Parliament definitively passes Ripost security law

Paris – 21 July 2026: The French National Assembly has officially passed the Ripost bill aimed at strengthening public security. The text was introduced by Interior Minister Laurent Nunez in March and brings together numerous criminal and administrative measures intended to address phenomena that, in the government’s view, are affecting everyday life and citizens’ sense of security. Support came from centrists, the conservative right and the Rassemblement National.

Ripost stands for immediate responses to incidents affecting public order, security and citizens’ peace of mind. Following an expedited legislative procedure, the Senate approved the draft for the first time on 26 May 2026. The National Assembly passed the text with amendments on 15 July. A joint committee consisting of equal numbers of deputies and senators reached a compromise on the text on 20 July.

A key focus concerns the misuse of nitrous oxide, also known as laughing gas. The provisions are intended to deal more severely with the sale, possession, transport and use of this substance for intoxicating purposes. The government cites health damage and negative effects in public spaces. During parliamentary consideration, there was also discussion of whether the substance should be legally classified as a narcotic; this broader classification was not part of the core of the law that was passed.

Other provisions target unauthorized music events, motor vehicle races in public spaces and the misuse of fireworks. For large unlicensed music events, reporting and sanctioning options will be tightened. The law also expands the powers of prefects and security authorities, for example in the confiscation of items. For the government, combining these individual areas of violations represents an approach to responding quickly to recurring disruptive conduct.

However, the text does not only include sanctions for individual acts. It also contains provisions on occupied properties and furnished tourist accommodation, on the powers of local security forces, and on police technical resources. Subject to conditions laid down by law, these measures include body cameras, drones, video surveillance and automatic number plate recognition. This very expansion of the state’s capacity to act was controversial during the legislative process.

Left-wing and environmentalist deputies criticized the heterogeneous structure of the project and questioned whether the creation of additional offences could effectively address the causes of violence and everyday crime. In a parliamentary question, deputy Alexis Corbiere raised concerns about possible interference with individual freedoms, particularly through surveillance technology, administrative sanctions and changes to police procedures. The state’s human rights representative also critically assessed several individual provisions.

The final adoption concluded the parliamentary procedure. Before entering into force, the constitutionally required promulgation and publication steps remain. The practical impact will then depend on implementing decrees, application by prefectures, police and judicial authorities, as well as judicial review of individual measures. The law therefore primarily marks an expansion of the legal toolkit and does not automatically guarantee uniform enforcement nationwide.