Politique Internationale — Republicans currently control both the House of Representatives and the Senate, but only by razor-thin margins: 218 seats to the Democrats’ 212 in the House (with 5 vacancies), and 53 to 45 in the Senate (plus 2 independents). Do you think they will hold on to these narrow majorities in the November 3 elections?
Nicole Bacharan — At this point, pollsters and analysts expect the Democrats to win a narrow majority in the House; the Senate, meanwhile, is very much up for grabs. The election will be decided by the slimmest of margins. Take Michigan, for example. The Democratic candidate for one of the state’s two Senate seats is Abdul El-Sayed, who won his party’s primary. He is firmly on the far-left wing of the Democratic Party and has received a great deal of national media attention in recent weeks. His emergence should be seen alongside that of other figures from the same political current, most notably Zohran Mamdani, who was elected mayor of New York last year. The highly radical profile of some Democratic candidates and leading figures could prompt voters across the country to vote against Democratic candidates…
P. I. — True, but could the media attention surrounding these far-left figures also mobilize some voters for the Democrats who might otherwise have stayed home had the party fielded moderate candidates across the board?
N. B. — It is certainly possible. Polls indicate that turnout on both sides will be high, significantly higher than in a typical midterm election. And the surge of the far left is real. But, as you suggest, it can cut both ways: it may energize voters drawn to its ideas and its style — particularly some younger voters — while at the same time discouraging more centrist Democrats and prompting Republicans and independents to turn out in force to block a left-wing fringe that worries them. Mamdani may have considerable appeal in New York, but in the Midwest, far from the East and West Coasts, in what is sometimes loosely called Middle America, candidates taking such positions do not tend to do very well.
P. I. — How do you explain the emergence of these radical left-wing figures, whose defining principles include hostility toward Israel? Is this simply an accident, or the result of a more elaborate strategy by extremists to infiltrate the Democratic Party?
N. B. — I do believe the Democratic Party has been subject to “infiltration.” For a long time now, the Muslim Brotherhood and Qatar have pursued a strategy aimed at infiltrating universities, notably through scholarships and funding for pseudo-sociological, decolonial and similar research programs. That dynamic is then amplified by social media and by the strongly left-wing climate prevailing on many campuses. Nor can one ignore the role of Muslim immigration.
That said, the success of the far left also has a great deal to do with economics, which must not be overlooked. There is a growing backlash against, or at least distrust of, the way American capitalism currently operates. And this is not confined to Democrats. You see it among many Republican voters as well, who feel that the system no longer works. The middle class, in particular, sees the exorbitant cost of obtaining a degree; the fact that, ultimately, those degrees are often worth very little; and the years, sometimes decades, people spend paying off the loans they took out to finance their college education. They feel cheated because, all too often, their jobs bear little relation to the investment they made in their education.
Then there are the eye-watering stock-market figures driven by the rise of artificial intelligence, and the obscene display of wealth by some people close to the current administration, such as Elon Musk. Of course, this is not France, where making money is often viewed with suspicion; but when Americans, whatever their political leanings, see an ultra-rich elite wallowing in luxury on this scale, they are increasingly thinking, “Enough is enough.” And Donald Trump himself obviously fuels that sentiment.
P. I. — Can rejection of Trump play a decisive role in mobilizing Democratic voters?
N. B. — Without question. There is an absolutely categorical rejection of Trump within the Democratic camp. For the overwhelming majority of Democrats, both his policies and the man himself are deeply off-putting. The result is that Republican candidates are unlikely to win over even moderate Democratic voters. The real question, for both sides, is what the independents will do. Will they turn out, and if so, which side will they vote for? In the current campaign, Trump is not addressing these independents at all, even though many Republican candidates are trying to win them over in their bids for the House or Senate. But once again, the Democratic Party’s left wing can frighten a great many undecided voters. And that is despite the fact that this political tendency represents only a small minority within the Democratic Party: the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), affiliated with the Democratic Party, have only around 100,000 members altogether.
P. I. — You said earlier that they have particular appeal among young people…
N. B. — Young people are often gullible and poorly informed. “Free Palestine” has become a rallying cry, usually without those chanting it knowing anything about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
P. I. — In New York, Zohran Mamdani won the support of part of the Jewish electorate. So he is not viewed as anathema by a large segment of Jewish voters. How do you explain that?
