• Republicans are feeling the strain of rising costs, with more saying it's a drag on their finances.
• Those voters are feeling generally bad about the economy as key midterm elections loom.
• Voters not approving of the party in power is common; what's unclear is how it'll play out.

Republicans are feeling the high-cost crunch.

The latest consumer sentiment reading out of the University of Michigan finds that, across the board, Americans are still feeling bad. While self-identified Republicans still feel better than their Democratic and Independent counterparts, they're increasingly feeling the pinch of rising prices.

From January to October 2026, the share of Republicans citing high prices as a drag on their finances rose the most out of all political factions. It's a sign that, even as their party holds Congress and the White House, Republican voters might still be feeling the heat — especially as inflation continues to rise.

And, more broadly, Republicans seem to be souring on economic conditions. A Pew Research survey of 5,062 American adults from September 28 to October 4 found that Republicans, and those who lean Republican, were becoming less likely to say that economic conditions in the country are good.

Historically, consumer sentiment and surveys asking voters about economic conditions tend to have strong partisan correlations. Democrats are more likely to say that the economy is doing well and they're optimistic about the future when a Democrat is president; Republicans do the same when the GOP holds the White House.

The shift in Republican sentiment illustrates just how bad Americans at large are feeling about the economy. A similar downshift happened among Democrats amid the inflationary spike during President Joe Biden's term.

"President Trump has implemented an aggressive, pro-growth economic agenda that has blunted Biden's historic 40-year high inflation crisis, driven economic growth, increased wages and created private-sector jobs in areas that had been hollowed out and shipped overseas," White House spokesman Matthew Middleton said in a statement. "The President has always been clear about temporary disruptions as a result of the Iran conflict, but this administration will continue to deliver economic wins for the American people over the next two years."

While 18% of Republicans surveyed by Pew in January 2026 said that President Donald Trump's economic policies have made economic conditions worse, that share grew to 35% in October 2026. Similarly, an increasing share — 14% in January versus 25% in October — said that they expect economic conditions to be worse a year from now.

Similarly, polling from SSRS's Economic Attitudes Tracker found that Republicans are now more likely to describe the economy as bad than good — and the share of Independents who think the economy is good has plummeted to 12%, compared to a high of 25% in August 2025.

The cost concerns come as Iran War volatility — and the resulting fallout on energy prices — kept inflation high. In September, the consumer price index accelerated more than anticipated, with skyrocketing energy prices driving the increase. That means that, for the sixth month in a row, inflation has outpaced wage increases. Meanwhile, the labor market is floundering, with the country adding a paltry 29,000 payrolls in September — a far cry from the 90,000 roles economists predicted.

Midterm Election Day is a week away, and partisan sentiment around prices is shaping up to be especially important at the ballot box. Affordability messaging has become a touchpoint in swing state elections, with lawmakers on both sides of the aisle clamoring to show how their policies have and will bring down everyday costs.

But the declining sentiment among even the Republican base could be a warning sign for conservatives: An Ipsos/Washington Post/ABC News poll found that, in April, 34% of respondents said they trusted Republicans to do a better job of handling the economy, compared to 33% saying the same of Democrats. As of October 13, that had flipped. Just 28% of respondents said they'd trust Republicans to handle the economy better, while 37% said they'd trust the Democrats.

Marine Le Pen could scarcely have chosen a more favourable backdrop for her presidential campaign. A weakened president approaches the exit, demonstrations expose deep public frustration, and scenes of disorder reinforce her central argument: France’s governing establishment has lost control. The cards are all falling in her favour. Whether she can play them successfully remains the question.

Launching her campaign in Orléans, Le Pen promised national renewal and tougher policing. Reuters reported a poll placing her at 32–33.5 per cent, against 17 per cent for Jean-Luc Mélenchon. Those numbers are a snapshot, but they suggest something politically consequential: the candidate once treated as an outsider now occupies the strongest starting position.

Emmanuel Macron, meanwhile, increasingly resembles a lame-duck president. Constitutionally unable to seek another consecutive term, he faces a succession contest in which his endorsement may carry limited weight. His admission of failures in anticipating the unrest compounds the damage. A presidency built around authority and personal command is approaching its conclusion with both visibly diminished.

For Le Pen, the advantage is obvious. Every confrontation between police and rioters supplies another opportunity to ask whether the government can perform its most basic duty: protecting the public. Citizens do not need to endorse her entire programme to find that question persuasive. They need only conclude that those already governing have exhausted their answers.

Yet the origins of the demonstrations matter. The Associated Press describes a movement rooted in education funding, rising living costs and inequality. Peaceful protesters cannot reasonably be bundled together with looters. Nor does the reporting establish that these disturbances are an expression of Islamism or Muslim demographic change. Misdiagnosing the crisis would weaken any serious argument for restoring order.

