- INTERVIEW
Interview with Christine Lagarde, President of the ECB, conducted by Jean-Claude Bourbon and Marie Dancer on 16 and 28 September 2026
30 September 2026
You have experienced all the major crises: the financial crisis of 2008 when you were the French Minister of the Economy, the Greek crisis and sovereign debt crisis in Europe when you were head of the International Monetary Fund, then later, as President of the ECB, the COVID-19 pandemic, the war in Ukraine and now the conflict in the Middle East. Has it become the normal state of affairs for the world to be in a crisis situation?
There have always been economic and financial crises. What is new is how they are linked together. The pandemic gave rise to pressures on energy and raw materials, then came the invasion of Ukraine which worsened the energy crisis and the inflation surge. Crises no longer follow one after the other, they are interconnected and mutually reinforcing. This is an unprecedented reality that we must now face.
In your opinion, what is the most immediate threat to the European economy?
For the ECB, price stability remains the priority. So the main threat today is the energy crisis related to the conflict in the Middle East. It is clearly weighing on prices, but also on growth. The effect on economic activity when the cost of raw materials rises is often overlooked. And behind the energy crisis there is a geopolitical situation undergoing major change.
Essentially, the whole European economic model has been shaken.
Yes. Europe has long rested on three pillars: cheap energy, notably from Russia, the large Chinese market for its exports and the US security umbrella. These three pillars are being shaken today. The supply of energy from Russia has been cut off and China is now competing with Europeans in leading-edge markets. Regarding the US security umbrella, it has been cast into doubt, to say the least.
You have been President of the ECB for seven years. What are you most proud of and what would you have done differently?
I’m proud of our collective ability to respond to extraordinary circumstances with extraordinary measures, all the while preserving consensus. I have tried to include everyone, to listen to and respect different points of view with, to put it simply, on the one hand the “doves” who favour low interest rates to support economic activity, and, on the other hand, the “hawks” who call for higher rates to contain inflation. We have found a way of working that allows for this diversity, in pursuit of the shared objective of maintaining price stability as stipulated by the Treaties, as well as fast decision-making.
But we haven’t always got it completely right. In 2021 in particular, we thought that the energy shock would be temporary and therefore wouldn’t require an immediate response. Events proved us wrong. We didn’t anticipate the way crises would be interconnected or, in particular, the huge surge in demand as we emerged from the pandemic, or the way in which the Russian regime deceitfully engineered the reduction in gas reserves.
At the start of your term of office, you said that you were neither a hawk nor a dove, but rather an owl. Is that still the case?
Yes, intentionally. The owl is the symbol of Athena, representing intelligence and wisdom, but most of all, it’s my way of rejecting labels. I’m neither on the side of the hawks who favour tight monetary policy to fight inflation nor on the side of the doves who are keen to support economic activity with accommodative monetary policy. I don’t take sides in monetary policy. I’m guided by facts and prepared to adjust when circumstances require it. In such an uncertain world, dogmatism is not a good response.
The ECB raised its interest rates in June and September. Aren’t you concerned about a slowdown in economic activity as inflation is largely due to problems beyond your control?
It’s true that a central bank cannot reopen the Strait of Hormuz or create new oil or gas reserves. Our task is rather to prevent a supply shock – in this case the falling supply and increasing cost of energy – from feeding through the economy durably and driving up inflation. This may lead us to raise rates, at the risk of weighing on the financing of the economy and consequently on growth. We are well aware of this and it’s why we look very closely at the strength of economic activity before acting.
According to INSEE, the French statistical office, the French economy is falling behind compared with the rest of Europe. Is France the new “sick country” of Europe?
I don’t want to comment on the situation of any individual euro area country specifically. Political uncertainty and budget deficits weigh on investment and activity. We expect growth to be 0.9% in the euro area this year, compared with 0.5% in France. The gap is clear. In addition, when your debt is close to 120% of GDP and not on course to be brought under control, it’s a serious matter. All the more so given that governments are competing with sizeable private financing needs, particularly related to artificial intelligence. So that may increase the cost of financing public debt.
That said, it’s not 2008 or 2011. The European financial system is much stronger. So I won’t make any predictions. I have seen Greece, Portugal, Ireland and Cyprus weather very painful crises, put their public finances back in order and restore confidence. Those countries have since returned to growth, often at levels above the average.
What lessons can France draw from these examples?
The fact that there needs to be a credible path, shared commitment and reforms to restore confidence. The administrative and regulatory framework needs to be simplified, labour market reforms need to be pursued and the issue of pensions needs to be addressed. As life expectancy rises, the pensions model set up in the past cannot continue indefinitely. We also need to act at the European level, in particular to deepen the capital markets union so that European savings provide more financing for our investment.
Should there be taxes on those with the greatest wealth and on inheritances, as some in France suggest?
