Farage and Le Pen gamble on their political futures

The faces of the populist right in the UK and France are at a proverbial crossroads, both facing challenges that could bring about their "political deaths".

On one hand is Reform UK leader Nigel Farage, who announced on Tuesday that he will quit his seat in Parliament and seek reelection in an effort to clear his name over financial allegations linked to millions of dollars' worth of donations.

On the other is National Rally parliamentary leader Marine Le Pen, who, despite being sentenced on Tuesday to wear a court-ordered electronic monitor for embezzlement, says she'll run for the French presidency next year.

Both lawmakers are staking their political careers on a gamble, each hoping they can overcome accusations they both deny and come back stronger.

The Clacton gamble

In the case of Farage, the plan appears to be off to a rocky start.

His unexpected resignation is widely seen as an effort to preempt a standards investigation that could have seen him ejected as a lawmaker, while presenting himself as the victim of a witch hunt by the media and his political foes.

"I have done nothing wrong. I have not broken the law in any way at all. I have not misused public money," Farage said in a statement broadcast by his party.

The Reform UK leader faces a parliamentary standards investigation over undeclared and potentially rule-breaking donations, including a £5 million ($6.7 million) gift he received from a Thailand-based cryptocurrency billionaire. A finding of wrongdoing could lead to Farage being suspended or expelled from Parliament.

But he has made the first move by triggering a by-election for his seaside seat of Clacton in eastern England.

"The people of Clacton should be the judges of my actions," Farage said. "This will be a people versus the establishment by-election."

"I will fight to win."

Farage won Clacton comfortably in the 2024 election, taking 46.2% of the vote, and is well placed to win reelection — not least because he may run largely unopposed.

The governing Labour Party and the opposition Conservatives and Liberal Democrats all said they would not put forward candidates.

And herein lies the major problem for Farage's plan: Can the election still be viewed as people versus the establishment if the establishment has called his bluff and refuses to take part in what some have called a "fake by-election"?

While Reform UK said it was willing to pay for the special election in an attempt to deflect claims that it is wasting taxpayers' money, it could instead turn out to be a waste of time if the gambit merely postpones Farage's problems.

Even if he wins, the standards inquiry is likely to resume. The Guardian reported on Tuesday that bankers aware of the transaction had reported the $6.7 million donation to the National Crime Agency as potentially involving laundered money. The crime agency said it did not confirm or deny the receipt of financial "suspicious activity reports", which are confidential.

But writing Farage off would be both premature and unwise for his opponents. A prominent cheerleader of US President Donald Trump, Farage will be hoping to replicate the American's ability to shake off controversies and position himself as an anti-establishment hero.

And even if the outcome of the parliamentary investigation, which is far from a foregone conclusion, turns out not to be in his favor, Farage is no stranger to political setbacks and comebacks.

One of the most high-profile and controversial figures in British politics, he is a skilled communicator who has had a checkered political career and was only elected to Parliament in 2024 after seven failed attempts.

And while the scrutiny of Farage's finances has spurred speculation about his political future, it is important not to forget that he is a politician whom some considered the favourite to be prime minister after the next general election.

He has now made his move, and only time will tell whether it pays off.

A campaign on borrowed time

Time is precisely what Le Pen will be hoping to gain by appealing Tuesday's ruling to France's highest court.

She was sentenced to wear a court-ordered electronic monitor for embezzlement but has decided she'll run for the French presidency next year nonetheless.

The decision by the 57-year-old veteran of three presidential races sets up a fourth campaign like no other: potentially seeking votes while subject to monitoring and with a judge possibly deciding how, and for how long, the punishment is applied.

Le Pen's decision to appeal should suspend the sentence requiring her to be electronically monitored for a year.

"I will therefore campaign without an electronic bracelet," she said in a television interview on Tuesday night. "Tonight, I am a candidate for the presidential election."

The appeals court ruling cleared the way for Le Pen by shortening a ban handed down by a court last year that kept her from seeking public office for five years.

But it also said she must wear an electronic monitor, a constraint Le Pen previously said would make campaigning impossible.

After huddling for hours with other leading figures of her National Rally party, however, Le Pen made clear on Tuesday night that she believes she will avoid electronic monitoring altogether and that her appeal to the Court of Cassation will vindicate her.

"My hands are clean," she said.

The highest court previously said it would be able to rule before the presidential election, with the first round in April and the runoff in May.

"I want to pursue all the legal avenues available to me so that I can defend my innocence," Le Pen added.

The appeals court ruled that Le Pen oversaw years of misuse by her National Rally party of European Parliament funds by paying staff with money intended for European Union parliamentary assistants. She denied criminal wrongdoing but said during the trial that the party had made a "mistake".

The ruling upheld guilty verdicts for all 11 accused, including Le Pen and other party members. The party itself was also found guilty, with the court ruling that it had embezzled €2.8 million ($3.2 million) over more than 11 years.

But the court scaled back the punishments handed down by a lower court last year. The five-year ban imposed in March 2025 was reduced to 45 months, with two-thirds of it suspended. Le Pen has already served 15 months of the ban, meaning the obstacle to her candidacy has now been removed.

The verdict also cut her prison sentence from four years, two of them suspended, to three years, with two suspended. 

Le Pen previously said that not being able to make a fourth run in 2027 would amount to "political death".

Like Farage, Le Pen had a decision to make: accept the conviction that could derail her fourth presidential campaign before it even started, or appeal the decision and press ahead with her political ambitions.

And while her embezzlement conviction leaves her open to attacks from critics and potential election opponents, she quickly sought to turn the verdict into a campaign message, making the point that the court ruling restored the option for voters to cast ballots for her next year.

By appealing the court decision, she is hoping for a campaign free from electronic monitoring as well as a not guilty verdict.

However, as with any gamble, she is running the risk of it not paying off – the Court of Cassation could uphold the conviction, giving ammunition to her opponents at what could be a crucial moment in the presidential contest.

But as the case of Donald Trump has shown, a criminal conviction does not have to be an insurmountable obstacle on the path to the highest office.

Whether either gamble succeeds remains to be seen.

Farage is betting that voters will rally behind him before Parliament reaches its own verdict, while Le Pen is hoping the courts will rule in her favor and boost her presidential bid before French voters go to the polls.

Both have framed themselves as victims of political and institutional establishments, betting that legal jeopardy will reinforce rather than undermine their appeal.

Far from marking their political deaths, the challenges they now face may instead become the defining tests of whether populist leaders can once again turn adversity into electoral advantage.