States in February, the Israeli government enjoyed overwhelming support from the Jewish Israeli public.

Opposition parties lent their support to the army and backed the audacious step. Enmity towards the government in Iran is an issue mainstream Zionist parties agree on.

Then in June, Israel’s role in the confrontation halted abruptly with an announcement from US President Donald Trump, who said Iran and Israel had agreed to stop attacking each other.

That announcement – and Netanyahu’s decision to abide by it at the time – were unpopular in Israel. According to the Israel Democracy Institute, 65 to 70 percent of Jewish Israelis believe that stopping the war did not serve Israel’s national security interests.

As Israelis prepare to vote in national elections on October 27, Iran remains an important election issue for many. Opposition parties present Iran as an example of what they say are Netanyahu’s many failures. They promise to reset security and foreign policy if they’re elected.

The frontrunner, Gadi Eisenkot, says the conflict is unfinished. While saying that a change in Iran’s government was an unrealistic goal, Eisenkot accuses Netanyahu of doing little to dismantle Iran’s nuclear programme. In September at the inauguration of his new party, Yashar, Eisenkot told supporters: “Ultimately, it must end in the destruction or dismantling of the Iranian nuclear programme, a goal not yet achieved with 440kg [970lb] of highly enriched uranium already there, which could quickly be turned into several nuclear devices.”

Former Prime Minister Yair Lapid, who is now the head of the opposition in the Knesset, accuses Netanyahu of a strategic failure. He recently told the Atlantic Council that toppling the administration in Tehran is a realistic objective that requires a military escalation: “What Israel should do or the alliance should do is bomb all the energy facilities, especially on Kharg Island, but other places as well in order to make sure that the Iranian economy is demolished. And the reason is that it’s the only thing that will overturn the regime.”

Bombing this civilian infrastructure was actually something Netanyahu had lobbied for himself. An international outcry about such bombings likely constituting war crimes and Trump’s refusal to offer backing put the brakes on the plan.

Naftali Bennett, another former prime minister, says Israel must ensure its military dominance over the entire region. For Bennett, toppling the government in Iran and crushing it is a must. But he says that is not enough. The right-wing politician calls Qatar an “enemy” and says Turkiye is “the new Iran”, going as far as saying that military confrontation with the NATO member was inevitable.

“We will build an alliance of moderate forces in the region against the Islamist forces, against Iran, against Qatar, Turkiye and all the radical forces. We will take proactive actions to shape the region,” Bennett recently told supporters.

Eisenkot and other opposition leaders do not rule out renewed confrontations. They focus on their confidence in the military and security establishment in assessing the dangers and dealing with them appropriately.

But opposition leaders have voiced concern that Netanyahu might resort to military escalation before the elections to tilt the balance in his favour or even disrupt them altogether – even though the prime minister said last week that he did not plan to attack Iran before the vote.

Those fears were elevated after Netanyahu posted a video from the Tel Nof Airbase warning that Israel’s enemies might attack before the elections. Other news reports said Netanyahu has shared intelligence on new threats from Iran with the US president.

Netanyahu was quickly rebuked by opposition leaders, who accused him of “political fearmongering”.

Lapid openly questioned Netanyahu’s motives. Lapid also accused him of using the Israeli military and bases as “backdrops” for election campaign videos.

Ultimately, most Israeli opposition parties and leaders aren’t opposed to war with Iran, and many are in fact even more hawkish in their approach towards Tehran than Netanyahu. They just don’t want a new military escalation before the elections.

An alliance of Venezuelan opposition parties has reaffirmed its commitment to exiled Nobel Peace Prize laureate Maria Corina Machado as its leader.

On Sunday, members of the opposition’s Unitary Democratic Platform (PUD) agreed in a meeting in Caracas to “recognise and support the leadership of Maria Corina Machado”.

The coalition also renewed its demand for free elections in Venezuela, following a series of contested presidential votes in 2024 and 2018.

Sunday’s statement included 14 proposals for a democratic transition, including freedom for political parties, the release of all political prisoners and the safe return of those who went into exile.

