The deputies approved, on Wednesday April 15 in the evening, a measure to allow a court to order a series of special measures against a person considered to be radicalized during their detention, upon their release from prison, with the aim of preventing an act of a terrorist nature.

The National Assembly adopted an article of a bill from MP Charles Rodwell (Yvelines, Renaissance), supported by the government.

Rewritten by an amendment from the president of the Laws Committee, Florent Boudié (Gironde, Renaissance), it targets people sentenced to a prison sentence of at least ten years, who would present at the end of the execution of their sentence a “particular dangerousness (…) characterized by a very high probability of committing a terrorist act”, due to radicalization.

Filling “a hole in the racket”

The sentence enforcement court, at the request of the prosecutor, could then take a battery of measures, in particular “health, social, educational, psychological or psychiatric care” aimed at reintegration. It could also prohibit carrying out “an activity” in which “a terrorist act is particularly likely to be committed”.

A gradual tightening of the regime for monitoring prisoners for terrorism after their release from prison

A similar system exists for people convicted of terrorist acts but not for people radicalized during a prison sentence. Rapporteur Charles Rodwell talks about a way to fill “a hole in the racket”.

“Major slide”

The MP (Paris, Les Ecologistes) Léa Balage El-Mariky denounced on the contrary a “major shift” allowing “security measures no longer on the basis of acts, but on that of a supposed ideological adherence without conviction for acts of terrorism”. The MP (Vienna, Public Square) Sacha Houlié also supported an amendment to delete the article citing “serious risks of unconstitutionality”.

The Minister of the Interior, Laurent Nuñez, supported the principle, and highlighted some “300 people detained under common law, whose radicalization appeared during detention”.

Read also | Article reserved for our subscribers Prisons: the role of radicalization treatment districts called into question

Read later

Later, the deputies also adopted, against the advice of left-wing groups, an article concerning individual measures of administrative control and surveillance (Micas). These are administrative police acts against people to prevent an act of terrorism (prohibition on traveling outside a specific geographical area, ban on appearing in certain places, etc.).

If a judgment cancels the renewal of the measure, the article voted on would allow the Minister of the Interior when he appeals to request a stay of execution, so that Micas continues.

Newsletter

” Policy “

Every week, “Le Monde” analyzes current political issues for you

Register

The time limit for ruling on this request could go up to “five days” in total, argued Mr. Nuñez, considering the measure proportionate and necessary, arguing that approximately one in two cancellations of Micas were overturned on appeal, without convincing the left.

The World with AFP

Who will replace the charismatic Gavin Newsom as governor of California? A Democrat, many Americans would undoubtedly answer, as this progressive state in the western United States, the most populous in the country, seems to have been won over to the blue camp for decades. But since last weekend, the answer is no longer so obvious.

Also readPresidential 2028: Can Gavin Newsom, slayer of Trump, embody Democratic hope?

On Sunday, April 12, the Democratic Party’s favorite candidate, Congressman Eric Swalwell, officially left the race for governor. For several weeks, he was at the heart of various controversies, accused of having sexually assaulted a former collaborator, of having sent intimate photos to several women or of having hired a nanny and having paid her from campaign funds – accusations that he denied.

Exit, therefore, the favorite, who leaves behind a certain form of chaos. Because the list of his potential replacements is long. And for the moment, none are really doing well.

“This is a complete game changer,” says Kim Nalder, professor of political science at Sacramento State University, to the Guardian. “We are going to see some Democratic voters once again interested in candidates who were perhaps not at the top of their list. »

Myriad of candidates

Seven Democratic candidates remain in the running to succeed Gavin Newsom, who, after two terms, cannot run again.

Also readHow to communicate like Trump? The governor of California tries the exercise

Among them: Katie Porter, former Democratic congresswoman; Tom Steyer, billionaire financier, environmental activist and disappointed 2020 presidential candidate; Matt Mahan, Mayor of San Jose; Xavier Becerra, Joe Biden’s Secretary of Health during the Covid-19 epidemic; or the mayor of Los Angeles, Antonio Villaraigosa.

For the moment, the first two seem to enjoy a slight lead in the polls. But like Eric Swalwell, they have to face their share of controversies. Katie Porter is thus regularly singled out for a story dating from 2025, when she threatened to leave the set of a television show after tense exchanges with the journalist. Enough to see yourself labeled as “angry” by your opponents.

Tom Steyer, for his part, owes his growing notoriety to his portfolio. He is currently the one who has devoted the most funds to his electoral campaign. So much so that his face appears everywhere, to the point of generating a certain unease. “Anyone who lives in California has inevitably come across his face on advertising inserts,” notes Eric Schickler, professor of political science at the University of California at Berkeley, to the Times. “But some are embarrassed by the display of this wealth. Especially since Tom Steyer has never held public office. »

Behind them, the other candidates are hot on their heels. On Saturday, Matt Mahan, for example, was able to give new impetus to his campaign, when he received a million dollars in donations from a real estate developer, Rick Caruso.

A 100% Republican election?

However, having a whole host of candidates in one pocket greatly complicates the race for California governorship. Because before the general election, scheduled for November 3, 2026, we must indeed pass the crucial stage of the primaries, scheduled for June 2.

And in California, because of an election rule adopted in 2010, these primaries are nonpartisan. Overall, they function like the first round of a French presidential election: all the candidates in the running are at the same level, regardless of their party, and it is the two who obtain the most votes who are qualified for the general election. In other words, there is no guarantee that a party will be represented in the general election.

