Credits: European Union 2024 – Source: EP ( European Union, 1998–2026) / Wikimedia Commons — Attribution only license (reuse of EU documents — commercial use, derivatives and any other use permitted with attribution).
On November 18, 2025, on the LCI set, Raphaël Glucksmann and Éric Zemmour clash in “La Grande Confrontation de LCI” hosted by David Pujadas on LCI. The duel over “national identity” turns into a test of strength, with insults and interruptions. The presenter intervenes to calm the situation. Beyond the clash, the exchange exposes two visions of France and calculations already oriented toward 2027.
Electric Set: When the Debate Turns Into a Showdown
On November 18, 2025, on the LCI set, David Pujadas directs “La Grande Confrontation de LCI.” Facing each other are Raphaël Glucksmann and Éric Zemmour. The discussion on “national identity” degenerates: interruptions, mutual accusations, raised voices. The presenter ends up standing up and stepping in, calling his guests to order before restarting: “Is diversity still a happy thing?” The moment, filmed from every angle, becomes the viral sequence of the evening, more commented on than the arguments.
This televised tension is not anecdotal: it encapsulates an established polarization, where drama outweighs deliberation. It also indicates the place taken by Glucksmann, now a pivot of a pro-European camp projecting toward 2027.
Éric Zemmour’s Narrative: National Identity as Keystone
Éric Zemmour, president of Reconquête, sets the terrain: immigration, Islam, insecurity. He lines up news items involving minors to illustrate a narrative of decline and endangerment. The strategy is well practiced: replace policy debate with a series of shocking images, in order to naturalize a link between immigration and criminality.
This framing is contested by many voices. Indeed, victims’ families have repeatedly asked that these tragedies not be exploited. The law demands restraint, as does media ethics. At the same time, it should be recalled that Zemmour has been convicted multiple times for incitement to racial hatred. He was also convicted for racial insult, with a decision that became final in 2025. These objective elements shed light on his posture and the reception of his remarks.
Raphaël Glucksmann’s Counter-Proposal: Pluralism, Europe, Rule of Law
Raphaël Glucksmann opposes the narrative of generalized confrontation. He advocates for a plural France, proud of its diversity and anchored to the European Union. His framework is liberal-democratic in the political sense: rule of law, checks and balances, European solidarities. He targets illiberal models, with Hungary frequently cited. He also highlights what he sees as ideological collusions between an identity-focused French right and authoritarian powers.
At the European Parliament, the PS–Place publique MEP has engaged with geopolitical and ethical issues: human rights, foreign interference, trade, and security. His institutional profile as a member of the Foreign Affairs (AFET), Security and Defence (SEDE) and International Trade (INTA) committees, and delegations with Ukraine and Euronest supports a narrative of an active European. His involvement in China–Uyghurs, disinformation, and duty of vigilance files has given him visibility beyond partisan bounds.
A Player Who Matters for 2027: Trajectory, Networks, Blind Spots
On June 9, 2024, the PS–Place publique list led by Glucksmann finished 3rd in the European elections with around 13.8% and 13 seats. This level changes his stature: he appears as a kingmaker on the left, even a contender if the field opens. Without a primary, he says, and without an agreement with La France insoumise on Europe, defense, and energy.
Through his interviews and positions, a line emerges. It includes support for Ukraine and firmness toward Russian interference and Chinese coercion. He also promotes a social Europe through industrial policies and strengthened social rights. Finally, he views the ecological transition as a source of power. On the Middle East, he combines condemnation of Hamas terrorism, vigilance regarding war crimes, and a call, at the European level, to condition agreements when international law is at stake. Altogether this outlines a social-democracy of European sovereignty.
Heritage and Counterfields
From an intellectual and cosmopolitan background, Glucksmann claims a lineage of anti-totalitarian commitment without being reduced to it. The public couple he forms with Léa Salamé, a leading journalist exposes him to conflict-of-interest trials that he defuses by recalling the separation of roles. His biography mixes books, reportage, stays in the East (from Tbilisi to Kyiv), and the campaigns of a generation born with European enlargement.
What the Tragedies Reveal and What Politics Owes to Law
The criminal cases that have mourned the country deserve silence and dignity. They call for reforms (police, justice, asylum and integration policies), not conflations. Criminal law sanctions acts and individual responsibilities; it does not essentialize. Statistics, when sociologically established, demand caution in interpretation and transparency about sources.
Within this framework the role of the media matters: name without exacerbating, inform without spectacularizing. The LCI scene also served as a lesson on the limits of the duel format: when the quest for clarity (two opposing visions) turns into cacophony, the argument fades and the clash rules.
A TV Sequence That Weighs Politically
For Zemmour, the evening aimed to return to the center of the national conversation on his core themes. For Glucksmann, it offered a chance to establish himself as the direct opponent of an identity-focused right, while testing his ability to hold up in prime time. For LCI, the goal was to draw an audience with a spectacular format supposed to illuminate collective choices.
In this triangle, the rules of the game are clear: hold the stage, score a point, leave an image. The verdict, however, is played beyond the evening. the 2027 presidential race is being prepared in the background, and this type of confrontation creates hierarchies: who embodies, who gathers, who reassures? At this stage, Glucksmann benefits from his European anchoring and a positioning seen as clear by part of the urban and professional electorate. The question remains whether he can broaden without diluting himself.
Political Ecology and State Power: What the Sequence Reveals
What stands out from this scene is the idea that a credible ecological project requires state power. That power must be able to protect, invest, and plan effectively. Glucksmann links green industry, social justice, and European sovereignty; Zemmour counters with an identity-first priority where ecology appears secondary. The demand for security is real. However, a durable response requires effective public services and a properly funded transition. Moreover, a rule-of-law state that holds is indispensable.
This eco-political framework sheds light on the coming campaign: climate, cost of living, jobs, combating interference, and protecting freedoms. That is where each candidate’s credibility will be played out.
To form your own opinion, you can also rewatch on YouTube the Raphaël Glucksmann facing the French and Eric Zemmour on LCI video.