On November 27, the President of the Republic announced the creation of a voluntary national service for young people aged 18 to 25. In the current strategic context, what made this decision necessary?
I believe this decision stems from the convergence of three elements. The first is a defense need, a necessity for the armed forces, linked to the need for enhanced vigilance on national territory. Our environment has darkened very quickly, much faster than we anticipated. This deterioration is global and diverse, and the French population perceives its effects daily. Within the wide range of missions entrusted to our armed forces, there are several for which the reinforcement of young national service participants will be very useful: responding to environmental challenges, the persistence of the terrorist threat, and hybrid threats, whether related to information manipulation, cyber actions, or sabotage risks.
The second element is the youth’s desire to engage. When I meet young people who are considering their commitment or have already made that choice, I am always struck by their clarity and sense of responsibility. They have a very good understanding of the issues, they want to give meaning to their lives and participate in something bigger than themselves. Many start off in one direction and then decide to turn towards the armed forces or other state services, seeking purpose. I believe we have a duty to respond to those who want to engage, by allowing them to do so in a military framework. The third element is the resilience of our country and national cohesion, to which the military experience makes a very concrete contribution. The armed forces know how to create cohesion among young people from very different backgrounds who did not know each other but live through strong experiences together. National service will enable these young individuals to acquire a culture of defense, experience teamwork and managing uncomfortable situations, as well as solidarity reflexes that they will retain throughout their lives.
How will this national service be concrete and useful?
Starting in September 2026, we will welcome 3,000 young people, increasing progressively to 4,000 the following year, and ultimately reaching 50,000 by 2035. In order to be useful for both young people and the armed forces, the national service must be selective. This is a choice that we fully embrace. Selection is based on the motivation and skills of volunteers, but primarily on their ability to respond to missions identified by the armed forces as useful for our country and defense. Extensive work has been done within the armed forces to determine the trades where the contribution of these young individuals is truly necessary. Each young person joining the national service will be assigned a useful mission. It is not acceptable for a young person entering the armed forces for their service to end up in secondary roles. They will undergo an initial training period where they will learn a trade before being integrated into either an Army, Navy, or Air and Space Force unit. In all cases, these young people will have a useful mission on national territory and will be given responsibilities. It is essential to me that at the end of their day, they feel that they have learned and contributed.
The national service targets a broad age range of 18 to 25 years old. What will older volunteers, who have already started a university or professional career, specifically bring and how are they a particular asset for the armed forces?
We will have several profiles of young people within the national service. The majority of volunteers – almost 80% – will be between 18 and 19 years old. These are young individuals fresh out of high school or opting for a gap year, who will acquire a first structured experience within the armed forces. But the program is also open to older individuals, up to 25 years old, and this is crucial. These are the ones who have expressed their willingness to engage later, or who have already committed to a professional career, an apprenticeship, or university studies that they could not interrupt earlier. They bring with them a level of maturity and sometimes already developed skills.
These profiles are a unique asset for the armed forces, whether they are young individuals already trained in technical trades or coming from demanding academic backgrounds – particularly in health, engineering, or technological fields – and they can be employed with a high level of responsibility. Positions in cybersecurity are a good example, with accessible profiles ranging from young individuals to more advanced ones, capable of contributing to the development of specific capabilities for the armed forces. The goal is clear: to bring together the talents of our society who are willing to engage and allow them to use their skills in defense.
The armed forces already recruit 27,000 young people annually through various programs designed to facilitate their integration. How is the contribution of this national service different from others?
We did not have a truly open program in this way for all young people. There were opportunities for engagement in the armed forces, but mainly through long contracts, far from a simple gap year. With the national service, we are changing the scale. We are moving towards a new model, on which I am very optimistic and confident.
Firstly, it relies on a core of professional armed forces, which are currently a reference in Europe, likely the most effective armed forces on the continent. This core remains the foundation of our defense; it is the base on which everything else aggregates. The second element is the reserve, strengthened by the military programming law. With a ratio of about one reservist for every two active military personnel, we are moving towards a model with over 80,000 reservists.
They already participate in missions, bring complementary skills, and help us increase efficiency. The third layer is the young individuals in the national service. Their numbers will increase gradually. We deliberately start with modest volumes because we need to welcome them properly, guide them, train them, and equip them. We will initially rely on existing infrastructures before developing new ones.