If no candidate stands out among the large number of contenders for the post of governor, the Democratic camp therefore sees the threat that its electorate will disperse, leaving two Republicans to come out on top in the primaries. The state would then inevitably fall into the hands of a Republican governor, for the first time since Arnold Schwarzenegger (2003-2011).

Because opposite, there are only two Republicans vying for place. The first, Steve Hilton, is an Anglo-American, former adviser to British Prime Minister David Cameron, regular speaker on the conservative channel Fox News. The second, Chad Bianco is sheriff of the large Riverside County, a county which runs from east of Los Angeles to Joshua Tree National Park.

Even before the ouster of Eric Swalwell, this fear was heard in the Democratic camp. In mid-March, a poll commissioned by the Los Angeles Times estimated that Katie Porter could collect 13% of voting intentions, at the same level as Eric Swalwell. Tom Steyer was at 10%. All were left behind by the two Republicans with Steve Hilton, receiving 17% of the voting intentions, and Chad Bianco 16%.

“This scenario of two Republicans who manage to qualify remains unlikely, as the Democratic vote is strong in this state,” according to Eric Schickler. “But the very fact that this is a possibility shows how disorganized the Democratic race is. »

In various simulations carried out by Paul Mitchell, a prominent data analyst on the Democratic field, the chances of a total failure of the Democrats in the general election are indeed slightly less than 1 in 5.

And according to experts, this is notably due to American President Donald Trump. The latter has indeed given his official support to Steve Hilton. If the electorate follows the voting instructions, the number of votes for their opponent could therefore drastically decrease to the point of seeing them come in at least third.

A democratic malaise

Among Democrats, a question persists: how did we get to this point? The problem, ultimately, is that “no obvious successor to Gavin Newsom – a Democratic figure who would be known and with a strong personality – has emerged,” said Garry South, who worked on four campaigns for governor of California.

For a long time, however, the Democrats were waiting for a Kamala Harris, who returned to California after the 2024 election, or an Alex Padilla, this Latin American senator fervent opponent of Trump’s migration policy, or even a Rob Bonta, the attorney general of the state. But everyone refused.

Is the position too risky in a political career? Governing California is a daunting challenge. While the state boasts of being the fourth largest economy in the world, it faces a chronic budget deficit, an exorbitant cost of living and a housing shortage. Since 2023, the majority of voters believe that their state is moving in the wrong direction, according to a survey by the Public Policy Institute of California.

“Countries must take necessary measures to reduce activities that use the most energy. We must do it now, not wait several weeks,” insisted the Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), Kristalina Georgieva, during the annual meetings of the institution and the World Bank this week in Washington.

States must “prepare for difficult times” if oil prices remain high due to the war in the Middle East, IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva stressed at a press conference on Wednesday.

“We must prepare for difficult times” if the conflict continues and oil prices remain high, assured the head of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), before adding: “all countries are concerned, even if the shock can be asymmetrical”.

Delegations from the majority of countries around the world have been present in Washington since Monday to participate in the annual meetings of the Fund and the World Bank (WB), which last until the end of the week.

Concern about fertilizers and feed

Unsurprisingly, the repercussions of the war in the Middle East, particularly on gas and oil, led to a surge in oil prices. “We have discussions with all countries,” assured Christian Mumssen, director of Strategy for the Institution, during a press briefing.

“This will allow us to better understand how the shock affects them, what political choices have already been made and whether they are expecting additional assistance from the IMF, which we should of course provide, via our usual tools,” he added.

“Countries must take necessary measures to reduce activities that use the most energy. We must do it now, not wait several weeks,” insisted Kristalina Georgieva.

At the same time, the impact on fertilizers, part of which as well as certain ingredients come from the region, adds difficulties, increasing the risk of a food crisis in the States.

“We are worried about the risks of inflation, in particular as it concerns food prices if the delivery of fertilizer at a reasonable price (is not) quickly restored,” admitted the managing director of the IMF.

Christian Mumssen admitted to being “particularly worried about low-income countries”, precisely because of the impact of the conflict on food. As a reminder, at the end of March the World Trade Organization (WTO) qualified fertilizers as “alert issue number 1”, anticipating a “cumulative effect” next year “on the quantity (of crops) but also on prices”.

“If the Strait of Hormuz is blocked for three months, the impact will be obvious,” underlined the deputy director general of the WTO, Jean-Marie Paugam.

Prudence of central banks

In these countries, households spend on average 36% of their consumption on food, compared to 20% in emerging countries and less than 9% for developed countries. The Director General of the Fund asked States not to commit to significant expenditure “while the level of global debt is at its highest since the Second World War”.

According to the Fiscal Monitor report on fiscal policies, released by the IMF earlier today, global debt reached the equivalent of 94% of global GDP last year, and could reach 100% by 2029 if no effort is made.

“Some countries are implementing untargeted measures, export controls or poor tax cuts. The intentions are good but protecting their citizens with this type of measure will only prolong the difficulties linked to high prices,” warned Kristalina Georgieva.

At the same time, central banks must be cautious “and see how this will evolve” before making any decisions regarding their key rates, particularly if inflation expectations remain anchored. “If we get out of the conflict quickly, they shouldn’t need to act,” she said.

In the immediate future, however, the emergency remains the financial situation of the countries, while the IMF already had nearly forty active programs even before the outbreak of war. Already, the Fund has received “a dozen requests” for new aid programs, “a number of them from sub-Saharan Africa,” Kristalina Georgieva said.

These countries “need our attention, and are an important focus of our discussions this week on how we can best help them in the face of a world of frequent shocks and uncertainty,” she added.