The budget of a government, a firm or a household has two columns: income and expenses. So we have to ask whether to focus on one or the other, or on both, and which should take priority, while taking account of effectiveness and proportionality. We also need to look at the level of the tax burden in comparable countries, because you can’t keep squeezing taxpayers. I’m reminded of the saying based on Colbert’s remarks: taxation is like plucking a goose. You can pluck and pluck and pluck, but there comes a point when it’s no longer possible. When you pass certain thresholds, there is a risk of diminishing returns.
Some people, like Jean-Luc Mélenchon, are calling for part of France’s debt to be cancelled.
This would be technically uncertain and financially very dangerous. If you decide not to repay some of your debt, why would investors keep lending to you? There’s a risk that they will stop lending or make you pay much higher interest rates. France needs to keep borrowing. And such a cancellation of debt would also be a violation of the European Treaties.
Do you intend to take part in the debates ahead of the French presidential elections in 2027?
My task now is to serve the European public interest.
And will you be a candidate?
That would not be a good idea at all. It’s not the same job. First there is a question of vitality, energy and strength. Then there is an element of inevitable sacrifice with this type of commitment. And I’m 70 years old.
In February this year you hinted that you might not stay until the end of your term of office in October 2027, a year from now.
I don’t rule out the possibility of leaving a few months before the end of my term, but I haven’t announced anything specific and one thing is certain: I will still be here in 2027. So if I leave early, it will only be a matter of a few months. It won’t be world-changing.
Could your decision be influenced by the possibility that the Rassemblement National party could win the French presidential election next spring? If you left early it would enable the current government to have a say regarding your successor, instead of the new party taking power.
It will be up to the French Government in office when the time comes to argue for its preferences and reach an agreement with the other leaders around the table.
You were the first woman to serve as the French Minister of the Economy, and then to lead the International Monetary Fund and now the ECB. What would you say today to a ten-year-old girl?
I would tell her not to close any doors. At the age of 23 I saw myself working in the human resources department of a company. But why human resources? and why just one company? Fortunately, some people told me I could become a financial analyst or a corporate lawyer. They broadened my ideas about what was possible for me.
For a long time I thought like William Faulkner that you need “to dream high enough not to lose the dream”. But my view is more nuanced because at the age of ten you still don’t know yourself well enough to understand exactly what you want for yourself. So I prefer the idea that you shouldn’t set limits for yourself.
When you were a child, your parents welcomed Pierre Mendès France, Jacques Delors and other prominent European figures into their home. How did that environment of family, intellectual focus and faith shape you?
At that time I was a young girl of ten. I helped serve the food and was completely unaware of the role played by those prominent figures. But thanks to that family environment I was able to benefit from great confidence and love and, at the same time, high standards. It was also a very open family. My parents often hosted guests – not to give fashionable dinners, but to focus on intellectual matters and questions of faith. My parents, and my father in particular, moved in a milieu influenced by humanism, the personalism of Emmanuel Mounier and the centre-left Catholic movement that sought to change society while keeping to the principles of the Gospel.
That humanist heritage seems to have disappeared from Europe now.
The rise of populism and violence is clear to see. But in Europe there is also a resurgence of faith and a new energy put into values of tolerance, respect and faith, which I didn’t experience when I was in my twenties. Several events that I have had the opportunity to attend have led me to think that – for example, the visit of Pope Francis to Marseille three years ago. Seeing the packed Vélodrome stadium and the fervour that led 60,000 people to fall silent in prayer… [silence] I can well believe that there may have been an element of fandom, but I think it’s deeper than that. In my view, it’s part of a renewal that we are seeing.
Could this renewal be political in the broadest sense of the word, too? Does the Europe of Schuman and Delors still have something to say today?
Yes, because centripetal and centrifugal forces have always coexisted within Europe. On the one hand, there are efforts to enlarge the European Union and give it a political dimension, with a desire to expand the circle of countries around the table by admitting successively Moldova, Ukraine and some Balkan countries. On the other hand, there is a clearly a much more nationalist movement towards turning inward within borders.
And this populist wave is now affecting several of the EU’s founding countries …
That is true, but we should never lose faith in people. Look at Poland: even though the ultraconservative Law and Justice party had been in power for eight years, Donald Tusk and his allies succeeded in forming a new majority in autumn 2023. And in Hungary, where Viktor Orbán held sway for years, a change of government that many considered unlikely eventually came about.
So, I believe in a European bedrock of trust and collective ambition. But we need to bear one thing in mind: individually, EU countries are too small relative to the United States, China or India. I saw this first-hand as Minister, when negotiating at the World Trade Organization: you may represent France, with its nuclear deterrent, but on your own you carry no weight. But when Europeans speak as one, they matter. Their voice is respected. Because there is always a balance of power at play.
The ECB has devoted considerable attention to climate-related issues under your presidency, but some contend that this falls outside the remit of a central bank …
I strongly disagree with this blinkered view. Climate change has a direct impact on the economy. For example, a drought can disrupt navigation on the Rhine or the Saône and reduce economic output. How can we produce sound projections for prices and growth without taking that into account? There is also a financial risk. The ECB holds assets: if we disregard their exposure to climate change, we fail to properly assess the risks on our own balance sheet. And the same goes for the banks we supervise. I have been committed to this cause since 2011, when I joined the International Monetary Fund.