N. B. — I personally know a number of young Jews, around thirty, who live in Brooklyn, who are extremely “cool,” if I may put it that way, and who voted for Mamdani because they do not want to be “on the bad guys’ side.” Israel now has such a disastrous image, so closely associated with the “genocide” it is accused of carrying out in Gaza, that this is where we are. It is quite clear to me that among American Jews, the younger generation — not all of them, of course! — are separating their Jewish identity from the existence of Israel. These days, identifying with Israel is not exactly “cool.” And these are people who want to be kind and warm-hearted, to reach out to the poor, to care about the environment… The far left, often highly sympathetic to Palestinian terrorism, radical Islamism in general and antisemitism, has managed to embody all of that more effectively than other political movements at the moment. The American Jews I am talking about believe they will not be at risk of antisemitism in the United States because, by supporting the far left, they have in a sense proved their credentials. I fear they are fooling themselves…
P. I. — Rejection of Trump’s unconditional support for Benjamin Netanyahu can also be found, to some extent, within the Republican Party. Tucker Carlson, Marjorie Taylor Greene and other hard-line Trump supporters repeatedly insisted during the 2024 campaign that Trump would not drag the United States into new wars, particularly with Iran. Since February and the beginning of the US-Israeli operation against Tehran, some of them have broken with the president and suggested that, in dealing with Iran, he has acted above all in Israel’s interests…
N. B. — Indeed. A number of prominent figures have turned away from Trump because of his Middle East policy. And in this context, we are seeing a resurgence of far-right antisemitism. The idea that Jews are great manipulators and that Trump is merely their puppet had never disappeared in the United States, but it had very little public influence. Recently, it has begun to raise its head again, alongside far-left antisemitism, which keeps repeating the mantra “Jew = Israeli = Netanyahu = genocide” ad nauseam. The two currents meet there.
In any event, the closeness between Trump and Netanyahu irritates many people, both because Netanyahu projects such a disastrous image of Israel and because he does not hesitate to show a degree of contempt toward Jews who do not live there.
That said, I do not think foreign policy will be a decisive factor in the campaign — or, if it is, only indirectly, since the situation in the Middle East is driving up fuel prices in the United States, as elsewhere in the world. And these midterms will primarily be about purchasing power and the economy. On that front, it must be said that not all the indicators are looking good for Donald Trump: however confidently he insists that the country has never been doing better, Americans can see that prices at the pump and, more generally, the cost of living keep rising. Only around 30 to 35 percent of Americans believe the president has been effective on these crucial issues. Even immigration, once his strong suit, is no longer quite the asset it was because ICE agents’ methods are too brutal, and everyone eventually knows someone who knows someone who has been mistreated or deported.
P. I. — Trump has put himself at the center of the Republican midterm campaign. Could this extreme personalization end up hurting the candidates in his party?
N. B. — It is true that we have never seen a president make a midterm campaign so much about himself. On September 9 and 10, he held a Republican Party convention in Dallas. But you simply do not hold a convention for the midterms! This is yet another “made in Trump” innovation. I do not even know whether he made the decision because he believes such an event will help Republican candidates or simply because he loves these huge rallies, where he can hold forth at length before an adoring crowd. That is when he is happiest! On September 9, he spoke for two hours, jumping, as usual, from one subject to another: immigrants, drug traffickers, and so on.
But what is interesting is that by no means all the Republican candidates running in the midterms were in the room. Quite a few are now avoiding being seen with Trump because they know that, once they return to their districts, they will not be able to defend his off-the-cuff statements, which are often completely detached from reality. How can they tell their constituents that, as the president claims, gas prices are low, inflation is falling every day, and the war with Iran is a resounding success? They cannot. That is why so many candidates came up with various excuses for not attending the Dallas convention…
And yet Trump pretends not to notice. He will carry on regardless. He has already announced that, between now and November 3, he will embark on a major nationwide tour. He keeps saying, “Pretend my name is on the ballot.” He genuinely believes people adore him. So, in his eyes, turning these hundreds of local elections into one giant referendum “for or against Trump” can only mean victory. A very risky calculation… The Democrats, for their part, also want to turn these midterms into a referendum on Trump because they believe their best chance of winning is to attack the occupant of the White House. In fact, the Democrats’ greatest asset is Trump. And Trump’s greatest asset is the Democrats!
