Jordan Bardella at the European Parliament in Strasbourg in September 2022. Credit: BootEXE / Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 4.0.
Mediapart published, on October 1, 2026, the documents underpinning its investigation into antisemitic messages attributed to Jordan Bardella. The president of the National Rally denies them and announces a new lawsuit. In this French political controversy, three elements must be distinguished: the archive obtained from Meta, the bailiff’s report, and the cross-checks that, according to the newspaper, make it possible to identify the author of the writings.
Two Sources And Publicly Released Documents
In its first investigation, published on September 28, Mediapart attributed to the RN leader private exchanges dating back notably to 2013, when he was a young National Front activist. According to the newspaper, these messages repeat antisemitic theories about an alleged Jewish control of banks and political life. Jordan Bardella formally disputes authorship.
The second part of Mediapart’s investigation, signed by Alexandre Berteau and Antton Rouget, presents the documents and the authentication method cited by its authors. The newspaper says it received Messenger conversations from two people who had been part of Jordan Bardella’s circle, with no connection between them. This independence of the sources is a claim made by the media outlet behind the revelations.
On October 2, Mediapart уточняет that its work is based on interviews with 18 people, dozens of emails, and two Messenger conversations extracted from Meta. The newspaper therefore presents a set of records and testimonies, of which the published screenshots are only part. It argues that comparing them makes it possible to attribute the remarks to the president of the RN.
Jordan Bardella Maintains His Denial
In his response posted on X on October 1, Jordan Bardella calls the documents “pseudo-evidence.” He denounces “crude manipulations” and “easily editable screenshots,” while asserting that he has never made the remarks attributed to him. He also says these elements would not stand up to judicial scrutiny.
His defense addresses both the authenticity of the records and the motives he attributes to Mediapart. He accuses the outlet of hostility toward the RN and presents the case as a political destabilization effort. In that message, he says he has instructed his lawyer to file a complaint for forgery and use of forged documents, in addition to his defamation complaint.
This post does not, however, spell out any specific irregularity in the downloaded archive or in the reporting process described by Mediapart. The allegation of manipulation remains the one made by the political leader; by itself, it does not constitute a technical proof.
The Meta Export Documents The Source Of The Exchanges
The method described by Mediapart, and repeated by AFP, starts with the account of one of the participants. That person asked Meta, owner of Facebook and Messenger, for a copy of their conversation. According to the newspaper, the extraction was then recorded by a bailiff. The argument advanced thus concerns the origin of the file, beyond the appearance of the publicly released screenshots.
This download corresponds to a standard platform feature. The Messenger help pages state that users can request a copy of their information with the export tool. Obtaining those data from the service therefore does not mean that Meta carried out an investigation into the accusations against Jordan Bardella.
Mediapart says the extraction makes it possible to date the exchanges, rule out any later alteration of the conversation, and recover the name of the contact as recorded by the platform. These conclusions by the newspaper concern first and foremost the stored history and the account to which the messages are attached; identifying the person who wrote them requires additional proof.
What A Bailiff’s Report Can Establish
Using a bailiff adds the intervention of a third party tasked with recording facts. The National Chamber of Judicial Officers notes that this role consists of recording material elements, without ruling on their legal consequences. A report describes the steps carried out and what the professional personally observed.
In this case, the wording reported by Mediapart concerns the extraction of the conversation. To assess its exact scope, one must know the operations recorded in the official report: the data consulted, the steps observed, and the elements actually noted. The mention of a bailiff alone does not allow one to attribute to them a conclusion about the human author of each message.
A report and a computer forensics examination, moreover, serve different functions. The National Chamber explains that an expert report can complement a report when a technical question requires it. In criminal matters, the assessment of evidence rests with the judge. The report cited by Mediapart therefore constitutes neither a full expert analysis of the entire case file nor a court decision.
From The Account Name To The Author Of The Messages
To connect the exchanges to Jordan Bardella, Mediapart does not rely solely on the displayed name. The newspaper notes several biographical details in the conversations: his mother’s birth in Italy, an interview given to Le Parisien in 2013, and his failure on the Sciences Po entrance exam. It presents these elements as cross-checks making it possible to identify the correspondent.
The reasoning thus combines the source of the archive, the account information, and the content of the exchanges. These three levels contribute to the attribution claimed by Mediapart, but they should not be confused. The presence of a name in a message history answers a different question from that of the identity of the person who wrote a text.
The dispute therefore pits a journalistic demonstration based on several elements against a denial accompanied by accusations of falsification. The absence of a ruling does not invalidate the published documents; their publication does not settle the legal dispute either. The debate over their value requires examining the records and the objections raised against them.
Two Complaints With Different Purposes
On the procedural side, one step has been confirmed. The Paris prosecutor’s office told AFP on October 1 that the senior investigating judge had received a defamation complaint with a civil-party claim, dated September 30. This procedure concerns the injury to honor that Jordan Bardella says he suffered as a result of the published accusations.
The complaint for forgery and use of forged documents, announced on October 1, concerns a different issue: that of fraudulent fabrication or the knowing use of falsified documents. Announcing it does not mean its filing has been confirmed. Nor does it establish that Mediapart’s documents are false.
Political reactions are continuing in parallel. On October 2, Olivier Faure said on RTL, according to AFP, that Jordan Bardella could no longer claim Matignon if Marine Le Pen won in 2027. That assessment commits the Socialist Party first secretary. The president of the RN, for his part, maintains his denial and intends to challenge the revelations in court.