The broader integration debate nevertheless deserves frank treatment. A republic cannot function confidently if its citizens believe that common laws, civic obligations or freedom of expression are negotiable. Governments should confront Islamist intimidation, religious coercion and deliberate separatism wherever evidence establishes them. They should also expect newcomers to learn the language, respect constitutional principles and participate in national life.

Those expectations are legitimate. Treating an entire Muslim population as inherently unintegrated is not. Religious identity alone establishes neither hostility to France nor unwillingness to belong. The useful political distinction is between citizens who uphold democratic rules and individuals or organisations that seek to undermine them. That standard should apply consistently, whatever the religion or ideology involved.

Across Europe, political leaders would be wise to recognise the electoral danger of appearing evasive about integration. Voters seeking enforceable rules should receive practical answers: effective language teaching, access to employment, credible policing and action against extremist networks. When mainstream parties substitute moral lectures for measurable results, they leave an opening for opponents promising clarity and control.

Le Pen’s opportunity is to connect these concerns with a wider sense of abandonment. Disorder, strained services and anxiety about belonging can become parts of one political story: the state demands obedience and taxation but delivers too little security or reassurance. Her opponents will struggle if their response consists principally of explaining why voters should fear her.

But favourable circumstances do not eliminate her weaknesses. Her conviction over European Parliament funds, which she is appealing, sits awkwardly beside a campaign demanding accountability and respect for law. Her promises of spending restraint, lower business taxes and resistance to further retirement-age increases also invite scrutiny. Winning confidence requires explaining how competing commitments can be reconciled.

The challenge for her rivals is therefore substantive. They must demonstrate that public order and legitimate protest can coexist, that integration involves shared duties, and that economic grievances deserve workable remedies. Simply rebuilding an electoral barricade against Le Pen may prove insufficient if voters associate its defenders with the failures that brought France here.

For now, momentum belongs to her. Macron looks depleted; the streets convey insecurity; the establishment struggles to offer a convincing successor or a persuasive account of renewal. None of this guarantees a Le Pen presidency. It does mean that her opponents can no longer rely on her reputation to defeat her. They must recover the public’s confidence in their own capacity to govern. Otherwise, France’s crisis may become her decisive electoral advantage.

Le Pen Sets Out €140bn Spending-Cut Plan as French Debt Dominates 2027 Race

• After my husband lost his job, we moved across the country and into my mom's one-bedroom apartment.
• My husband, toddler, and I live in her living room, and it's not always easy sharing a small space.
• However, the arrangement has come with lots of benefits and we've been able to get back on our feet.

7:30 p.m. marks the start of my son's bedtime routine.

First, I pull out our pillows and bedding from under the chaise sofa bed, which I share with my son.

Once our makeshift bed is set, I close the curtains separating it from the rest of the one-bedroom apartment. The tiny living room becomes our private oasis.

I can almost forget we're at my mom's place, sleeping on a convertible sofa she'd originally bought for our annual visits, while my 6-foot-3 husband sleeps on his own air mattress on the ground right next to us.

After my husband lost his job, moving in with my mom seemed like the right decision

Squeezing into my mom's small Boston apartment was never the plan.

Right after I graduated from college, I had moved to California to chase my Hollywood dreams of becoming an actor. During my two decades of living on the West Coast, I met my husband, got married, and became a stay-at-home mom.

However, our lives were turned upside down in 2025 when my husband lost his job. For the first time, we really started thinking about moving to Boston, where I had grown up and my family still lived.

I figured it would give us more flexibility with childcare, and a fresh start in a new city might be what we needed.

When I called my mom to tell her about our plans, she was thrilled. She'd been telling us to move to Boston for years, and said we could stay with her in her one-bedroom apartment until we found a new place.

So, we booked one-way tickets to Logan Airport and moved in with my mom.

It's been challenging for all of us to share a one-bedroom apartment

Arriving in Boston was exciting, but the transition to sharing a one-bedroom apartment was trying — we took over the entire living room. The room became cluttered, with our clothes and suitcases spilling into the hallway.

My mom expressed concern about the mess, so we rented a nearby storage unit for most of our belongings. Still, though, the things we need daily seem to take up a lot of space.

Sharing a one-bedroom apartment required an adjustment not just for us, but for her too.

For example, my son's early bedtime closes the living room off to my mom's nightly TV watching. Honestly, it still feels awkward to kick my mom out of her own living room because I have to put my toddler to sleep.

Plus, my mom is an early riser, often getting up at 6:30 a.m. to clean and run errands.

