In the heart of the EU, a peculiar and intensifying pattern is emerging. National-conservative movements and figures—often smeared as “threats to democracy”—are finding themselves at the centre of an unrelenting storm. From the attempt to ban Germany’s Alternative for Germany (AfD) to Marine Le Pen’s exclusion from France’s presidential race and Matteo Salvini’s legal battles in Italy, these actions seem less like random occurrences and more like a coordinated offensive against the increasingly popular opposition. Could it be that the left-liberal establishment, emboldened by its traditional dominance, is wielding its power to push back against a global conservative, anti-globalist wave reignited by Trump’s rise?
The AfD Ban Bid: Protecting Democracy or Destroying it
Germany’s AfD, a party that has surged in popularity by challenging the status quo, now faces the unthinkable—outright prohibition. Falsely labelled a threat to the country’s democratic order, the party has drawn fire for its strong nationalist rhetoric, stances on immigration, and heterodox geopolitical positions. Self-described ‘liberal’ critics argue that the AfD’s policies veer dangerously close to extremist ideologies, but supporters counter that these accusations are exaggerated attempts to sideline legitimate grievances voiced by ordinary Germans.
A cross-party group in Germany’s Bundestag, spearheaded by Marco Wanderwitz of the centre-right Christian Democrats (CDU), has rallied to initiate the legal process for banning the AfD. With 112 parliamentarians backing the motion, the effort meets the 5% threshold required to bring the matter to a parliamentary vote. If successful, the proposal would move to Germany’s Federal Constitutional Court for a ruling.
“After the horrors of National Socialism, it’s imperative to prevent any party with extremist or ethno-nationalist roots from gaining power in Germany again,” Wanderwitz, who previously lost in a local election to an AfD candidate, declared.
Carmen Wegge, a Social Democrat (SPD) lawmaker, echoed his concerns. “Germany’s democracy was once dismantled from within, plunging Europe into ruin. We must not let history repeat itself.”
Despite efforts to marginalise the AfD politically, the party has made significant gains. It boasts 77 seats in the Bundestag and holds representation in 14 of Germany’s 16 state parliaments, as well as the European Parliament. In recent regional elections, the AfD emerged as the largest party in Thuringia and gained substantial support in Saxony and Brandenburg. Presently, it’s the second most popular political party at the federal level.
However, the party remains isolated from governance. Mainstream parties continue to refuse coalition partnerships, making it difficult for the AfD to translate electoral success into legislative and executive power.
Banning a political party in Germany is no small feat. Article 21 of the Basic Law allows for such a measure if a party actively seeks to undermine the democratic order. However, legal experts remain divided on whether the evidence against the AfD is sufficient.
According to Deutsche Welle, Hendrik Cremer of the German Institute for Human Rights believes the case for a ban is strong. “The AfD’s rhetoric and actions clearly meet the criteria for prohibition,” he argues.
Conversely, constitutional law scholar Azim Semizoglu is more skeptical. He noted that while the AfD has been classified as “definitely right-wing extremist” by Germany’s domestic intelligence agency, this alone does not guarantee a ban. “Classification is just one piece of evidence. The court will need to establish a direct threat to democratic order,” he explained.
A ban on the AfD would be a significant milestone in Germany’s post-war political history, but it could also set a dangerous precedent, to put it lightly.
Is banning a political party—one that represents millions of voters—a democratic response? Or is it a move to dismantle opposition by painting it as inherently illegitimate? Germany’s Basic Law ensures freedom of political expression, yet the growing pressure on the Federal Constitutional Court to outlaw the AfD signals a precarious shift. Instead of debating policies and winning at the ballot box, the left-liberal establishment appears to be rewriting the rules of engagement altogether.
Marine Le Pen: Under attack, again
Across the border in France, the country’s decrepit, ossified establishment has set its sights on taking down its foremost political opponent. Marine Le Pen, a tenacious political figure and leader of the National Rally, has been a constant thorn in the side of France’s political elite. Her anti-globalist stance, tough rhetoric on immigration, and vision of a sovereign France have struck a chord with millions of voters. Yet now, with the next presidential elections looming, Le Pen faces an astonishing setback—her potential exclusion from the race.
Under the guise of financial mismanagement allegations tied to her party, French authorities are investigating Le Pen’s campaign spending. But let’s not mince words—this looks and feels like a pre-emptive strike. With Emmanuel Macron’s popularity waning, silencing Le Pen could conveniently eliminate one of France’s globalist establishment’s fiercest challengers. It’s a move that raises serious questions about fairness in a democracy where every candidate should have a chance to make their case to the people.
Marine Le Pen now finds herself at the centre of a high-stakes legal battle as French prosecutors have requested her exclusion from public office, including the presidency, over accusations of embezzling EU funds. The three-time presidential candidate vehemently denies the charges, branding the trial as a politically motivated attempt to sideline her ahead of France’s 2027 presidential elections.
Le Pen, alongside her National Rally party and 24 others—including past and present lawmakers and MEPs—are accused of misappropriating European Parliament funds between 2004 and 2016. Prosecutors allege that funds meant for parliamentary assistants were diverted to party-related activities, a practice they describe as systemic and deliberate.
