Introduction
Access to French nationality has undergone profound changes in recent years. In a political context marked by a stated desire to “better control immigration while improving integration,” the legal framework for naturalization has been gradually tightened.
With the decree of July 15, 2025, which raises the required language level to B2, and the announcement of a mandatory civic test starting in 2026 (Order of October 25, 2025), France is strengthening its requirements for republican assimilation.
These developments are accompanied by increased vigilance on the part of the prefectures, whose margin of discretion remains decisive in the outcome of applications. Therefore, questioning the nature of these reforms amounts to asking whether they are a legitimate requirement for adherence to French values or a genuine tightening of controls, likely to exclude some applicants.
I. The 2026 civic test: a tool for integration or a new barrier to naturalization?
1. Content and objectives of the civic test
Starting in 2026, all applications for naturalization must be accompanied by a passing score on a civic test designed to measure knowledge of the values and institutions of the Republic.
This test should cover:
- Fundamental principles (liberty, equality, fraternity, secularism);
- Institutional organization (Parliament, Government, justice, local authorities);
- Certain essential elements of history, geography, and culture;
- The rights and obligations attached to citizenship;
- Living in French society.
The stated aim is clear: to ensure that future citizens have a good understanding of the foundations of republican coexistence.
2. A political statement: strengthening republican integration
According to the authorities, this test is a response to contemporary challenges: national cohesion, understanding of democratic rules, and prevention of identity-based withdrawal. It is part of a logic of “explicit adherence” to French values, conceived as a counterpart to access to nationality.
Combined with the requirement to demonstrate a B2 level of French, it reflects a desire to make naturalization a demanding, involved, and symbolically powerful act.
3. Criticisms and limitations: a potentially discriminatory system
While the goal of integration may seem legitimate, several factors raise questions:
- The test is the same for very different profiles, whether highly educated individuals or applicants with little schooling.
- There is a risk of indirect discrimination against foreigners from non-French-speaking countries or with limited access to education.
- The possibility that the test may be perceived as a tool for selection rather than integration.
These criticisms raise a central question: should naturalization be an instrument of integration or a filter designed to restrict access to citizenship?
II. The role of prefectures: a decisive assessment of assimilation
1. A particularly wide margin of discretion
Even if the legal requirements are met (residence, good character, professional integration, language, etc.), naturalization is never a right. It remains a favor granted by the state, which explains the wide margin of discretion granted to the administration.
Prefectures examine in particular:
- The actual level of social and professional integration;
- The applicant's financial stability and independence;
- Compliance with tax obligations;
- The absence of behavior contrary to the values of the Republic;
- The consistency of the applicant's personal history with the application for citizenship.
The assimilation interview, already central, will become even more important with the introduction of the civic test.
2. The most common grounds for refusal based on assimilation
Many refusals are based on an unfavorable assessment of the applicant's ability to integrate on a long-term basis. The most common grounds are:
- Insufficient command of French, even with a diploma;
- Long-term economic insecurity, deemed incompatible with integration;
- Offenses or behavior revealing a lack of respect for social or fiscal rules;
- Limited participation in social life, which may be interpreted as a lack of integration.
These criteria, which are often subjective, demonstrate the importance of the administration's discretionary power.
3. Real but limited judicial review
In the event of refusal, the applicant may exercise:
- An administrative appeal to the Ministry of the Interior;
- Then, if necessary, a contentious appeal before the Nantes Administrative Court.
However, the administrative judge does not substitute his own assessment for that of the prefecture. He limits himself to verifying:
- The legality of the decision;
- The absence of manifest error of assessment;
- The consistency of the reasons.
In other words, as long as the administration reasonably justifies its refusal, the judge is reluctant to intervene.
III. Between integration and control: what vision of nationality law in 2026?
1. A more selective model of integration
Recent reforms reflect a shift towards a model of integration based on selectivity: in-depth civic knowledge, high level of language proficiency, impeccable behavior, and solid professional integration.
This is a major change from a more inclusive conception of French nationality.
2. The risk of a “deserving citizen” that is difficult to achieve
The underlying logic is that of a citizen who “deserves” citizenship, at the risk of excluding people who are integrated but do not meet the formal criteria (language, test, level of education).
3. Naturalization transformed into an instrument of migration policy
In the public debate, the boundaries between immigration policy and nationality policy are becoming increasingly blurred.
The civic test, the strengthening of language requirements, and the increased vigilance of prefectures show that naturalization is no longer just a tool for integration, but also a lever for migration control.
Conclusion
Through the introduction of the civic test in 2026 and the strengthening of the evaluative role of prefectures, France is redefining its model of access to citizenship.
While these measures respond to a stated desire to ensure better republican integration, they also reflect increased control, which is likely to make naturalization more selective.
For applicants, this change means that they will need to rigorously prepare a plan that fully demonstrates their commitment to French values and their lasting integration into society.
In a stricter and more demanding administrative framework, access to nationality remains possible, but is now part of a process in which the objectivity of the criteria often gives way to extensive assessment by the administration.
Sara BOUTIN, Legal Manager at FB Avocat