The announcement also increases pressure on authorities to allow Machado’s return. She has been living in exile since leaving Venezuela last December to receive her Nobel Prize.

“The will of the Venezuelans must once again govern the destiny of our nation,” the opposition’s former presidential candidate Edmundo Gonzalez wrote on social media supporting the proposals.

“We will not accept political prisoners, persecution or a governing power that disregards the mandate of its citizens. Living in freedom and under a genuine constitutional order is a legitimate demand of our society.”

No election set

Venezuela has yet to declare a date for a new presidential vote. Since January 3, the country has been led by interim President Delcy Rodriguez of the long-governing United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV).

PSUV leaders have been accused of carrying out human rights abuses against political dissidents, including arbitrary arrest, imprisonment and torture.

Still, after the United States launched a military operation to abduct and jail former President Nicolas Maduro, the PSUV has remained in power with the support of the White House.

US President Donald Trump has backed Rodriguez’s leadership, despite her having been Maduro’s vice president.

His administration has maintained an active role in Venezuela, exerting control over its oil resources and pressuring the Rodriguez government for reforms.

But critics point out that Trump has been reluctant to push Rodriguez for new elections, opting instead for a three-phase plan that focuses first on stabilising the country and economic recovery before pursuing a political transition.

Machado, meanwhile, has told The Financial Times she would like to see Venezuela hold elections by July next year.

“The US government and the Venezuelan people all agree ⁠⁠that the only way to make ⁠⁠this sustainable and ⁠⁠a real victory is to turn Venezuela into a stable democracy,” she told the newspaper earlier this month.

A thwarted return

Venezuelan authorities blocked Machado’s repeated attempts to return to the country, according to her party, Vente Venezuela.

Machado has also reportedly attempted to petition the Trump administration for help re-entering Venezuela.

Separately, she gifted Trump her Nobel Peace Prize in January, during a visit to Washington, DC. Media reports, however, have suggested friction between the Trump administration and Machado.

In interviews with Reuters and Axios, US administration officials have anonymously expressed frustration with the opposition leader’s repeated efforts to return home, particularly after a pair of deadly earthquakes in Venezuela last July.

Axios quoted one official as calling Machado’s push “political opportunism”.

Machado, however, remains one of the most popular figures in Venezuela’s opposition.

In October 2023, Machado won the opposition coalition’s presidential primary, but in January 2024, Venezuela’s courts blocked her from running in the upcoming race.

The courts upheld a 15-year ban on her holding public office, reportedly due to her support of US sanctions against the Maduro government.

Gonzalez ultimately replaced Machado as the opposition candidate in the 2024 race. Maduro claimed victory for a third term as Venezuela’s president in that election cycle, despite widespread criticism that the vote did not meet democratic standards.

The opposition released vote tallies that appeared to show Gonzalez had won the race.

The US had recognised Gonzalez as the country’s rightful president-elect and denied the legitimacy of Maduro’s election claims.

Machado was previously removed from the National Assembly in 2014, due to her activism against the Venezuelan government.

A third round of talks between the Rodriguez government and the opposition began in Venezuela this month.

But instead of including Machado, the negotiations have involved members of the 2015 National Assembly, which was led by the opposition and dissolved under Maduro.

Still, in a statement this month, the US State Department praised the talks as aiding the Venezuelan government’s reform.

“Political reconciliation talks between the interim Venezuelan government and 2015 National Assembly representatives are producing tangible reforms in civil liberties and political rights, laying the groundwork for credible elections and a democratic transition,” the State Department said.

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. — President Trump on Sunday announced plans to close a historic public golf course in the nation’s capital for 15 months and redevelop it despite an ongoing court challenge to his long-sought renovation.

Trump posted on social media about his intent to shut the East Potomac Golf Course, not far from the White House, starting Nov. 15 to make it “one of the Best and Most Spectacular Golf Courses anywhere in the World.”