According to Politico, prosecutor Louise Neyton characterised the alleged embezzlement as “unprecedented” due to its duration and scale, estimating taxpayer damages at €4.5 million. The prosecution’s case demands a severe penalty for Le Pen, including a five-year prison sentence (three years suspended), a €300,000 fine, and a ban from running for office for five years. Significantly, they’ve requested immediate enforcement of the sentence, even if Le Pen appeals—a move that could effectively remove her from the political scene before the 2027 election.
Marine Le Pen has rejected the accusations outright, maintaining her innocence and framing the trial as a deliberate effort to dismantle her political career. Speaking to reporters after court proceedings, Le Pen accused the prosecutors of attempting to “exclude [her] from political life” and criticised what she described as bias in the judicial process.
Drawing parallels to U.S. President-elect Donald Trump, Le Pen has called the trial politically motivated. She warned that barring her from candidacy would disenfranchise “millions of French people” who view her as their representative in the presidential race.
Le Pen has consistently presented herself as a defender of national sovereignty against the encroachment of globalist and left-liberal elites. Her supporters argue that the trial is part of a broader strategy to suppress rising national-conservative movements in Europe.
Is this all scrutiny about justice and what left-liberal globalists often refer to as ‘the rule of law’—or a way to sideline a political rival whose ideas have struck fear into the heart of the establishment?
Salvini’s Trials: Justice or Judicial Overreach and Globalist Lawfare
In Italy, Matteo Salvini, leader of the League party and a former deputy prime minister, finds himself entangled in a labyrinth of legal challenges. His supposed crime? Blocking migrant ships during his tenure as interior minister—a policy rooted in his commitment to secure Italy’s borders and protect its sovereignty. For Salvini, this was about defending his nation’s interests. For his opponents, it was a reckless act that endangered lives.
Salvini’s critics have painted his trial as an overdue reckoning for a politician who dared to defy international norms. But supporters see it differently—they argue this is an outrageous misuse of the judiciary to bring down a political figure who represents a growing conservative movement in Italy. If holding firm on immigration policies is grounds for prosecution, what message does that send to voters who demand stricter border controls?
Prosecutors in Palermo, Sicily, have charged the Lega leader with alleged kidnapping related to his decision in 2019 to block a charity-operated vessel carrying over 100 migrants from docking at an Italian port.
The charges stem from his decision to leave the Open Arms rescue ship stranded at sea for 19 days, during which passengers, including vulnerable individuals, were denied safe harbour in Lampedusa.
While Salvini maintains his actions were within the law and part of his broader “closed ports” migration policy, the case has stirred heated debate in Italy and beyond. If convicted, Salvini could face severe political and personal consequences, though Italy’s multi-tiered judicial process means any final verdict is likely years away.
The trial could significantly impact Salvini’s political career. As Deputy Prime Minister and Transport Minister in Giorgia Meloni’s right-wing government, Salvini remains a key figure in Italy’s political landscape. A conviction would not only tarnish his reputation but also jeopardise his ability to serve in public office, which in turn would deal a significant blow to his party, Lega.
But he is not without support. Back in September, Elon Musk sharply criticised the legal case against Italy’s Vice Premier Matteo Salvini, who is facing charges over his 2019 decision to prevent migrants from disembarking from the Spanish rescue ship Open Arms. When prosecutors recommended a six-year prison sentence for Salvini, Musk tweeted: “That mad prosecutor should be the one who goes to prison for six years.”
A Broader Pattern: Reaction to Conservatism on the Rise
When viewed in isolation, each of these cases might seem like a routine clash between political ideologies. However, taken together, they paint a more unsettling picture—one of a coordinated crackdown, using what’s become known as “lawfare,” against national-conservative movements quickly gaining ground across Europe.
Is it mere coincidence that these actions are unfolding in the wake of Donald Trump’s conservative resurgence in the United States? Trump’s presidency in 2016, despite its controversies, invigorated a wave of right-leaning populism worldwide. From Brexit to the rise of national-conservative parties in Europe, his policies and rhetoric emboldened those who felt left behind by globalism and liberal elitism. Now, with Trump poised for another potential run at the White House, the left-liberal establishment appears intent on quashing similar movements in Europe before they can gain more traction.
One can’t ignore the shadow of cancel culture looming over these cases. Once confined to social media squabbles and corporate boardrooms, cancel culture has now permeated the political sphere. Leaders like Le Pen, Salvini, and the AfD are being judged not just by their policies but by how effectively their opponents can frame them as unfit for public office.
This isn’t just about holding politicians accountable—it’s about power and the controlling of narratives. The establishment uses phrases like “threat to democracy” or “dangerous rhetoric” to paint their opponents in a particular light, even when their platforms resonate with significant portions of the electorate. The aim? To delegitimise these movements before they can challenge the status quo.
Ironically, such tactics often backfire. By turning figures like Le Pen or Salvini into martyrs, the establishment risks fuelling the very movements they seek to suppress. The more these leaders are targeted, the stronger their support base becomes, rallying around them as symbols of defiance against an oppressive system. The parallel procedures unfolding against the national-conservatives in Europe reveal more than just ideological battles—they expose the lengths to which the left-liberal establishment will go to maintain its grip on power.