P. I. — There are nevertheless quite a few people who are delighted with what Trump is doing…
N. B. — That is true. There are Trump’s die-hard supporters, the famous MAGA voters, who account for almost 30 percent of the electorate. Their relationship with him is not really political; it is a personal bond, almost the kind of attachment one might have to a guru, with something of a religious quality to it. For these voters, who are utterly loyal to Trump, religious concerns matter more than purchasing power. Some even see Trump as the Messiah, or at least as an emissary of God charged with saving Christian America. They are not disappointed by the first two years of his term because he has, in fact, appointed anti-abortion judges, welcomed ultra-religious figures to the White House and held public prayer sessions. That allegiance will endure.
But a considerable share of those who voted for Trump in 2024 did so out of loyalty to their party and because he had made some very attractive promises. They, by contrast, may be disappointed and show it by staying home on November 3. I am thinking in particular of military veterans. Today, one American man in eight is a veteran. They include veterans of Iraq, Afghanistan and, among the older ones, Vietnam; and the vast majority of them do not like seeing their country once again involved in a war in the Middle East. Trump promised to end the endless wars. Yet the war with Iran is turning into another endless war. That said, members of the military have little trust in the Democrats.
P. I. — If the Republicans lose their majority in the House, what will the consequences be?
N. B. — The House controls the budget. And politics is first and foremost about the budget, whether we are talking about foreign or domestic policy. Then there will be congressional investigations, which a Democratic majority would certainly launch. For instance, into allegations of corruption and illicit enrichment involving the president’s family and inner circle; or into his autocratic exercise of power, in defiance of constitutional and legal norms. If the Democrats were foolish enough to launch impeachment proceedings simply “for show,” with no chance of success — who could seriously imagine two-thirds of senators voting to remove the president, given that the Supreme Court, in a 2024 ruling, granted him very broad immunity? — it could cost them dearly in the next election, the November 2028 presidential race. The administration, on the other hand, would be heavily tied up by the investigations. Dealing with them is extremely time-consuming. However, since Trump governs largely by executive order, he would retain considerable room for maneuver.
P. I. — Trump still refuses to acknowledge his defeat in the 2020 presidential election and is already saying that if Republicans lose the midterms, the count will have been rigged. Is there a risk of new “January 6” episodes, or at least another challenge to the results, especially if the Republican defeat is a narrow one?
N. B. — Yes, there is a real risk. In some districts, challenges could arise, including violent ones. In any case, I cannot see Trump stepping up to the podium and saying, “Well, we lost.” It is also possible that Republican supporters, whipped up by allegations of fraud, could take action in one form or another. And yet American elections are reliable, it is important to remember that! For a very long time now, whatever Trump may say, there has been no major problem.
P. I. — At the Republican convention in Dallas, Trump called on those present to swear an oath before him, presenting himself as “the greatest president in the history of the United States,” and promising him that they would vote for Republicans. He even openly called on them to “cheat” — since, according to him, the Democrats would cheat… What effect could such a statement have?
N. B. — Such remarks fuel suspicion about elections and contribute to the erosion of democratic norms. Because democracy depends not only on respect for the law but also on unwritten rules: respect for one’s opponent, fair play and, yes, accepting defeat when it comes. In addition to Donald Trump’s constant refusal to accept results that have gone, or would go, against him, this suspicion is actively fostered by hostile powers, above all Russia. For years now, one of the Kremlin’s primary objectives in elections across Europe has been to undermine citizens’ trust in the electoral process and make them believe that whenever candidates favorable to Moscow lose, the ballot boxes must have been stuffed. That same tactic is now being used in the United States by the Republican camp. Trump has no limits. He has an autocrat’s mentality.
P. I. — Trump has promised that if Republicans retain control of both chambers, every adult American would receive $5,000 from the government. Could this promise tip the balance in his party’s favor? And is it credible?
N. B. — Is such a promise even legal? Is it feasible? Many people doubt it, including Republicans. One might assume that it would influence only voters who blindly trust the president — in other words, the famous MAGA camp — and that it might motivate them to turn out in greater numbers.
P. I. — Let us return to the Democratic Party. What weight do Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Ilhan Omar and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez carry? What exactly do they want?