A judge last week, however, ordered a halt to his redevelopment plans until at least Oct. 26 after scolding the government for starting a large-scale tree removal at the course over a holiday weekend while providing little notice to the court or the plaintiffs trying to stop the makeover.

Trump did not acknowledge the legal fight in his post, which included an artist’s rendering for the course redesign.

“When completed, it will be open to the Public while, at the same time, designed to the Highest Level of Golf and able to hold World Class Tournaments such as the U.S. Open, the PGA Championship, the Ryder Cup, and the Presidents Cup,” Trump wrote.

Democracy Forward, which is representing the plaintiffs challenging his renovation plans, responded by saying that the course is part of a national park and recreation facility that is meant for everyone to enjoy.

“Our litigation is intended to protect this community jewel for the people and communities it serves and we will continue to work with our plaintiffs to defend it from unlawful and harmful intrusion,” Skye Perryman, the president and chief executive of the group, said in a statement.

The judge in the case took notice of Trump’s online message and ordered the government to notify her by 8 p.m. Eastern time Sunday whether its position had changed from a court filing Friday that said “at most” Trump has given “preliminary thought” to the rebuilding plan and “there is no final agency action.”

Extensive makeover

Trump, a golf aficionado who plays often, already had announced plans to makeover the links as part of his broader project to renovate and refurbish places around Washington, including the White House and the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. Many of his projects, including plans for a huge ballroom at the White House, the installation of his own name on the Kennedy Center and construction of a massive arch, have been challenged in courts.

The 106-year-old park and course has been the subject of many emergency hearings as the president has sought to renovate it. Although it has been open to Washingtonians of all income levels, opponents of Trump’s plans to turn it into a high-end course have argued that it will alter the character of the space and make it less affordable.

Trump in his post echoed arguments he has made to justify his plans to remake the Kennedy Center, arguing it is in such dangerous condition that it needs to close.

“The current Course is old, broken, dilapidated, and of no further use or effect. It is in very poor condition, with falling, dangerous, and disease infested trees and, importantly, a collapsing and hazardous seawall,” Trump wrote.

Debris from the demolition of the White House East Wing to make way for his ballroom project also has been dumped on the grounds. The National Park Service has said the debris tested positive for lead, chromium and other toxic metals.

Trump also sought to justify the National Park Service’s removal of hundreds of trees that the judge paused, writing in his announcement that when the golf course was originally built, “it was famous for no trees, with views of Washington, D.C., for all to see, but now, it is completely overgrown, dysfunctional, and unsafe.”

Case returns to court

Trump’s post outlining a clear plan for construction complicates a federal court hearing scheduled for Monday in a lawsuit filed by the DC Preservation League and two golfers opposing the construction.

U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes has ordered key members of the administration to testify on the recent tree cutting and whether those actions are tied to the president’s plans for the historical public links.

The administration on Friday asked for Reyes to be replaced on the case, questioning her impartiality and citing what it called “egregious” behavior from the bench in response to an emergency hearing Oct. 12. Her frustration boiled over in a three-hour hearing when she lambasted the government’s attorney for the lack of notification she and the plaintiffs received before the trees were chopped down.

At the upcoming hearing, the judge is expected to address the request that she step aside. Meanwhile, over the weekend the plaintiffs asked that she grant them a more long-standing preliminary injunction in the case and/or a stay.

Price writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Gary Fields in Washington contributed to this report.

In a social media post ahead of Israel’s October 27 election, Trump calls Netanyahu a ‘Strong, Brave, and Brilliant’ leader.

United States President Donald Trump has issued an endorsement of Israel’s incumbent Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is facing a close race in parliamentary elections scheduled for October 27.

In a post on Truth Social on Sunday, Trump praised the Israeli leader for being an ally of the US in its war on Iran. He added that he was giving his “Complete and Total Endorsement” to Netanyahu.

“BIBI NETANYAHU WILL NEVER LET YOU DOWN!” Trump wrote.

The US president’s backing comes nine days before the Israeli election — and after speculation that it might not come at all.

Trump had refused to endorse Netanyahu earlier this month, when asked repeatedly about the Israeli leader’s job performance in an interview with Time magazine.