I can hear the sounds of domestic life filtering through the curtains that separate our "room" from the rest of the home. Cupboards opening, dishes being put away, and the smell of morning coffee lingering in the air like a wake-up call.

When tension rises because of our conflicting schedules and differing routines, I've learned to take a breather and step outside with my son to go for a walk or a drive. It often helps to ease the tension and remember this arrangement is only temporary.

However, it's also nice having my mom's support, and my son has gotten to know his abuela in ways that wouldn't have been possible from across the country. She watches him while I take a shower and go to in-person or Zoom job interviews.

Every night, while I'm getting the living room ready for bedtime, he goes into her room and cuddles up next to her while she watches TV.

Even though things aren't perfect, the arrangement is worth it

At first, being back at my mom's house after so many years of independence honestly made me feel like I somehow failed at life. By 40, I thought I'd have a successful career and a home of my own.

Now, though, it's been seven months since we arrived in Boston, and honestly? We're thriving. My husband found work, my son loves his preschool, and I've been able to focus on my career aspirations.

What I've learned through this whole process is that it's OK to lean on family when necessary, and even though we're still hoping to get our own place sooner rather than later, I know moving back to Boston was the right decision for me and my family.

They’re transforming cities with million-dollar views and a message of modernity. But climate change makes cooling them tricky and costly.

• Hayley and Mo Molina built a house on Hayley's parents' 400-acre family ranch in Oklahoma.
• Now they live steps away from Hayley's parents, grandparents, and brother and sister-in-law.
• They both enjoy spending time with the family, and everyone has grown closer.

This as-told-to essay is based on a conversation with Hayley and Mo Molina, 30 and 49, a married couple who live on a 400-acre ranch in Claremore, Oklahoma. Hayley's parents bought the ranch in 2021, and now four generations of family live there. The following has been edited for length and clarity.

Hayley: I was born in Bluffton, Indiana. Then my family moved to Oklahoma when I was three.

We always lived in town, and my family knew nothing about ranching. They were golfers; I didn't listen to country music until I was in high school — we were city people. But then my parents sold their house and were looking for something new, something different.

They were actually looking for something smaller and with not as much land to take care of, but we started talking about a family compound, found Hook Ranch, and just jumped in headfirst.

When my parents first found the property, it was about 170 acres, give or take, and they just kept buying more land and growing it bigger and bigger until it landed on what it is now.

When my parents were talking about doing this, the future goal was for me to be out here. For me, it wasn't the goal right away. I wanted that in the future, but I didn't know what the future looked like for me.

My grandparents ended up moving out here and living in the barn, where they live now, because I wasn't planning on moving out there or building anytime soon.

They were like, "OK, well we'll just take your spot then."

Then Mo and I met, and honestly, I don't even know if we ever had the conversation about living out here.

Mo: We really didn't bring it up early on. And when we first thought about it, I was like, "There's no way I'm living out there with all them family. There's no way." Not because I didn't like them; it just wasn't in the plan.

But then, as I got to know them, loved them, and we hung out with them almost every weekend, we were like, "Wait a minute, we love it out here."

I proposed out here, and after that, it took off from there. And then it was normal.

It's not weird to be living this close to my family

Hayley: On the property, there's us, my parents, my mom's parents, and then my brother and sister-in-law and their two daughters.

My family's always been so close. We're the type of people who always hung out on the weekends. We always went to my parents' house Friday night. It was so normal to be so close and always together.

Mo: For me, it was just my mom and me growing up, and we lived in the city, but I'm a country boy. I knew I always wanted to be out in the country. But it looked like I was going to be in the city the whole time. But with Hayley being close to her family, it all came together.

Hayley: We actually moved in with my parents first. We sold my house in March 2025, and then moved in with my parents.

Mo: We lived there while we were building our house.

Hayley: We got married in September, moved in with my parents in March, and lived there for seven months. We moved into our house in October of 2025.

Our house is only about 100 yards away from the barn, which is where my parents and grandparents live.

My brother and sister-in-law are about 200 yards away from the barn — it's like a seven-minute walk. It's literally a one-minute walk from my house to my parents' house.

Mo: I didn't know if there were going to be any benefits to living that close or not, especially when my father-in-law built a trail that goes right from the barn to our house.

It's kind of cliché, but if we don't have any eggs, we can literally walk down there.

Hayley: But honestly, we have so much privacy. You wouldn't think that, but I can't even see my parents' house or my brother's house from my house.

We can be in the backyard, the front yard, and I have no idea what's going on at their houses ever.

We can go weeks without seeing anybody. There's a lot of privacy out here because everybody respects each other's privacy.