N. B. — Part of this Democratic left, which calls itself “progressive,” advocates greater social justice and a regulated, redistributive form of capitalism, fairly close to the European social-democratic model. But the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) are much more radical: they talk about “economic democracy,” in which the means of production would be nationalized and owned by workers. On foreign policy, the two groups overlap: they are isolationist, want to reduce defense spending and, conversely, increase congressional oversight of any potential military interventions. The DSA go much further, speaking of a foreign policy serving the working class and of closing American bases overseas… But they all share hostility toward Israel. The question is whether these groups will remain marginal within the Democratic Party and how much influence they will have across the country.
P. I. — Which party in France is closest to them? Would it be LFI?
N. B. — Absolutely. In fact, Bernie Sanders and “AOC” invited Jean-Luc Mélenchon to present his latest book in 2025.
P. I. — Who are the most promising figures in each camp today?
N. B. — The one who intrigues me most is Vice President J. D. Vance. He is highly disciplined and keeps very tight control over his message. I get the impression that he will adapt to anything. He is utterly opportunistic. He was fiercely hostile to Trump in 2016 — he even called him “America’s Hitler” — yet in 2022 he went to Mar-a-Lago and bent the knee to the man in charge in order to secure his backing in the Senate race. He recently converted to Catholicism and has become intensely religious; he is a genuine Christian nationalist. There is no hesitation in placing him on the far right. His support for the AfD in Germany and Nigel Farage in Britain is proof of that. There is, however, something rather odd about his wife and family. His wife is of Indian origin. His children’s grandparents are immigrants, and she is Hindu. She shows no intention of converting. Could this family situation cost Vance support among the white Christian nationalists who appear to be his natural constituency? Even so, he is generally regarded as the heir apparent. And let us not forget that he could become president tomorrow if anything were to happen to Trump.
P. I. — What about Marco Rubio?
N. B. — Rubio probably has what it takes to become the Republican Party’s standard-bearer in the next presidential election, but I am not sure he would run against Vance in the primaries. If he did, he would probably have the backing of traditional conservative Republicans.
P. I. — Precisely. How much is left of Ronald Reagan’s party?
N. B. — Some of it remains, and it could re-emerge during the 2028 primaries and back Rubio, who comes across as the man of alliances, a descendant of the Cold War warriors. He is fiercely anti-communist and particularly attuned to the Cuba issue, of course, given his Cuban background. He is a solid figure, even if he is hardly charismatic.
P. I. — And on the Democratic side?
N. B. — I like Josh Shapiro, the governor of Pennsylvania. I know he wants to run. But he is Jewish and observant. In the current climate, in which Jews are constantly held responsible for everything Netanyahu does in Israel, that is a significant disadvantage. Kamala Harris, incidentally, considered him as her running mate in 2024 before ultimately choosing Tim Walz, who was seen as “more broadly acceptable.” J. B. Pritzker, the governor of Illinois, is another candidate who should not be underestimated. He is an immensely wealthy businessman and would not frighten the business community, but he too is Jewish… In the Democratic camp, that is currently a handicap because of the very vocal activism of the party’s left wing. In 2000, Al Gore had a Jewish senator, Joe Lieberman, as his running mate. It is unlikely that we will see a Jewish candidate or running mate on the Democratic ticket in 2028…
P. I. — Bernie Sanders, one of the leading figures of this left-wing movement, is himself Jewish…
N. B. — He has never renounced his commitment to Israel’s existence and security. But his criticism of the Netanyahu government has become much sharper, and he now wants the United States to end military assistance. Since the autumn of 2025, he has adopted the term “genocide” to describe the situation in Gaza. He has also refused to disavow Abdul El-Sayed, the Democratic Senate candidate in Michigan, arguing that his opposition to Netanyahu does not amount to antisemitism. He has chosen to overlook the role played in the candidate’s circle by an influencer such as Hasan Piker, who said that “Hamas is a thousand times better than Israel.” In short, whether out of conviction or opportunism, Sanders is doing what he needs to do to maintain his place on the Democratic left.