Instead, when pressed by his interviewer, Trump avoided the subject, shifting the focus instead to his own popularity or security in the Middle East.

The two leaders have met more than a half dozen times since January 2025, but there have been reports of disagreements, including over the war against Iran and other conflicts.

In June, Trump acknowledged calling Netanyahu “f***ing crazy” in a phone conversation where he expressed frustration about Israel’s attacks on Lebanon.

Trump had reportedly asked Netanyahu not to take further action in Lebanon, in an apparent attempt to preserve a short-lived April ceasefire with Iran.

The two leaders had jointly launched a war against Iran on February 28, but the conflict has cost Trump domestic support.

The war has upended the global oil and gas supply, with no clear end in sight.

A Pew Research Center poll found this month that roughly two-thirds of US voters disapprove of Trump’s handling of the war, which has driven up consumer fuel prices and raised concerns about draining military stockpiles.

Trump’s Republican Party is facing a critical midterm election on November 3 that will decide whether it maintains control of the US Congress, as well as other key state and local offices.

Experts have speculated that Trump’s prior reticence to endorse Netanyahu may have come from public perception that Israel may have coaxed the US into the war.

Netanyahu’s Likud Party and its far-right coalition are also facing the prospect of losing the October contest to an opposition bloc led by Yashar party head Gadi Eisenkot.

In his endorsement on Sunday, Trump said it was only a matter of time before Iran would have attacked both the US and Israel.

The war, Trump argued, had already left Iran “systematically destroyed, both Militarily and Financially, and unless they change their ways, rapidly, we will soon finish the job”.

“If Israel has the wrong Leader, which would be anyone other than Bibi, America will have to do this work ourselves, and I am not inclined to do so,” Trump wrote.

“Bibi Netanyahu has been Strong, Brave, and Brilliant in the face of tremendous opposition, including that coming from even Israel, itself.”

Protests are sweeping France as anger over conditions in schools meets frustration with high living costs and a government accused of doing little to address problems facing people.

Protests are sweeping France as anger over conditions in schools meets frustration with high living costs and a government accused of doing little to address problems facing people.

About 550,000 people demonstrated nationwide on Saturday, according to the Interior Ministry. Most marched peacefully, while a small minority attacked buildings, looted shops and clashed with police, who fired tear gas and charged protesters.

Prime Minister Sebastien Lecornu said 1,200 people were arrested and 150 police officers were injured. Behind the confrontations lies a political crisis, fuelled by anger at deteriorating services and overstretched household budgets, and compounded by a sense that France’s political institutions offer little hope of change.

Here is how school blockades became a nationwide movement – and what that means for President Emmanuel Macron.

How have the protests spread, what are protesters demanding?

The movement began last month in high schools in Paris’ working-class northern suburbs, where students protested against teacher shortages and poor facilities. School blockades and demonstrations later spread to cities including Bordeaux, Rennes, Nantes, Lyon, Lille and Marseille.

Saturday brought together students and trade unions, alongside supporters of the “yellow vest” movement that emerged in 2018 to challenge rising living costs and economic inequality.

Emile Chabal, a professor of contemporary history at the University of Edinburgh, told Al Jazeera the demonstrations were “the logical outcome of a series of protests” stretching back to the yellow vests.

That movement was driven by financial pressures and resentment at “the French presidential system”, he told Al Jazeera, alluding to a structure which often leads to the election of a centrist candidate, such as President Emmanuel Macron.

Saturday combined those longstanding grievances with students’ anger at deteriorating state schools. The yellow vests had demanded better public services.

Bringing students’ grievances together with wider social demands, therefore, represented “the worst possible outcome for the French government”, Chabal said.

Students’ immediate demands concern conditions in France’s lycees (public high schools), which generally educate pupils aged 15 to 18. They want smaller classes, enough teachers, better buildings and less exhausting timetables. Their complaints also reflect broader concerns about whether the state can provide the education and opportunities young people need.

But for workers, including school staff, the dispute also concerns wages and the resources available to deliver public services.