Mo: It is weird knowing that we're this close and then a couple weeks go by, and I'm like, "Man, I haven't seen anybody," or "We haven't gone down there," and they're 100 steps away.

We've built closer relationships by living on the same property

Mo: When we first started dating, she was always hanging out with her parents almost every weekend, and I was living my single life, and I was hanging out with my buddies, and we would go out almost every weekend.

Hayley: Friday nights, we know what my parents are doing, because they do the same thing pretty much every Friday night.

So if we don't have anything to do, we are just going to go join them. Sometimes I just want to hang out with people, but I don't want to have to drive anywhere, and I don't want to have to get ready. So we'll have a game night at the barn with the whole family: my grandparents, us, my parents, and my brother and his family.

Mo: Hayley used to come and hang out with my friends, and then it didn't take very long before I went over to her family's place and hung out with them. I was like, "Man, this is kind of cool." They're awesome to hang out with.

At first, I was like, "I'm not hanging out with your parents. This is not a cool Friday night." In less than a month, I would say we were literally hanging out every weekend with her parents.

Hayley: I think we all have gotten so much closer. I have learned so much about my grandparents and gotten closer with my grandma.

My grandma comes over to our house every Monday morning and washes our sheets for us. While the sheets are washing and drying, she cleans the floors for me, and while she's doing that, she and I chat.

That's been really nice because I get to connect with her whenever. Before, I couldn't really do that because we only saw them every once in a while. Now I can do that every week. And she goes to my brother's house and does their laundry on Tuesdays.

Mo: Getting to know her family more and seeing how they do things and what they like and what their everyday looks like has been a benefit.

Her family works so hard. Her mom is the hardest worker on the ranch, and I would've never known that when I met her.

Her parents run a business, and her dad is constantly not in the house — except to watch college football.

I've learned so much from him.

I think getting to know that part of her family was huge for me. That's what's different. If we lived where we lived before, I probably would've never learned, or wanted to learn, that. So that was big for me.

In Paris, authorities restricted the main march to the city’s southeastern edge, keeping it away from the center.

In Paris, authorities restricted the main march to the city’s southeastern edge, keeping it away from the center.

French authorities have imposed extensive restrictions on demonstrations following last weekend’s violence. Courts have overturned some bans, while unions have accepted a last-minute change to the Paris protest route.

French police used tear gas to disperse demonstrators in Lyon on Saturday morning, 24 October, as 70,000 police officers and gendarmes were deployed nationwide to prevent a repetition of the violence and looting that accompanied last weekend’s mass protests.

In Paris, trade unions agreed to a revised demonstration route after the administrative court rejected their challenge to a last-minute police order. The march will proceed from Porte d’Italie to Porte de Vincennes, rather than between Bastille and Nation as originally agreed, with the procession scheduled to begin at 2pm.

Elsewhere, emergency judicial decisions have complicated the government’s security arrangements. Courts have suspended restrictions in Limoges and several municipalities around Marseille, while other cities remain subject to extensive bans on public gatherings.

The developments follow last weekend’s nationwide unrest, when approximately 550,000 people demonstrated against rising living costs, deteriorating public services and conditions in French schools. Violence erupted in several cities, leaving businesses looted, public buildings damaged and police officers injured.

Security operation on an unprecedented scale

Interior Minister Laurent Nuñez has ordered the deployment of 10,000 additional officers compared with 17 October. The operation includes specialist police units, armoured vehicles, helicopters and water cannon.

According to the government’s official security instructions, prefects must examine proposed demonstration routes, assess the reliability of organisers and take preventive measures where there is evidence of a risk to public order.

The authorities are particularly concerned about organised groups exploiting otherwise peaceful demonstrations to attack commercial premises and government buildings.

Security services expect between 400,000 and 500,000 people to participate in Saturday’s mobilisation. The government has warned that calls for renewed violence and looting have circulated online.

The previous weekend’s disturbances resulted in thousands of arrests. Justice Minister Gérald Darmanin said 217 people had already received prison sentences, with approximately half described as first-time offenders.

Courts challenge sweeping restrictions

The government’s measures have prompted an increasingly contentious legal dispute over the constitutional protection of public demonstrations.

The French Human Rights League has challenged restrictions in several cities, including Brest, Quimper, Caen, Marseille, Lille and Montpellier. It argues that extensive prohibitions interfere with freedom of assembly, expression and movement.

In Marseille, negotiations between local authorities and trade unions resulted in permission for a demonstration along an agreed route through the city. A separate administrative court decision subsequently suspended parts of the wider departmental ban, allowing gatherings in Gardanne, Istres, Martigues, Miramas and Tarascon.

The administrative court in Limoges also suspended restrictions on gatherings of more than ten people in the city centre and overturned an associated curfew.

