The French government is reviving the idea of a tax on oil windfall profits, without specifying whether it will go as far as a vote. However, it remains to be seen whether a new measure will actually be implemented. On April 29, 2026, after the Council of Ministers, Maud Bregeon said the executive “does not rule anything out” in the face of rising fuel prices. Behind that phrase are three questions: what could actually be taxed, who would ultimately pay, and why TotalEnergies alone is bearing such political pressure?
A Strong Political Slogan, But No Tax Yet Decided
The phrase was chosen to make an impact without locking the government into a promise. According to Maud Bregeon’s remarks reported on April 29 by 20 Minutes, the spokesperson said that “no one should profit from this crisis” and that “no windfall profit should be made a fortiori in France,” adding that the executive “does not rule anything out.” At the same time, she refused to engage in “Total bashing.”
This twofold stance sums up the current political difficulty. On one hand, the rise in fuel prices fuels a demand for fiscal justice. This happens especially when households, haulers, fishermen, or farmers immediately bear the shock. On the other hand, the government wants to avoid appearing fundamentally hostile to a major French listed company. Indeed, this company is international and highly exposed to global oil prices.
Maud Bregeon’s statement is part of a broader sequence. On April 29, Emmanuel Macron asked the government to work on new responses to an uncertain context. Indeed, this context is described as “highly uncertain” regarding energy and fuels, according to multiple consistent sources. But neither the Élysée nor Matignon has, at this stage, presented a bill, a schedule, a rate table, or a precise tax base.
In other words, the tax on oil windfall profits is not decided. It exists only as a public hypothesis, politically useful because it allows the executive to show it is keeping all options open.
Why TotalEnergies Crystallizes the Debate
Although the government insists it is not targeting a specific company, the debate almost mechanically returns to TotalEnergies. The reason first lies in the results published by the group on April 29. In its first-quarter 2026 financial release, TotalEnergies reported an adjusted net income of $5.4 billion. This result represents a 29% year-on-year increase. Additionally, cash flow from operations reached $8.6 billion, up 23%.
These figures alone do not prove the existence of “windfall profits” in a fiscal or legal sense. A profit is not automatically an abusive rent. Indeed, the profitability of an integrated group depends on crude and gas prices. It also depends on refining, trading, and its global presence. But in the public debate, such profit levels at a time when pump prices are rising are enough to feed the comparison between household strain and the majors’ gains.
TotalEnergies also attracts criticism because the group holds a special symbolic place in France. It sells fuel and publishes highly visible results. Moreover, for part of public opinion it embodies the direct link between geopolitical tensions and the daily bill. That is why the executive is trying to strike a delicate balance: acknowledge that exceptional profits raise a sharing question, without implying that a company has, by nature, committed wrongdoing.
What The State Can Actually Tax, And Why It’s Not That Simple
The idea of a tax on windfall profits does not come out of nowhere. The European Union had already adopted a temporary solidarity contribution at the end of 2022. It targeted companies active in oil, gas, coal, and refining. The principle was to tax, at a minimum rate of 33%, the portion of taxable profits exceeding by more than 20% the average of previous fiscal years. France then transposed this framework into its 2023 finance law.
This precedent shows that a tool exists legally. But it also shows its limits. To raise significant revenue, the state must define precisely which activities are targeted and which profits are located in France. Moreover, it must determine the reference period over which the surplus is calculated. Finally, it must avoid the tax base shrinking within highly internationalized groups. That is one reason such a tax may raise far less than announced.
The very word “windfall profit” also carries ambiguity. From a fiscal standpoint, the state does not tax moral indignation. It taxes an accounting base, defined by law, auditable by the administration, and defensible in court. Between the political slogan and the drafting of a tax article, the gap is considerable.
That explains why Bercy might be tempted by more targeted or faster responses. For example, sectoral aid can be considered. Extending existing mechanisms is also an option. Support could also focus on the most exposed professions. Finally, mobilizing budgetary revenues without creating a whole new tax architecture is possible.
Who Would Really Pay A Tax On Oil Windfall Profits?
This is the most sensitive angle for purchasing power. In theory, a tax on exceptional profits aims to levy part of gains deemed cyclical. Thus, the revenue from this tax can be redistributed to households or vulnerable sectors. In practice, its effect on pump prices is much less direct.
Nothing automatically guarantees that a new tax would lower fuel prices. The price paid by the motorist depends first on crude, refining, transport, distribution, and existing taxation, notably the TICPE and VAT. A tax on a major group’s profits could increase public revenues. However, the concrete benefit for consumers would depend on the political use of that money: targeted checks, sectoral aid, temporary support, or another mechanism.
The other question is pass-through. Depending on market structure and the level of competition, part of an additional levy can be absorbed by margins. Moreover, it can also spread indirectly elsewhere in the chain. That is precisely why no mechanical effect on fuel prices can be promised today.
The government has therefore opened a door, not decided a policy. The tax on oil windfall profits is today a possible instrument, backed by a European and French precedent, but still lacking concrete contours. Until those contours are known, the phrase “we do not rule anything out” is primarily a political message. Indeed, faced with anger over fuel, the executive wants to show it can tax the crisis’ winners more. However, it does not yet promise it will know how to do so effectively.