But an essential point to note: there is only one armed force. The modes of engagement may differ in duration or form, but they are all united by the mission, military status, and a fundamental principle of fairness. These young individuals do not replace anyone or take the place of others. They complement a model of armed forces fully engaged in defense missions and contribute fully to them.
How does this new national service differ from the old military service?
It is completely different. Today, the national service applies equally to women and men. The previous program was mandatory only for men. We have clearly changed our approach. Previously, we operated on a principle of universality, targeting an entire age group, mostly male, even if, in practice, this was not always fully implemented. We are no longer on that path anymore; instead, we are based on a selection principle, and this changes everything, including for us. Accommodating an entire age group would mean between 700,000 and 800,000 young people; that is absolutely not the model we are adopting. This selection requires a completely different supervisory approach. Back then, we did not provide customized solutions. Now, we will do so in each unit where the young individuals will be welcomed. They will be fully integrated into the units and have useful missions. It cannot be said that all the testimonies from the old service highlighted this usefulness: there were very strong human experiences, but also a lot of wasted time, in a Cold War context, sometimes with individuals “standing by.” Today, we have many more active missions in our territory. The young individuals in the national service will be deployed in mainland France and overseas. The principle is based on volunteering, linked to selection and motivation. Therefore, we are clearly introducing a service that stands out from the old model.
Is this national service also a means to strengthen the bond between the armed forces and the Nation, especially in light of the lessons from the war in Ukraine?
I believe it is a means, but not the only one. What we are implementing responds to expectations from a portion of the youth. It is a youth that understands the stakes: we will not convince them, they have already taken the step. It is an awakened, aware youth that wants to be useful. This military experience will help them grow as individuals, as a group, and as a Nation. The seed is already there, and the national service will provide a framework for it. I recently observed this abroad, particularly in Sweden, where I met young conscripts. I saw extremely motivated, highly engaged people, aware of their role in defense. Some told me: “We found a family, we are useful.” Those who complete the national service in France will be able to play this role of witness in society and contribute to national cohesion. But we need to remain clear-headed. This is not the only path, as the numbers will remain limited compared to an entire age group. Moral strength is a collective issue that concerns the entire society. I do not want to suggest that the actions of these young individuals alone would suffice. But it is definitely something very positive.
Have experiences in other European countries that have reintroduced a national service inspired you?
We closely monitored what neighboring countries were doing. You are right: more than ten European countries have reintroduced a national service, each with its own specificities. However, there are strong constants, particularly the desire for commitment among the youth and the importance of missions and roles useful for defense. That is the common foundation. I was particularly impressed by what I observed in Norway and Sweden, where young individuals sometimes fear not being selected.
In the Scandinavian countries, a young person who has completed their national service is now highly valued by employers. It is socially valued. It guarantees simple but essential qualities: courage, willpower, motivation, the ability to push oneself. The Norwegian and Swedish models have been a source of inspiration, especially in the idea of integrating this national service into a life course. In the Nordic countries, the national service – including its military dimension – is seen as a gap year.
In these countries, this service is highly valued today, especially because it is based on selection. Young individuals are chosen based on mission needs. Thus, in their field, high-quality profiles join the armed forces. This logic is interesting: a demanding, useful, recognized service fully integrated into a life path.
Is the national service a structural reform designed to last?
It is very concrete, very quick, and a reform planned for the long term. It is concrete because we already see 17 or 18-year-olds showing interest and envisioning themselves in this program. There is a lot of voluntary action, and I am very confident. Everyone has a chance: every young person who wants to should express their willingness. We are not looking for the best in the class but for motivated, generous young people with human qualities and an attraction to defense. Many are 18 years old and do not yet have highly developed professional skills, but they have interest, sometimes skills acquired in parallel, and above all, a desire to engage. It is also a reform for the long term.
It fits into a vision of our armed forces where the professional army, the reserve, and the young individuals in the national service form a coherent, complementary whole that supports each other and collectively strengthens us. This will inevitably require adjustments, as it is a new model for our armed forces. I observed this very concretely in Sweden. I saw young conscripts deploy complex systems, including artillery or combat aircraft, with a high level of autonomy under appropriate supervision. These are young individuals without high ranks but with significant qualities because they were selected, trained, and given responsibilities.
It is a genuine cultural change: learning to trust, giving more responsibilities, without confining these young people to menial tasks. It is this maturity that we must gradually build. We must not be too rigid; we will need to adapt the model, adjust it according to circumstances and acquired experience.
