Among the new developments for 2026, Emmanuel Macron has announced the creation of a High Commission for Diversity. The problem is that recruitment for this body will clearly be based on racial criteria—something that the French administration prohibits in other areas, and not without reason. We must remember this universal maxim: there is nothing more racist than an anti-racist.
According to the newspaper L’Opinion, the decision was mentioned by the president during the traditional ambassadors’ conference on Thursday, January 8th, ahead of the ‘Africa Forward’ summit, which will bring together the French president and African leaders in Nairobi, Kenya, in May 2026. With this in mind, Macron intends to create a ‘High Commission for Diversity and Diasporas’.
The project has not yet been officially announced, but according to Le Figaro, it is already well advanced. Its aim would be to “unite all the diasporas in France” to “counter Trump’s vision of Europe and the war of civilisations that is brewing.”
Mobilising diversity and diasporas also has an economic motivation: harnessing their dynamism to revitalise French entrepreneurship. In short, to breathe new life into a country in crisis, a new variation on a familiar refrain: the old, declining European nations will be saved by ‘other populations’—a source of inexhaustible wealth.
The High Commission would bring together media personalities well-known to the French from the worlds of arts, sport, and politics. Among them would be former football champion Lilian Thuram, former socialist minister of national education and now member of the Court of Auditors Najat Vallaud-Belkacem, and former minister of justice Christiane Taubira—known for the ‘Taubira law’ that established same-sex marriage in France.
All of these figures are distinguished by their ethnic origins outside metropolitan France (Thuram is from Guadeloupe, Vallaud-Belkacem is Moroccan, Taubira is from French Guiana), with African or North African ancestry. In the context of a summit on Africa, this is not particularly surprising. But it does raise the issue of reducing diversity to well-defined, not to say limited, origins. Our colleagues at Causeur rightly point out that the Jewish and Armenian diasporas—although historically well identified, especially in France in the case of the Armenians—are not even mentioned.
Moreover, the figures being promoted are known for their public engagement in highly visible left-wing activism. After his career as a professional footballer, Thuram turned his attention to the fight against racism and homophobia, arguing that the rejection of gay marriage was tantamount to the denial of black rights. Besides support for gay marriage, Taubira is also known for advocating for a memorial law, passed in 2021, equating slavery with a “crime against humanity”—and, in the process, criminalising any historical reflection on a sensitive subject by minimising slavery of African or Muslim origin. The promotion of these figures is therefore far from a neutral choice. The high commission, as it is taking shape, would therefore be a French version of woke ideology and guilt-inducing decolonisation.
What is also sparking debate is the introduction of criteria that will make it possible to link candidates to the ‘diasporas’ covered by the High Commission or to select figures deemed suitable to represent them. The Élysée Palace has reportedly specified that the term ‘diaspora’ could include dual nationals and overseas citizens as well as French citizens of foreign origin, going back as far as their grandparents. One wonders on what legal basis such an examination of citizens’ family trees will be carried out in a country where ethnic statistics are prohibited.
The senior officials currently working on this project are likely zealous servants of the state who take offence at the ‘national priority’ proposals put forward for years by the Rassemblement National. Marine Le Pen’s party caused outrage when, not long ago, it called for certain dual nationals to be excluded from certain strategic public positions in defence or energy as a precautionary measure.
If the project were to succeed, it would be the first time that the French Republic would legally recognise the existence of a community other than the national community, based on questionable criteria. Let us dare to draw a parallel that some will certainly find scandalous, but so be it: even the National Socialists were unable to define precisely what a Jew was, given the complexity of reliably establishing ancestry. Can we count on the French state to ‘do better’?
Former minister Pierre Lellouche is rightly concerned, pointing out that a ‘high commission’ is almost equivalent to a ministry. Creating a high commission for diversity by monitoring the ancestry of its members and beneficiaries is tantamount, he explained on Europe 1 radio, to creating a “ministry for racialised people.” “Will we have to plan for the creation of a ‘ministry for white people’ in thirty years’ time?”
Some left-wing media outlets are trying to calm things down and are mocking what they see as the “alarmism” of the Right. The high commission plan would be nothing more than a “note,” a project in its infancy. Emmanuel Macron has never mentioned it publicly, and the idea is only circulating in “Elysée circles.” Let’s not be fooled: such denials are usually a guarantee of the reliability of information that has been brought to the public’s attention a little too early.
Diversity High Commission: Macron’s Latest Bad Idea
Lilian Thuram and Karine Le Marchand at a demonstration in favour of same-sex marriage in France, Paris, France, January 27, 2013
Ericwaltr, CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons
You may also like
The Great Rebalancing: How Europe Chose Dependence Over Resilience
Decline is not an act of nature. Civilisations lose influence when they abandon the principles that once sustained them—initiative, productive investment, innovation and a belief that the future can be better than the present.