The school protests coincided with a nationwide public sector strike against the government’s budget plans. Bringing all these concerns together under one umbrella represented “the worst possible outcome for the French government”, Chabal said.

It comes as the proposed 2027 budget includes a 54 billion euro ($60.8bn) package of cost-cutting and tax measures, which the government says is necessary to reduce France’s deficit. The proposals include freezing the pay scale used to calculate civil servants’ basic salaries, which unions say would be the fourth consecutive annual freeze.

Donatella della Porta, a sociologist and political scientist, said students were inspiring wider mobilisation around inequality, cuts to public investment and democratic rights, with demands for social welfare spending rather than militarisation.

“They do not want to fight wars; they want a different future,” she told Al Jazeera.

She also linked the movement to young people’s mobilisation over Gaza, with Palestinian flags appearing at demonstrations across several European countries.

How has the government responded?

The government has focused its immediate response on public order, with President Macron saying those responsible for violence would be “prosecuted and punished”.

His comments came as a fire largely destroyed the historic town hall in the city of Limoges, while public buildings and shops were attacked elsewhere.

But those involved in violence represent only a small minority of the much larger mobilisation. Jean-Luc Melenchon, leader of the left-wing France Unbowed party, has accused the government of repressing school students and allowing the confrontation to intensify.

His argument reflects a wider political dispute about whether the government treats the protests chiefly as a security problem or addresses the grievances that have brought different groups together.

Experts say France’s problems extend beyond disagreement over individual budget measures and reflect deeper discontent. Emile Chabal, from the University of Edinburgh, said political paralysis since the 2024 parliamentary elections, which left no bloc with an outright majority, had created “an environment in which no political party or movement is able to channel social discontent”.

That fragmentation makes it difficult to build a durable agreement on spending, taxation or public services. It also leaves protesters questioning whether changing governments produces meaningful changes in policy.

The protests are also “a tough blow for Macron”, Chabal said, whose promises of youthful energy and a reformed, dynamic France have been undermined by “his inability to articulate his political project and his deeply unempathetic persona”.

Chabal added that the unrest included violence sometimes seen on the fringes of French demonstrations, with direct-action tactics associated with the yellow vests. Targets included shops and, more unusually, public buildings. He described the destruction of Limoges’ town hall as particularly significant because of its place in France’s civic history.

Other researchers emphasise the role of policing. Guya Accornero, a specialist in social movements at Lisbon’s University Institute, said previous confrontations had created lasting tensions between protesters and police.

During the current protests, a 15-year-old lost a hand to a police stun grenade, while a 14-year-old suffered a shattered jaw after being struck by a tear gas canister fired at close range, according to Human Rights Watch. The organisation condemned excessive force against children, saying the demonstrations had been overwhelmingly peaceful.

“Young people have been violently repressed also when using non-disruptive tactics,” she told Al Jazeera.

Who could benefit politically?

There is no clear answer from the experts who spoke to Al Jazeera. Paul Smith, an associate professor in French history and politics at the University of Nottingham, believes far-right leader Marine Le Pen stands to gain.

“I see only one beneficiary and that’s Le Pen,” he told Al Jazeera, suggesting the unrest could also damage Melenchon’s presidential prospects.

Chabal cautioned against assuming a far-right gain, but he said fear of disorder had historically benefited conservative or centrist parties in France, including after the 1968 protests.

Le Pen has not entirely dismissed the protesters’ grievances, describing them on X on Saturday as “legitimate social demands”, while claiming they had been “held hostage by the far left”.

The far-right may seek to reap the rewards of public discontent, but experts say it is more likely to channel that anger towards immigration and the scapegoating of migrants, rather than blaming the structures of neoliberalism and capitalism for the protesters’ woes, as Melenchon has suggested.

With a presidential election due in April 2027, candidates face competing pressures, demonstrating that they can restore order while convincing voters they will address the conditions behind the mobilisation.

The challenge, Chabal said, is how to create change in “an environment in which no political party or movement is able to channel social discontent”.