How far can the ECB go?
We are onboard for the green transition, but we are not in the driving seat. Climate policy is the responsibility of governments and parliaments. But that doesn’t prevent us from being at the forefront of work in this area. Our role is to incorporate climate risk into our analysis and balance sheets, and to make sure that banks do the same.
The Pope has just visited France. Can he still wield influence on the international stage?
Of course the Pope can wield influence on the international stage. I very much admire the principled and steadfast stance he upheld when he came under attack from President Trump.
What strikes you personally about Pope Leo XIV?
His encyclical letter Magnifica humanitas directly addressed the debate on artificial intelligence that is unfolding today. I hope this debate will move in the right direction, one that keeps people at the centre of the system and avoids reducing work to an “accessory” that can be replaced by robots. The Pope stands squarely in the tradition of Leo XIII’s encyclical Rerum Novarum, bringing the Church’s social doctrine into the age of artificial intelligence. I very much hope that his voice will continue to be heard and that he will further develop his thinking on the issue.
What place does faith hold in your own life?
It is fundamental. It is part of who I am.
What did you take from the Pope’s speech about Europe in Metz?
First of all, Leo XIV’s exhortation “do not be afraid of the future”. It echoes John Paul II’s “Do not be afraid” in the circumstances we are now living in. Geopolitical tensions or even wars, artificial intelligence and climate change, to give just a few examples, are likely to be a source of concern, especially for young people. We have to overcome these fears. I will also remember what Leo XIV said about peace. The Pope’s presence in the land of Robert Schuman is a reminder that Europe is not just a geographical region or a market – it’s a community of values founded notably on justice, dialogue and peace. We have had almost 80 years of peace within the borders of the Union since the Schuman Declaration of 9 May 1950.
And on a more personal note, what images and words from the Pope’s visit to France will stay with you?
What will stay with me is the moving and at the same time impressive sight of crowds that were both reflective and joyful, happy to be there and happy to be together. There was a good-natured atmosphere. Everything was very well organised. I will remember the quiet and heartfelt fervour of genuine communion.
Were you touched that the Pope referred to his Norman roots?
Yes, of course. I feel a deep sense of connection to Normandy. But I am perhaps even more moved by his commitment to those in need in Peru, where he served as a missionary and a bishop. As Managing Director of the IMF, I visited the country on several occasions. There I met people who left a lasting impression on me, for example women who showed extraordinary courage and ingenuity to lift their families out of poverty and give their children a better future.
In the current circumstances, what concerns you most and what gives you hope?
What concerns me is the way the media and social media can act as a magnifying mirror for everything that is going wrong. Minor news stories become major events, while everyday acts of solidarity and kindness remain invisible because they don’t generate clicks or attract audiences.
But I never lose faith in people. I owe this conviction in particular to Robert Badinter. In 2003, during the Iraq war, when France was viewed very negatively in the United States, he came to Chicago to speak about Victor Hugo. At the time, I was head of the law firm Baker McKenzie. I asked him about this hostility towards the French and he replied, “We should never lose faith in the American people.” In his view, they had something deeply good and solid at their core. These words have stayed with me. I firmly believe in societies’ ability to rediscover what unites them. But to do that, we need trust, respect and tolerance, along with a shared purpose that brings us together.
Bringing everyone on board through dialogue and a more inclusive approach – isn’t that precisely what is lacking in France, given its very top-down institutions and the sidelining of intermediary bodies in recent years?
Change only succeeds when we bring everybody on board. Everyone needs to understand the shared purpose and feel that they have a part to play in it. That requires dialogue with unions, intermediary bodies and civil society. You cannot bring lasting change to a company, an institution or a country from the top down: you need to build support around a shared purpose. It is difficult in France, but it is essential.
If you were to share with us something that belongs in your personal pantheon, a work of art, a place, a film or a book, what would it be?
A work of art? Rachmaninoff’s Piano Concerto No 2, which for me is an absolute gem. It overflows with musicality, resonance and depth. This piece strikes a deep chord in me.
A place? The Pays de Caux in Normandy. It is the region in Normandy I feel most deeply connected to, the Normandy of my childhood, of Guy de Maupassant and André Gide, whose writings remain with me to this day. This is the Pays de Caux that I love: wild and slightly rugged, still retaining something of the late 19th century. It has nothing in common with the Normandy of immaculately manicured lawns and thatched cottages. My neighbours are cows and corn fields!
Poetry? Either Baudelaire’s Les Fleurs du mal or Jacques Prévert’s Paroles. For me, poetry is therapeutic. It is a refuge.
CONTACTEuropean Central Bank
Directorate General Communications
- Sonnemannstrasse 20
- 60314 Frankfurt am Main, Germany
- +49 69 1344 7455
- media@ecb.europa.eu
Reproduction is permitted provided that the source is acknowledged.
Media contacts