In Lyon, however, restrictions remained in force across a large central area. Police dispersed approximately 150 demonstrators near Lyon III University shortly before 11am after participants blocked traffic close to the prohibited perimeter.

Macron faces a constitutional and political challenge

President Emmanuel Macron has argued that protecting public order must take priority following the destruction witnessed on 17 October.

His suggestion on Thursday that demonstrations not organised by recognised trade unions should generally be prohibited prompted legal challenges from opposition parties and civil liberties organisations.

In a ruling delivered on 23 October, the Conseil d’État rejected challenges to Macron’s remarks, finding that they did not themselves constitute a binding nationwide prohibition. The court nevertheless reaffirmed that prefects must assess individual demonstrations according to the circumstances and risks involved.

The ruling leaves local restrictions subject to judicial scrutiny rather than providing the government with unrestricted authority to prohibit protests.

Meanwhile, the movement’s original demands remain unresolved. What began with secondary-school students protesting against staff shortages, overcrowding and educational conditions has expanded into a broader mobilisation involving trade unions, university students and Yellow Vest campaigners.

Macron met representatives of secondary-school students on Friday, but participants subsequently called for demonstrations to continue until concrete proposals were presented.

Growing pressure ahead of the presidential election

The renewed mobilisation comes six months before France’s presidential election, in which Macron cannot seek a third consecutive term.

Political tensions are also evident in Orléans, where thousands of demonstrators gathered on Saturday to oppose the National Rally’s weekend party congress. Authorities deployed additional security personnel and restricted the location of the protest.

For the government, the immediate objective is to prevent another outbreak of large-scale violence. For unions and civil liberties organisations, the dispute increasingly concerns the conditions under which public protest may legitimately be restricted.

As EU Today reported ahead of Saturday’s demonstrations, the central legal question is whether prohibitions are proportionate to identifiable security risks.

The courts have now begun answering that question differently across France, leaving the authorities to enforce a patchwork of restrictions as the country’s social and political confrontation continues.

There has been an increase in animal attacks on postal staff while making deliveries in urban and rural locations.

Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has convened an emergency government meeting following two days of violent unrest in Milan and other northern cities, where demonstrators clashed with police, looted shops and damaged public property during protests over living costs and deteriorating public services.

Police brought 271 people to police headquarters following Sunday’s disturbances in Milan, including 220 minors. Of those detained, 32 were formally arrested and another 28 were reported to the judicial authorities, according to figures released on Monday, 19th October.

The violence has prompted the Italian government to consider further restrictions on those involved in violent demonstrations, potentially introducing additional powers directed at organised disorder and juvenile offenders.

Milan city centre hit by looting

The disturbances began during demonstrations on Saturday, 17th October, organised amid growing dissatisfaction over household expenses, public services and wider political grievances.

Although the protests initially included peaceful participants, groups of masked individuals subsequently confronted riot police in central Milan. Officers used tear gas and water cannon as demonstrators erected burning barricades and threw objects at security personnel.

The unrest continued on Sunday, when shops were attacked close to Piazza del Duomo, one of Milan’s principal commercial and tourist areas.

Among the premises targeted were branches of Decathlon, Arc’teryx and Vodafone. Television footage showed damaged shopfronts, overturned street furniture and burning rubbish containers.

According to police figures reported on Monday, 174 of those taken to police headquarters were subjected to preventive detention measures introduced under recent Italian security legislation.

Fourteen members of the security services were reported injured during Sunday’s disturbances, including ten police officers and four members of the municipal police.

The judicial authorities are examining the conduct of individuals suspected of taking part in attacks on businesses and confrontations with officers. Prosecutors have sought custodial measures against several adults accused of offences including devastation, looting and aggravated resistance.

The large proportion of minors among those detained has become a central issue in the political response.

Violence spreads across northern Italy

Milan was not the only city affected by disorder. Saturday’s demonstrations also produced confrontations in Turin, Bologna, Brescia and Bergamo.

Italian police reported arrests across the affected cities, while the scale and organisation of the disturbances have raised questions about whether different groups were acting independently or using demonstrations as opportunities for coordinated violence.

There is not yet sufficient publicly established evidence to attribute the disorder to a single organisation or political movement.

The clashes coincided with major protests in neighbouring France, where similar concerns over living costs and public administration have contributed to increasingly confrontational demonstrations.

Although the grievances overlap, the Italian and French movements have different political backgrounds and organisational structures.

Government considers emergency legislation

Following a meeting at Palazzo Chigi on Monday, Meloni’s government indicated that it was considering a legislative response, potentially through an emergency decree.

