June 30, 2025, marked a political earthquake. Indeed, the National Assembly rejected the bill on public broadcasting reform. Rachida Dati, Minister of Culture, had been championing this project since her arrival in the government. The preliminary rejection motion, filed by the ecologists and supported by the left, was voted at 94 votes to 38. The National Rally surprised by also voting for the motion, further isolating the presidential majority.
The text proposed the creation of a holding company called France Médias. This would have grouped, starting in January 2026, France Télévisions, Radio France, and the National Audiovisual Institute (INA) under a common management. The stated goal was to pool resources, strengthen editorial coherence, and face competition from international platforms.
The origins of the project: between a desire for reform and longstanding obstacles
This public broadcasting reform is not new. In 2019, Franck Riester, then Minister of Culture, initiated it. The health crisis interrupted its examination. In 2023, Laurent Lafon, a centrist senator, revived the project. The text, adopted by the Senate, remained fragile. The dissolution of the Assembly in 2024 and the fall of the Barnier government delayed the parliamentary review.
In April 2025, an incident between Rachida Dati and a civil servant further suspended the debates. These multiple twists illustrate the difficulty of reforming a sector under tension.
The arguments for: the need to modernize public broadcasting
The proponents of the reform, starting with Rachida Dati, emphasize the urgency of transformation. The competition from platforms like Netflix or YouTube has profoundly changed the habits of viewers and listeners. Thus, linear audiences decline each year. Public funding, meanwhile, is the subject of recurring debates.
The creation of a single holding company aims for more efficient management. Moreover, the minister highlights the importance of meeting the digital challenge. For this, coordinated investments are necessary, particularly in information and the production of original content. According to her, “the status quo is not an option.” The executive also hoped that the reform would preserve the independence of information. Indeed, it would offer a French response to the streaming giants.
Some elected officials share this vision. For them, the current fragmentation limits the agility of public service. A holding company would offer synergies, a sharing of innovations, and an increased capacity to weigh in the European media landscape. The pooling of technical and human resources is seen as a lever to invest in technology and creation.
The arguments against: fear of centralization and loss of independence
However, the opponents of the reform warn against the risks of power concentration. The unions, highly mobilized, denounce a centralization that would weaken editorial diversity. They fear that the chairman and CEO of France Médias would impose choices contested by the editorial teams. Moreover, they fear it would reduce freedom of expression.
More broadly, several deputies fear a challenge to the historical French model. Indeed, each entity has its own governance. According to them, the reform would pave the way for creeping privatization or a reduction of resources under the guise of efficiency. Many strikers at Radio France and France Télévisions have thus demonstrated to defend their independence.
Other critics point to the lack of precise evaluation of the expected savings. For some experts, administrative pooling masks the complexity of bringing together companies with distinct cultures.
A debate emblematic of political fractures
The rejection of the text highlights the tensions within the presidential majority. The support of the National Rally for the rejection motion is seen as a tactical maneuver. Moreover, it has accentuated the government’s fragility on this issue. This convergence of oppositions, from the radical left to the far right, raises questions about the ability to build a consensus on public broadcasting.
Furthermore, Rachida Dati must contend with a busy political agenda. The approach of the 2026 municipal elections, where she aims to win the Paris mayoralty, complicates her room for maneuver. A setback on the reform weakens her stature as a reformer.
The prospects: between parliamentary resumption and uncertainties
The Minister of Culture promises a quick second reading in the Senate. A conference of presidents is scheduled for July 2 to decide on the agenda. However, the parliamentary calendar remains very tight. Union resistance and political opposition make the adoption of the reform before the end of the year uncertain.
If the text is not voted on, Rachida Dati risks presenting herself without a major achievement in the upcoming electoral deadlines. This could also weaken the presidential majority in its desire to modernize public services.
What future for French public broadcasting?
The reform of public broadcasting raises a central question: how to adapt the French model to the challenges of the 21st century without sacrificing its pluralism? Neighboring countries, like Germany or the United Kingdom, have already begun their transformation. The BBC or ARD have revised their structures while preserving their identity.
In France, the balance between efficiency, innovation, and editorial independence remains delicate. If the reform returns to Parliament, it will need to better integrate the sector’s concerns. Notably on governance, the diversity of missions, and the protection of content of general interest.
Between political ambition and the reality on the ground
The rejection of the public broadcasting reform is a crucial step. Indeed, it marks the debate on the future of media in France. Rachida Dati faces a political and institutional challenge. The government’s ability to reform without undermining the independence of public service will be decisive. The debate on public broadcasting, far from being closed, will occupy the French political and media scene for a long time.