In Colorado Springs, Elon Musk presents the future capabilities of Starship to U.S. military officials on April 15, 2019. The scene predates his political showdown with Marine Tondelier by several years. Credits: NORAD and USNORTHCOM Public Affairs.
A proposal by Marine Tondelier aims to be able to suspend X during elections. On August 6 and 7, 2026, it sparked a public confrontation with Elon Musk, followed by a French political backlash. The platform owner made an accusation of “treason.” A more concrete question arises: would an X ban in France be possible in the face of electoral interference?
From Threat of Suspension to Accusation of Treason
In an interview published on August 5 by Libération, Marine Tondelier said it was necessary to threaten platforms like X with a ban. This measure would come into effect during elections if interference had been detected beforehand. The national secretary of the Greens was therefore not describing a permanent, immediate shutdown. She was defending a conditional suspension, tied to enforcement of the European Digital Services Act, the DSA.
On August 6 at 2:30 p.m. UTC, the American site ZeroHedge reformulated this proposal as a demand to shut down X. It notably cited the support Elon Musk has given Marine Le Pen. Thirty-four minutes later, the owner of X responded under that post. He wrote: “I demand that she be shut down for treason against France !”
The wording relies on the ambiguity of “shut down.” In the message Musk was replying to, those words referred to shutting down X. Applied to a person, they can be translated as “silence” or “shut out,” without specifying any precise measure. Nothing in that post indicates that Elon Musk was legally calling for Marine Tondelier’s arrest. He also did not explain the basis for his treason accusation.
At 5:04 p.m. UTC, Marine Tondelier replied to him in English and then in French. In her original post, she rejected the accusation. She challenged the idea that a foreign billionaire could decide which European officials should be silenced. She concluded: “Democracy is not for sale.”
Opinion, Influence, and Manipulation: Three Distinct Levels
Jean-Luc Mélenchon then came to Marine Tondelier’s defense. The La France Insoumise candidate compared Elon Musk’s intervention to several pro-Russian operations targeting French political figures. He also questioned Foreign Affairs Minister Jean-Noël Barrot. This comparison shifted the controversy: it was no longer just about Musk’s words, but about whether they constituted interference.
In his response published on August 7, Jean-Noël Barrot said France would not tolerate any interference in its democratic debate. He nonetheless distinguished between a preference for or rejection of a political position expressed by a foreign actor and manipulation of public debate. For the minister, the latter requires an “inauthentic, coordinated, and organized” promotion of messages created abroad. The goal would be to distort the information space and influence an election.
This distinction does not settle the question of the structural power of a platform owner. Marine Tondelier says X’s algorithm itself constitutes daily interference in democratic life. But no independent audit in the record makes it possible to establish or measure this bias. At this stage, it is a political accusation. It differs both from a simple personal opinion and from a coordinated operation based on fake accounts or fake content.
A Ban on X Is Not Decided at the Stroke of a Pen
X is not blocked in France. The DSA imposes risk assessment and risk mitigation obligations on very large platforms. These concerns include civic debate and electoral processes. Enforcement first relies on investigations, injunctions, corrective measures, and, if necessary, fines.
Access restrictions do exist in the regulation, but as a last resort. Articles 51 and 82 of the DSA frame this procedure. For a very large platform, the European Commission must first have exhausted its other powers. It may only initiate the procedure if the violation persists and causes serious harm that cannot otherwise be avoided.
What happens next does not depend on an isolated French political decision. The Commission requests the digital services coordinator of the member state where the provider is established. However, Article 51(3) imposes two prerequisites. The other powers must have been exhausted and the action plan required of the provider must have proved insufficient. The coordinator may then request a temporary restriction from the competent judicial authority. The persistent violation must constitute a criminal offense threatening life or safety. The parties must be able to present their observations, the measure must remain proportionate, and access to legal information may not be unduly hindered.
An initial restriction lasts four weeks. A judge may authorize its renewal for equal periods and sets the maximum number of renewals. The coordinator may extend it only if the conditions set out in the regulation remain met. Arcom is the French DSA coordinator. For a very large platform, however, the mechanism involves the Commission, the coordinator of the state of establishment, and a judicial authority.
Marine Tondelier’s proposal remains, for now, without detailed procedures. No decision-making authority, triggering threshold, duration, or appeal process specific to her project has been made public. A documented disinformation campaign therefore does not automatically turn into a ban on the X site in France.
In the end, the episode brings together three realities that must be kept separate. There is Elon Musk’s political speech, the influence tied to control of X, and coordinated operations described as manipulation. The first is established by his words. The second merits independent scrutiny. The third requires evidence and a procedure, not an analogical label.
Video unavailable