Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.

French far-right leader Marine Le Pen goes on trial on Monday for allegedly embezzling EU funds, in a politically charged case that could lead to fines and a ban from elected office.

Prosecutors accuse the three-time presidential candidate and former member of the European parliament of misusing EU funds to pay staff hired in Brussels for work they were doing for the party in France.

Also on trial are 24 others, including elected officials and staffers, as well as Le Pen’s far-right party itself.

They allegedly siphoned off roughly €3.2mn from 2004 to 2016 at a time when their party, then called Front National, was cash-strapped, according to Patrick Maisonneuve, the lawyer for the EU parliament at the trial.

If proven true, such practices would fall foul of rules that govern how MEPs can spend money allocated to them to cover their expenses.

Le Pen and the other defendants have said they committed no wrongdoing. The founder of the party, Jean-Marie Le Pen, who is Marine Le Pen’s father and a former member of the EU assembly for 25 years, was also supposed to stand trial, but judges decided the 96-year-old was too frail.

If convicted, judges could impose a prison sentence on Marine Le Pen of up to 10 years, €1mn in fines and a maximum ban on holding elected office of five years.

Such a verdict would cause political shockwaves in France, as her party, now rebranded as Rassemblement National, has emerged as a powerful force in the fractured French parliament following snap elections this summer.

The vote was called by President Emmanuel Macron after RN scooped up the largest share of the vote in elections for the EU parliament in June. Le Pen is expected to run for president again in 2027 when Macron’s second and final term ends.

With opposition parties threatening no-confidence votes against the fragile new government led by Prime Minister Michel Barnier, RN has emerged as a kingmaker since its votes would be needed for such a motion to pass.

Police and prosecutors in France began investigating the alleged fraud in 2014 after the EU parliament submitted evidence that Le Pen’s party was misusing funds.

To secure a conviction, prosecutors will have to prove that Le Pen and other defendants intentionally redirected their staff in Brussels to pursue tasks that were not related to their EU parliamentary work.

Maisonneuve, the lawyer for the EU parliament, said officials in Brussels initially noticed that “a large majority of the assistants” on RN’s organisational chart appeared to be based in France and not doing work in the EU assembly.

“We had an obligation to notify the French authorities to ensure that EU taxpayers’ money was not being misused,” he said.

Le Pen has called the charges “deeply unfair” and vowed that the trial would not disrupt RN’s work. Asked by La Tribune newspaper in early September if she feared a verdict that would bar her from elected office, she said she believed that she and her co-defendants would be cleared. “I am very sure of our innocence,” she said.

Several French political parties have been accused of similar crimes involving EU parliamentary assistants.

One of Macron’s allies, the centrist politician François Bayrou, was cleared earlier this year but his MoDem party was declared guilty of misappropriating EU funds. In 2018, an investigation was opened into the far-left party France Unbowed, but no charges have been filed.

“It can be difficult to draw a line between work done for the MEP and work done for the party,” said Francis Teitgen, the lawyer who represented the MoDem party in a similar trial.

“Compared to the case involving the Modem, which is very pro-Europe, the atmosphere of the RN one will be different since they are Eurosceptics.”

He eliminated text that would have allowed California’s attorney general to sue AI companies for negligent safety practices before a catastrophic event has occurred, along with plans to establish a division within the California Department of Technology that would have provided oversight and enforcement.

Compared to the original language of the bill, what landed on the governor’s desk was substantially weaker, according to Gary Marcus, a scientist, entrepreneur and author of Taming Silicon Valley, a book highly critical of generative AI. “The bill was watered down,” Marcus said, adding he feels its value was primarily symbolic, and that Newsom’s decision signaled to Silicon Valley that it can “cause enormous chaos, and probably nobody’s going to make them fix it.”

As with other measures before Newsom, the governor had a month to consider whether to sign SB 1047 or veto it, and during that time, his office was lobbied heavily by industry insiders on both sides, as well as local Congressional representatives and Hollywood celebrities.

“I don’t have the technical capacity to to perfectly predict how [SB 1047] would have affected the AI industry,” said Thad Kousser, a Political science professor at UC San Diego. “Many people in Sacramento don’t have that ability. Maybe they just decided to err on the side of caution, thinking, ‘Wow, there’s so many industry voices saying this particular bill is dangerous and could have a chilling effect.’ Not really knowing 100%, maybe the safer step is just vetoing,” Kousser said.

Wiener said the governor’s office did not engage with his office as the bill made its way through the state assembly and senate. “I personally met with some of the most vocal opponents of the bill, with the Andreessen Horowitz firm, with several of the Stanford professors who were opposing the bill, with the large tech companies that were opposing the bill. I also met with individuals and businesses that had constructive criticism of the bill. And we made significant changes to the bill in response to those constructive critiques.”

Those changes were not enough for many critics, including Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren of San Jose, who wrote, “Any AI risk framework should be based on empirical data and fit for purpose. I also believe this is an issue that should be handled at the federal level. Congress and the Administration are both moving on AI governance. I look forward to working with the Governor as we move forward.”

Lofgren is the ranking member of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, which has in recent weeks moved nine bills forward, but all face an uncertain future in the House of Representatives. Nothing addressing the scope and scale of SB 1047 has passed out of any committee. But Lina Khan of the Federal Trade Commission has said that federal regulators are keen to use existing laws to go after bad behavior in Silicon Valley and elsewhere.

Unlike the European Union and Colorado, both of which passed comprehensive laws, California lawmakers have largely focused on discrete bills addressing specific issues with generative AI. Governor Newsom signed 17 of these bills this year, as he noted in his veto message, and California is among a host of states taking steps to regulate generative AI.

Given the inertia in Washington D.C., most political analysts see the state level as the only hope for aggressive regulation of technology.

In the race for the White House this year, both Kamala Harris and Donald Trump have sought the support of Silicon Valley’s most powerful players. Newsom’s presidential ambitions are presumably on hold for the foreseeable future, but given the national profile of SB 1047, some have wondered if he might be loath to make enemies among those profiting from the rise of generative artificial intelligence.

“I think, like any good politician who’s ascended to the heights Gavin Newsom has, you’ve got to be thinking about ‘How will I be judged today, tomorrow, in 5 or 10 years,” said Professor Kousser. “That forward thinking has guided his decisions on many bills throughout his governorship. He’s been on the right side of history in many of the strong policy stands he has taken, as mayor and as governor — and he’s hoping that’ll be on the right side of history on this one.”