Pakistani Court Gives Muslim Kidnapper Custody of 13-Year-Old Christian Girl
Forced conversions and marriages are ignored by law enforcement and the judicial system.
Europe: The New Nations of Immigrants?
In many European countries with ancient histories, large segments of the population are recent arrivals who did not participate in nation-building and lack a stake in its continuation.
Among the new developments for 2026, Emmanuel Macron has announced the creation of a High Commission for Diversity. The problem is that recruitment for this body will clearly be based on racial criteria—something that the French administration prohibits in other areas, and not without reason. We must remember this universal maxim: there is nothing more racist than an anti-racist.
According to the newspaper L’Opinion, the decision was mentioned by the president during the traditional ambassadors’ conference on Thursday, January 8th, ahead of the ‘Africa Forward’ summit, which will bring together the French president and African leaders in Nairobi, Kenya, in May 2026. With this in mind, Macron intends to create a ‘High Commission for Diversity and Diasporas’.
The project has not yet been officially announced, but according to Le Figaro, it is already well advanced. Its aim would be to “unite all the diasporas in France” to “counter Trump’s vision of Europe and the war of civilisations that is brewing.”
Mobilising diversity and diasporas also has an economic motivation: harnessing their dynamism to revitalise French entrepreneurship. In short, to breathe new life into a country in crisis, a new variation on a familiar refrain: the old, declining European nations will be saved by ‘other populations’—a source of inexhaustible wealth.
The High Commission would bring together media personalities well-known to the French from the worlds of arts, sport, and politics. Among them would be former football champion Lilian Thuram, former socialist minister of national education and now member of the Court of Auditors Najat Vallaud-Belkacem, and former minister of justice Christiane Taubira—known for the ‘Taubira law’ that established same-sex marriage in France.
All of these figures are distinguished by their ethnic origins outside metropolitan France (Thuram is from Guadeloupe, Vallaud-Belkacem is Moroccan, Taubira is from French Guiana), with African or North African ancestry. In the context of a summit on Africa, this is not particularly surprising. But it does raise the issue of reducing diversity to well-defined, not to say limited, origins. Our colleagues at Causeur rightly point out that the Jewish and Armenian diasporas—although historically well identified, especially in France in the case of the Armenians—are not even mentioned.
Moreover, the figures being promoted are known for their public engagement in highly visible left-wing activism. After his career as a professional footballer, Thuram turned his attention to the fight against racism and homophobia, arguing that the rejection of gay marriage was tantamount to the denial of black rights. Besides support for gay marriage, Taubira is also known for advocating for a memorial law, passed in 2021, equating slavery with a “crime against humanity”—and, in the process, criminalising any historical reflection on a sensitive subject by minimising slavery of African or Muslim origin. The promotion of these figures is therefore far from a neutral choice. The high commission, as it is taking shape, would therefore be a French version of woke ideology and guilt-inducing decolonisation.
What is also sparking debate is the introduction of criteria that will make it possible to link candidates to the ‘diasporas’ covered by the High Commission or to select figures deemed suitable to represent them. The Élysée Palace has reportedly specified that the term ‘diaspora’ could include dual nationals and overseas citizens as well as French citizens of foreign origin, going back as far as their grandparents. One wonders on what legal basis such an examination of citizens’ family trees will be carried out in a country where ethnic statistics are prohibited.
The senior officials currently working on this project are likely zealous servants of the state who take offence at the ‘national priority’ proposals put forward for years by the Rassemblement National. Marine Le Pen’s party caused outrage when, not long ago, it called for certain dual nationals to be excluded from certain strategic public positions in defence or energy as a precautionary measure.
If the project were to succeed, it would be the first time that the French Republic would legally recognise the existence of a community other than the national community, based on questionable criteria. Let us dare to draw a parallel that some will certainly find scandalous, but so be it: even the National Socialists were unable to define precisely what a Jew was, given the complexity of reliably establishing ancestry. Can we count on the French state to ‘do better’?
Former minister Pierre Lellouche is rightly concerned, pointing out that a ‘high commission’ is almost equivalent to a ministry. Creating a high commission for diversity by monitoring the ancestry of its members and beneficiaries is tantamount, he explained on Europe 1 radio, to creating a “ministry for racialised people.” “Will we have to plan for the creation of a ‘ministry for white people’ in thirty years’ time?”
Some left-wing media outlets are trying to calm things down and are mocking what they see as the “alarmism” of the Right. The high commission plan would be nothing more than a “note,” a project in its infancy. Emmanuel Macron has never mentioned it publicly, and the idea is only circulating in “Elysée circles.” Let’s not be fooled: such denials are usually a guarantee of the reliability of information that has been brought to the public’s attention a little too early.
Our community starts with you
READ NEXT
Is France Protecting Quentin’s Killers?
NATO 3.0: America’s Bold Reset
Did the Algorithm Shift Users to the Right? The Flimsy Case Against X