P. I. — You said that if this left wing of the Democratic Party came to power, it would call America’s longstanding alliances into question, including those with Europe. But what we have seen from Trump, Vance and Rubio in recent years — the summit with Putin in Alaska, criticism of the Europeans in Munich, threats to the future of NATO, pressure over Greenland — hardly suggests a fierce commitment to those alliances either…
N. B. — That is true. This policy is destabilizing the entire world and strengthening Putin. Beyond Europe, all of Washington’s traditional allies are now asking themselves whether they can really count on the Americans, Republican or Democrat. One of the most worrying consequences of this loss of confidence is nuclear proliferation. The Saudis are beginning to think that they too need the bomb. South Korea and Japan are seriously considering the same option: if we can no longer count on the United States, we have to arm ourselves!
P. I. — Does what you know of Trump lead you to think that he will go all the way in the Ukrainian, Iranian and Israeli affairs?
N. B. — The Ukrainians know perfectly well that they do not have a faithful and reliable ally in Washington. He will not cut Kyiv off from American intelligence, except perhaps for a few days when he is angry with Zelensky. But he will not send weapons. He has already sharply reduced the United States’ direct financial commitment to military aid for Ukraine, and there is nothing to suggest that he intends to change course on that. He also continues to waver over whether to give the Ukrainians the license they need to manufacture Patriot missiles domestically — essential for intercepting the hardest aerial threats, particularly Russian ballistic missiles.
To put it plainly, between Putin and Zelensky, Trump prefers Putin. But Putin is behaving so brutally that Trump will not be able to abandon the Ukrainians altogether.
P. I. — And what about Iran?
N. B. — I do not think there will ever be a deal with the mullahs’ regime. An agreement will only be possible once that regime has fallen. And for it to fall, the army would have to turn against it. Yet the army is largely made up of the Revolutionary Guards, who are genuine gangsters, with enormous amounts of money and no qualms about shooting into crowds. There will be no deal with people like that. Trump must have understood that by now. There is no deal in sight and, unfortunately, no sign of the regime falling either… But who knows? We cannot give up all hope.
P. I. — Will Trump continue to support the Israelis, including if they want to strike Iranian bases again?
N. B. — Unless faced with an immediate existential threat, the Israelis will not intervene without Trump’s approval. In June 2025, after Operation Midnight Hammer, which Trump claimed had “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program, the president demanded that the Israeli bombing stop. Netanyahu had to comply, even though he believed that any pause would allow the Iranian regime to rebuild some of its forces. Which is precisely what happened. But the Israelis, like the Gulf monarchies, have serious doubts about Donald Trump’s reliability. We can see that now in his dealings with the Houthis.
P. I. — In less than two years, Trump has fallen out with much of the world: a spectacular increase in tariffs, insults directed at various heads of state, spats with Mexico and Canada, notably expressed through his decision to rename the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America and Lake Ontario “Lake America”… Will all this leave lasting scars on relations between the United States and its allies? Or, once Trump is gone, could a more pragmatic figure such as Rubio restore a more conventional relationship?
N. B. — The scars will not disappear. The relationship may become less tense, more polite, more reasonable. But Europeans will never forget that they cannot rely on the United States. All the more so because Trump has been re-elected: that re-election has ruled out the possibility that he might have been merely an “accident of history.” Even so, I do not believe in a genuine decoupling, because the reality of our shared interests is far too strong. Without Europe, America would be weak. So I believe we will see much less sentimental transatlantic relations in the future — which may not be such a bad thing — but not a decoupling. America has dependents, vassals, but few allies. And it cannot do without those it does have.
P. I. — One final, more personal question: who has been Nicole Bacharan’s favorite American president, and why?
N. B. — I have a great fondness for the third president in chronological order, Thomas Jefferson (1801–1809). He had the unforgivable fault of being a slaveholder: he never renounced slavery and never freed all of his slaves. But he had a very elegant conception of the presidency. It may sound completely “far-fetched” as an idea, but compared with what we have today… Jefferson did not deliver the State of the Union address to Congress. He thought that was too monarchical: he would send the text, and an aide would read it before both chambers. He hosted small dinners with his allies and his opponents. He was deeply respectful of everyone and knew how to make the most of those relationships. And, of course, he was one of the most influential figures in the alliance with France and, through France, with Europe. He also played an important role in shaping the American conception of the separation of church and state, notably through his support for the First Amendment and his famous letter to the Danbury Baptists, in which he referred to a “wall of separation between church and state.” America today could learn from him!
