Australians have just learned their election will be held on 21 May. At a crucial time for the country, Nick Bryant sees a contest that will be defined, to a large part, by what it lacks. PARIS — French President Emmanuel Macron took first place, ahead of far-right leader Marine Le Pen, in the first round of France’s presidential election on Sunday, but he is on course for a far closer second-round clash than five years ago.

While polling suggests Macron should retain the presidency in two weeks, first round results show the incumbent can’t rest on his laurels.

Le Pen will be able to count on voters from far-right TV-pundit-turned-politician Eric Zemmour, who called on his supporters to back her on April 24. Meanwhile, leftist firebrand Jean-Luc Mélenchon fared better than expected and brings a heavy dose of uncertainty to the mix as his voters are a diverse bunch. Many are likely to abstain in the second round, while others will divide up between the French president and Le Pen.

“Politics is war without bloodshed
while war is politics with bloodshed.”

France’s repeat of the 2017 runoff confirms Macron’s and Le Pen’s own political analysis: That the divide between the left and the right is no longer relevant in France and has been replaced by an opposition between a mainstream bloc that is pro-European and open to the outside world on one side, and nationalists on the other. Both candidates scored higher than five years ago, leaving the traditional right and left in an even more shambolic state than before. Macron went from 24 percent in 2017 in the first round to 27.6 percent Sunday and Le Pen went from 21.3 percent to 23.4 percent.

The gap between them is higher than last time around, showing that Macron has managed to drum up the most votes despite controversies in the campaign’s last mile, including over the state’s overuse of consulting firms. But the far-right bloc — Marine Le Pen, Eric Zemmour and nationalist Nicolas Dupont-Aignan combined — garnered than 30 percent of the total vote.

I describe the “fun” parts of Only Yesterday because they’re wonderful, but also to make a point about the origin story we’ve learned about the mood of the ’20s. Looking back at Allen’s work from the vantage point of 1986, historian David M. Kennedy argued that the biggest failing of the book was its lack of historical depth: “Rarely did Allen forge an explanatory chain whose links ran back more deeply into the past than 1917.” And indeed, Allen seemed to blame World War I for every ash-covered carpet and scarred dining table.

Allen is also really good at describing parties—or, at least, the ones the middle class and upper class attended. The historian wrote about how women taking up smoking had “strewed the dinner table with their ashes, snatched a puff between the acts, invaded the masculine sanctity of the club car, and forced department stores to place ornamental ash-trays between the chairs in their women’s shoe departments.” In what I think may be the best passage in the book, Allen described the way 1920s partygoers stepped all over every previous genteel convention:

Anyway, let’s get to that fun. A very joyful book to read about the decade is Frederick Lewis Allen’s Only Yesterday: An Informal History of the 1920s, which Allen—a blueblood journalist and editor at Harper’s—published in 1931. The book chronicles all of the movement and motion that makes the decade sexy, and doesn’t seem to miss a fad.

The property, complete with a 30-seat screening room, a 100-seat amphitheater and a swimming pond with sandy beach and outdoor shower, was asking about $40 million, but J. Lo managed to make it hers for $28 million. As the Bronx native acquires a new home in California, she is trying to sell a gated compound.

Popular in human interest:

• Parents Are Fed Up With Their Kids’ Expensive Berry Habits
• 15 Mother’s Day Gifts for the Burned-Out Mom in Your Life
• Really Though, What Jeans Are in Style Now?
• Don’t Fall for Fertility Fearmongering About Trans Men

Perhaps by remembering the twenties merely as an enchanting series of novelties or the crude afterthought of a simpler past, we preserve the illusion of our own simple innocence,” mused historian Paula Fass in the introduction to her book The Damned and the Beautiful: American Youth in the 1920s.

Whether that means there will be a longer-term far-right alliance is an open question. Nicolas Bay and Gilbert Collard — two MEPs who left Le Pen’s party to join Zemmour — didn’t endorse a possible alliance with Le Pen, in case she wins the second round.

Zemmour, a 63-year-old TV pundit-turned-politician, was once tipped to come second behind Macron, back in October. But he plummeted spectacularly in the polls after suffering from a perceived lack of credibility as the Ukraine war started and former comments praising Russian President Vladimir Putin resurfaced. He scored a measly 7 percent. Despite their bitter and unrelenting fighting throughout the campaign, he swiftly endorsed Marine Le Pen.

“I have disagreements with Marine Le Pen,” Zemmour said at his concession speech Sunday, “but there is a man facing Marine Le Pen who has let in 2 million immigrants … who would therefore do worse if he were reelected — it is for this reason that I call on my voters to vote for Marine Le Pen.”

Actress Cheryl Hines has officially put an end to speculation regarding her husband’s future political ambitions. In a candid interview on Tuesday, Hines confirmed that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has no intention of running for President of the United States in the 2028 election cycle, citing a desire to focus on his current health advocacy work and their family life.

Closing the Campaign Chapter

“We have been through the wringer of a national campaign, and Robert feels his work is best done where he is right now,” Hines stated. RFK Jr., who played a pivotal and controversial role in the 2024 election before aligning with the current administration, has reportedly decided that his political peak has been reached. Hines noted that the toll of the previous campaign on their personal lives was significant and that they are looking forward to a quieter chapter.

Focus on Policy over Politics

The announcement clarifies the political landscape for the next election cycle, removing a potential wildcard candidate from the board. Kennedy is currently focused on his initiatives within the Department of Health and Human Services, where he is attempting to implement his “Make America Healthy Again” agenda. By ruling out a 2028 run, Kennedy appears committed to influencing policy from the inside rather than seeking the highest office again.