According to details of the government discussions, proposals under examination include additional measures against violent offences, changes to preventive policing and possible restrictions addressing road blockages.

Some measures could be drawn from security legislation already under consideration in the Italian Senate. Ministers have also discussed the need for more effective intervention against juvenile offenders.

The meeting included Deputy Prime Ministers Matteo Salvini and Antonio Tajani, Interior Minister Matteo Piantedosi, Defence Minister Guido Crosetto and senior officials from the police, Carabinieri and intelligence services.

The government has stressed that peaceful demonstrations must remain protected while arguing that violence and organised destruction require a stronger response.

No final legislative text had been adopted at the conclusion of Monday’s meeting. A decree could be considered by the Council of Ministers as early as Tuesday, although the precise content remains subject to further examination.

Dispute over responsibility for policing

The unrest has also produced a dispute between Milan’s municipal authorities and the national government.

Mayor Giuseppe Sala questioned the adequacy of the policing arrangements, arguing that the number of officers initially deployed was insufficient to control the disturbances.

Interior Minister Matteo Piantedosi rejected that criticism, while senior government figures accused local political leaders of failing to condemn the violence unequivocally.

The disagreement reflects a wider question over how responsibility for anticipating and containing serious public disorder should be divided between local administrations and national security authorities.

Italy’s opposition has also challenged the government’s handling of the disturbances. Former Prime Minister Matteo Renzi criticised Meloni and Piantedosi over their failure to prevent the violence, calling for a change in leadership at the Interior Ministry.

The political argument is likely to intensify if the government proceeds with emergency legislation. Supporters of stronger police powers argue that the existing framework is insufficient to deal with rapidly organised disturbances, while opponents will scrutinise the proportionality of new restrictions and their effect on peaceful protest.

The immediate test for the government will be whether additional legal powers can improve public-order operations without replacing effective policing, intelligence gathering and judicial enforcement.

More than half a million people took part in demonstrations across France on Saturday, 17 October, as protests over living costs and education deteriorated into riots, looting and attacks on public buildings in several major cities.

France is assessing extensive damage following nationwide demonstrations on Saturday, 17 October, that brought hundreds of thousands of people onto the streets and resulted in more than 1,200 arrests. Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu said 150 police officers and gendarmes were injured as violent groups attacked public buildings, looted businesses and confronted security forces.

According to figures released by the French authorities, approximately 550,000 people participated in 110 marches across France, including 110,000 in Paris. Organisers, including trade unions and student associations, placed nationwide participation at 800,000.

The demonstrations represented a considerable escalation of the movement that began in September over deteriorating conditions in French secondary schools. The protests have since expanded into a broader campaign against rising living costs, public spending restrictions and the government’s economic policies.

Violence spreads beyond Paris

In the French capital, confrontations erupted around Place de la République, where masked groups threw paving stones, fireworks and other projectiles at police. Security forces responded with tear gas and water cannon as vehicles and rubbish bins were set alight.

Businesses along Boulevard Magenta and neighbouring streets were targeted, with shops broken into and goods stolen. Several central Paris Métro stations were closed as authorities attempted to restrict access to sensitive government locations.

Although the main authorised procession remained largely peaceful, violence continued elsewhere in the capital into Saturday evening.

The disturbances extended well beyond Paris. In Limoges, the historic town hall suffered extensive fire damage, with parts of its roof collapsing. Regional authorities described the destruction of the 143-year-old building as a major loss to the city’s architectural heritage.

In Marseille, groups forced their way into the town hall after using street barriers to ram its entrance. Municipal premises were vandalised before police regained control.

Further incidents were reported in Lyon, where a tourist office was attacked and a fire started, and in Bordeaux, where the official residence of the Gironde prefect was ransacked. Police also reported attacks or attempted break-ins at public buildings in Lille, Calais and Brest. The scale of the disturbances placed security forces under considerable pressure.

Government blames organised extremist groups

Lecornu accused organised far-left groups of deliberately instigating violence in several French cities. Nuñez similarly attributed much of the destruction to radical groups and individuals exploiting the demonstrations to loot businesses.

President Emmanuel Macron condemned attacks on public property and commercial premises, promising that those responsible would face prosecution.

The government has not announced a state of emergency, although authorities are reviewing the scale of the damage and the security response.

The mayor of Paris, Emmanuel Grégoire, described the destruction across parts of the capital as extensive and distinguished the peaceful protest movement from those responsible for vandalism.

Student unrest becomes a national movement

Saturday’s demonstrations followed several weeks of disruption across France’s education system.

As EU Today reported earlier this month, between 400 and 500 secondary schools faced partial or complete closures as students protested against teacher shortages, overcrowded classrooms and deteriorating facilities.

