“I have a hangover feeling.” With these words, a Macronist MP acknowledged, on Wednesday, the wear and tear that the immigration law could inflict on the coalition backing French President Emmanuel Macron. After eight days of political theater, the National Assembly approved the measure around midnight on Tuesday, bearing the name Darmanin, after the Minister of Internal Affairs. It is one of the tougher immigration texts in recent French history. The bill progressed thanks to votes from diverse quarters, including Marine Le Pen’s National Rally (RN). To push it forward, the centrist government made concessions to the administration’s more cautious wings, and to both republican right and far right factions. The outcome now risks triggering a government crisis.
The first cracks appeared this Wednesday with a resignation from the Health Minister due to disagreements over the new law, as government spokesman Olivier Véran explained at a press briefing after the Council of Ministers. The minister, Aurélien Rousseau, stated that he would resign if the controversial provisions remained in place. On Wednesday morning, he was not present at the Council of Ministers, fueling rumors that were later confirmed. Four other ministers from the less conservative wing of the government—Culture, Universities, Industry, and Transport—have also considered taking the same step, though they do not appear ready to go that far yet.
Is the Minister of Health resigning?
The President did not accept Rousseau’s resignation, according to remarks by the prime minister in an interview session on France Inter. Elisabeth Borne attempted to downplay the minister’s potential departure. Rousseau, a largely anonymous figure to much of the public, is a veteran official with a history that includes a stint with the Communist Party, and he has long been a key player within the government. His role has been central since July, when he served as Prime Minister’s Private Secretary and became one of the government’s principal coordinators.
After swallowing a difficult pill on Tuesday—the political compromise crafted with Republicans and other allied groups that contains a number of hardline facets on immigration—the Macron administration is now trying to move the conversation forward and emphasize that issues connected to the Darmanin law are being managed. However, the final content of the text, which was shaped in response to negotiations within a smaller committee of 14 deputies and senators, has drawn criticism. With LR holding a clear majority in the Senate, they dictated the terms during the drafting stage, which observers describe as presenting a result Le Pen labeled an ideological victory.
Possible “unconstitutional measures”
Darmanin’s proposal initially aimed to streamline the deportation process for non-nationals with serious offenses and those living in unstable conditions. It also proposed a special residence permit for workers in labor-short sectors, a clause that did not survive in the final version. The text includes provisions long advocated by the far right. For instance, it tightens access to social assistance for non-citizens who have resided for five years, removes automatic citizenship eligibility for those born in France at age 18, and restricts access to financial support for students from outside the European Union.
Borne acknowledged that some measures could face constitutional challenges. “The President will consult the Constitutional Council and we will see how it responds,” she noted on France Inter. Interior Minister Darmanin had already suggested that the strictest parts would be hard to implement and that he would be responsible for issuing the necessary decrees to enforce them. His statements were intended to ease tensions within Macronism and prevent a wave of defections during the parliamentary vote.
Despite the difficulties, 62 members of parliament in support of Macron voted in favor, while 27 opposed the measure and 35 abstained, according to early tallies. This episode stands out as a notable moment in Macron’s presidency, underscoring the volatility of coalition politics in a year already marked by political upheaval.