The political world reeled on October 17, 2025, following the announcement that President Donald Trump had signed an executive order to commute the federal prison sentence of former New York Congressman George Santos. The decision, handed down from the White House, immediately ignited a firestorm of controversy, pitting legal scholars against political strategists and once again placing the powerful constitutional authority of the presidency under the harsh glare of public scrutiny. This commutation, which shortened or ended Santos’s term but did not erase his underlying conviction, is a move steeped in political calculation, challenging the norms of executive clemency and potentially setting a divisive precedent for the current administration.

The Context: George Santos’s Downfall and Conviction

To understand the magnitude of this decision, one must first revisit the unprecedented trajectory of George Santos. Elected to New York’s 3rd congressional district, Santos quickly became synonymous with controversy. His tenure was marked by revelations of extensive fabrications concerning his background, education, employment history, and financial dealings. This theatrical political saga culminated in a sweeping federal indictment that included charges of wire fraud, money laundering, theft of public funds, and making false statements to Congress. After being convicted on multiple counts—a verdict that involved overwhelming evidence of systematic deceit—he was eventually sentenced to a significant term of imprisonment, a sentence meant to serve as a stark reminder of the legal consequences for abusing public trust.

The case was a constitutional and political anomaly. Santos was one of only a handful of members to be expelled from the House of Representatives since the Civil War, an act that underscored the bipartisan agreement that his behavior was fundamentally incompatible with public service. His conviction and subsequent incarceration solidified his status as a historical outlier in American politics—a figure whose entire career was built on a foundation of documented dishonesty, resulting in a severe legal judgment.

Commutation vs. Pardon: Understanding Executive Clemency

Crucially, the executive action granted by President Trump was a commutation, not a full pardon. While both fall under the umbrella of executive clemency, their effects are distinctly different. A full presidential pardon is a declaration of forgiveness that restores all civil rights lost due to the conviction and, in the eyes of the law, essentially absolves the individual of the crime. Conversely, a commutation only reduces or eliminates the sentence itself (the prison time, probation, or fines) while leaving the conviction, and the indelible stain of the crime, fully intact.

For George Santos, the immediate effect is his freedom from prison. However, he remains a convicted felon. This distinction is vital for understanding the political messaging. The White House, in its official statement—or often lack thereof—can argue the action was a measure of mercy without fully endorsing the disgraced former representative’s innocence or conduct. Nevertheless, critics argue that shortening the sentence for such high-profile financial and public corruption offenses sends a dangerous signal that political connections can trump justice and accountability in the federal system. Legal analysts uniformly agree that this move is more about political expediency than genuine review of judicial error.

Political Strategy and Public Perception

The decision to commute the sentence of a figure as notorious and polarizing as George Santos has been scrutinized through a purely political lens. President Trump has historically demonstrated a willingness to use the clemency power to reward political allies, settle scores, or make statements about the justice system he views as biased or overly harsh. The timing of the Santos commutation—amidst a tense political environment—suggests a calculated move designed to energize a specific base or distract from other pressing legislative and international matters currently dominating headlines.

The primary political fallout has been intense. Democrats and good governance Republicans have decried the action as an assault on the rule of law and a blatant use of presidential authority to undermine accountability for public officials. They argue it diminishes the severity of the federal crimes Santos committed, which included defrauding donors and misusing public funds. Conversely, some of Trump’s staunchest supporters view the move as an act of defiance against what they perceive as a weaponized judicial system, framing Santos as a victim of a politically motivated “witch hunt,” a narrative often employed by the administration to challenge legal proceedings against its associates. The deeply polarized response ensures the story will continue to generate massive engagement across all media platforms.

The Long-Term Ramifications

Legal experts are focusing intently on the ethical implications of this executive action. Presidential clemency is meant to be a constitutional safety valve—a measure to correct instances of judicial error or undue harshness, or to show exemplary mercy. The swift and immediate application of this power to a politically connected individual, particularly for financial crimes that impact the public treasury and faith in core governmental institutions, raises serious ethical questions about the integrity of the process and its potential for abuse. While legally sound—the President’s power to commute is nearly absolute under the Constitution—the ethical lens through which the public views the decision is profoundly negative for many.

In the short term, this move places pressure on the Department of Justice to ensure the integrity of its prosecution processes is not perceived as being subject to political whim. It also ensures that the George Santos scandal, a source of political embarrassment for the Republican party, remains a front-page issue. In the long term, it contributes to the erosion of public faith in accountability for political misconduct. The narrative that high-profile figures are above the law is only strengthened when sentences are abruptly ended through executive fiat, regardless of the legal mechanism used. The George Santos case, now capped by this commutation, will be studied for years as a prime example of the complex and volatile interplay between law, ethics, and raw political power in the modern American political era.

FAQ

What is the difference between a commutation and a pardon?

A commutation reduces or eliminates a criminal’s sentence (like prison time or fines) but leaves the conviction intact. A pardon is an official forgiveness that completely erases the conviction and restores full civil rights.

What crimes was George Santos convicted of?

George Santos was convicted of multiple federal charges, including wire fraud, money laundering, theft of public funds, and making false statements to Congress, all stemming from his campaign and financial dealings.

Can George Santos run for public office again after the commutation?

Yes, since the action was a commutation and not a pardon, his conviction remains on his record. However, a federal felony conviction alone generally does not bar one from running for federal office, though state laws may vary. Political and public perception factors, however, make a successful return highly unlikely.