The subsequent confrontations with police intensified political tensions, with student organisations accusing authorities of using excessive force and police representatives complaining of inadequate protection.

A further controversy emerged on Saturday after a 17-year-old demonstrator in Saint-Étienne suffered a serious hand injury. An investigation was opened into the incident and assigned to France’s police inspectorate, the IGPN. Reports linked the injury to a grenade thrown by police; the precise circumstances remain under investigation.

The latest demonstrations also marked a revival of the Gilets Jaunes, or Yellow Vest, movement, which emerged in 2018 in opposition to fuel taxation and subsequently developed into a wider challenge to Macron’s economic programme.

Trade unions, including the CGT, joined calls for higher wages and pensions, lower consumer prices and increased investment in public services.

Political consequences for Macron and Lecornu

The unrest presents another challenge for Lecornu’s government as it attempts to manage France’s public finances ahead of the 2027 presidential election.

The demands for increased spending on education, wages and public services come as ministers face pressure to reduce the budget deficit and control public debt.

The political implications are already apparent. Jean-Luc Mélenchon, leader of the hard-left France Unbowed movement, has supported the student protests while opposing looting and destruction. Marine Le Pen has condemned the rioters and accused Mélenchon’s party of helping to legitimise the unrest.

The latest disturbances also follow growing criticism of the government’s policing strategy, particularly the use of riot-control weapons during demonstrations involving minors.

With municipal authorities calculating the cost of damage to public buildings and commercial premises, Lecornu has instructed ministers to support affected businesses. The immediate challenge is to restore public order while addressing a protest movement that has expanded considerably beyond its original demands for improvements in French schools.

French authorities are preparing for hundreds of demonstrations on Saturday, 17 October, as student unrest converges with protests over living costs, public spending and government policy. Up to 40,000 demonstrators are expected in Paris, where police and organisers remain divided over march routes.

France is preparing for a nationwide wave of demonstrations on Saturday, 17 October, with approximately 500 protest actions under consideration and more than 90 marches being organised, according to the Interior Ministry. The mobilisation brings together high-school students, trade unions, farmers and supporters of the Yellow Vest movement, raising the prospect of further confrontation after nearly a month of unrest.

Police estimates suggest that around 40,000 demonstrators could gather in Paris, with approximately 150,000 more expected elsewhere in France. The figures remain preliminary, while authorities warn that some protests could involve road blockades, disruption to essential infrastructure and violent clashes.

Interior Minister Laurent Nuñez initially outlined preparations for 250 gatherings and 80 marches on Friday morning. Subsequent assessments from his office indicated that as many as 500 actions were being considered, although not all had been formally organised.

Paris Faces Dispute Over Demonstration Routes

The authorities are particularly concerned about developments in the capital, where negotiations between police and protest organisers have failed to produce agreement over the proposed routes.

Paris police prefect Patrice Faure has rejected proposals for marches terminating near the Opéra district or Place de la Concorde, citing security concerns surrounding central government institutions.

According to details of the security preparations, police have proposed an alternative route between Place de la Bastille and Place de Clichy. The CGT trade union and climate campaigners have accepted the proposal, but student organisations and Yellow Vest representatives continue to oppose it.

Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu has convened an interministerial crisis unit to coordinate the government’s response. Security officials have warned that attempts to obstruct major transport routes or critical infrastructure will not be tolerated.

The Interior Ministry has also indicated that stun grenades, whose use was suspended during the student protests, could again be deployed in cases of particularly serious urban violence.

Yellow Vests Return Amid Rising Living Costs

Saturday’s demonstrations are being promoted as a revival of the Yellow Vest movement, which emerged in 2018 following opposition to fuel taxation before developing into a broader protest against living costs, economic inequality and government policy.

The latest mobilisation has gathered support from organisations demanding measures to address rising fuel, energy and food prices. Campaigners are also challenging the government’s proposed 2027 budget and its implications for public services.

The agricultural union Confédération paysanne has called on farmers to join the demonstrations, arguing that rising agricultural fuel costs and deteriorating conditions in rural communities have increased pressure on producers.

The union has also linked its demands to environmental policy, public-service provision and access to affordable food.

The CGT, student unions and climate organisations have similarly expressed support for the protests, while political backing has come from La France Insoumise and the French Communist Party.

Student Protests Enter Their Fourth Week

The mobilisation follows weeks of demonstrations involving secondary-school pupils, teachers and public-sector workers. What began as protests over shortages of teachers, overcrowded classrooms and deteriorating school buildings has developed into a nationwide confrontation over education policy and policing.

As EU Today previously reported, between 400 and 500 secondary schools faced partial or complete disruption earlier this month as students organised blockades and demonstrations.

The movement has subsequently expanded beyond its original educational demands, with student organisations raising concerns about university admissions procedures, police tactics and government spending priorities.

The scale of the unrest has placed considerable pressure on French authorities. According to figures from the Justice Ministry, 6,877 people were placed in police custody during the protests between late September and 8 October, approximately 86 per cent of them minors.

Violence during the demonstrations has resulted in injuries among police officers, students and educational staff. Clashes on 8 October led to 504 arrests and injuries to 48 police officers, according to Interior Ministry figures.

Education Minister Édouard Geffray has announced emergency measures to address teacher shortages, including the deployment of replacement teachers. The ministry says 2,000 of the 3,000 promised replacements have already been assigned, but student organisations maintain that the measures are insufficient.

Growing Pressure on the French Government

The planned demonstrations come as France faces a difficult debate over public spending, taxation and the 2027 budget. Lecornu’s government must balance demands for higher salaries and increased investment in education against mounting pressure to reduce the deficit.

France’s deteriorating public finances have already attracted scrutiny from eurozone partners, while domestic opposition to spending restraint has become a central issue ahead of the 2027 presidential election.

The convergence of student organisations, trade unions and Yellow Vest campaigners could broaden the protests beyond the education sector, particularly if demonstrations over living costs attract participants who have not joined the recent school protests.

However, the extent of that mobilisation remains uncertain. Online protest maps contain substantially more proposed actions than the authorities’ estimates, and participation figures will not be established until Saturday.

For the government, the immediate test will be whether the demonstrations remain peaceful and whether the authorities can prevent disruption to transport networks and public services without provoking further confrontations with protesters.

The European Commission calls it the Affordable Housing Act and says it can “truly bring a change in people’s lives”. But how much will it actually do to make housing more affordable, asks Catherine Feore? 

The tension at the heart of the proposal is that Brussels is making ambitious claims about tackling the housing crisis while simultaneously making clear that it is not imposing new housing policies on governments or cities.

Commission President Ursula von der Leyen says the measure fulfils a promise to tackle housing affordability, describing it as “one step in this direction” and declaring: “Today, we are delivering for all Europeans.” Housing Commissioner Dan Jørgensen went further, saying the Act gives governments and cities tools to “make more affordable homes available”.

Yet the proposed legislation itself is considerably more cautious.
The Commission acknowledges that insufficient housing supply is the structural cause of the affordability crisis. Short-term rentals, second homes and other non-primary uses are not the root problem, although they can exacerbate shortages and push up prices in already constrained markets.

Housing stress test

The Act principally delivers a common legal framework for authorities that choose to intervene.

Central to this is a new EU test for housing stress. An area would normally qualify where an average home costs at least eight years of disposable per-capita income, that ratio has increased over the previous decade, and pressures are unlikely to ease over the next three years. At a ratio of ten or more, the historical deterioration test is dropped. Population dynamics, housing supply and demand must also be assessed.

Authorities could then restrict short-term rentals outside a host’s primary residence or tackle second homes, prolonged vacancy and certain other non-primary uses. But there is no obligation. They must also demonstrate that the activity has significantly harmed housing affordability or availability for at least three years, and any restriction must be targeted, necessary and proportionate. This seems to set a high bar of evidence for most local authorities.

Currently, local authorities must notify the Commission of short-term rental restrictions under the Services Directive. That notification requirement will no longer be required. Cities can use the new framework without seeking prior Commission approval, although measures must be published and remain open to legal challenge. Officials argue this will remove a burdensome procedure and make intervention easier.

But the Commission is equally explicit about what it is not doing. The Act does not regulate rents, harmonise housing policy, give Brussels new housing competences, dictate taxation, inheritance or planning, or require, recommend or encourage authorities to impose restrictions. Housing policy choices “remain national, regional and local”.

Executive Vice-President Teresa Ribera says that when markets fail to provide affordable homes, “public authorities have a responsibility to act”. But the Act does not compel that action; it provides a stronger legal framework if authorities choose to act independently.

Its impact could be real in tourist hotspots where non-primary housing use is demonstrably worsening shortages. But it cannot itself build a home or lower a rent. The question is whether a clearer legal toolbox matches the expectations created by the Commission’s promise to tackle Europe’s housing crisis. When asked to quantify how much of a difference the new provisions could make, the Commission couldn’t give precise figures, saying that it would depend on the measures adopted.

PHOTO CREDIT: Teresa Ribera, Executive Vice-President of the European Commission for a Clean, Just and Competitive Transition, and Dan Jørgensen, European Commissioner for Energy and Housing, give a press conference on the affordable housing Photographer: Jennifer Jacquemart © European Union