After being validated by the deputies, the bill allowing a prefect to force a radicalized person to submit to a psychiatric examination was adopted at first reading by the Senate. Despite frank opposition to the text from twenty-six organizations of mental health professionals and users, the original version has been hardened againe.
Tuesday May 5, 2026, the National Assembly transmitted to the Senate the bill from Charles Rodwell, deputy (EPR – Yvelines) aimed at strengthening security, administrative retention and preventing the risk of attack, which aims, according to its author, to better “protect our fellow citizens in the face of threats”. It provides in particular “ a series of measures whose objective is to provide better care for individuals with psychiatric disorders and likely to commit an act of terrorism“, recalls the Senate on its site. To this end, it intends to create a psychiatric examination injunction measure at the hand of the prefect, or even establish terrorist security detention for people convicted of a terrorist act, suffering from a serious personality disorder and presenting a high risk of recidivism.
This text has provoked the anger of psychiatrists, who consider it dangerous, in particular because it maintains the confusion between radicalization and psychiatric disorders. In a joint press release published on February 10, 2026, a collective of twenty-six organizations of mental health professionals and users denounced “a legislative drift“, recalling “ that to date no study shows a link between mental illness and terrorism« . On Wednesday May 20, 2026, the Senate nevertheless adopted, at first reading, the bill modified by several amendments.
What contributions does the Senate make?
The Senate further toughened the controversial text to, according to him, “legally secure the proposed systems while guaranteeing their operational nature”.
The senators thus adopted several amendments aimed in particular at:
– guarantee the impartiality of the psychiatric examination (see box) carried out on the orders of the prefectby prohibiting it from being carried out by a psychiatrist who has had the person concerned as a patient, and strengthening the procedural guarantees;
– improve the monitoring of requests for change of civil status from dangerous individuals ;
– extend to new crimes and misdemeanors the scope of offenses making it possible to justify continued detention for up to 210 days (7 months);
– allow a new placement in detention for the execution of the same removal decision;
– set a maximum total retention period of 360 days, or even 540 days (compared to 90 days currently) for certain offenses, for the execution of an expulsion decision. (The text transmitted to the Senate by the Assembly increased this deadline to 210 days).
Que dit ce texte à propos de l'examen psychiatrique* ?
Le Sénat donne quelques précisions à propos de cette mesure :
Afin de renforcer l’efficacité de la lutte contre le terrorisme, l’article 1er prévoit la création d’une mesure d’injonction d’examen psychiatrique, qui serait prise par le préfet de département à l’égard des personnes dont il existe des raisons sérieuses de penser que leur comportement constitue une menace grave pour l’ordre et la sécurité publics, à raison de leur adhésion à des théories incitant ou faisant l’apologie d’actes de terrorisme et d’agissements susceptibles d’être en tout ou partie liés à des troubles mentaux.
Les personnes objet de l’injonction seraient alors tenues de se soumettre à un examen psychiatrique pouvant déboucher, le cas échéant, sur une admission en soins psychiatriques sans consentement, à la demande du préfet.
En cas de refus de la personne de se soumettre à l’injonction, le préfet pourrait être autorisé par le juge à requérir les forces de l’ordre, pour qu’elles visitent son domicile et le présentent à un psychiatre.
L’objectif de cette mesure est de mieux suivre les individus radicalisés atteints de troubles psychiatriques, auxquels les mesures pouvant actuellement être mises en œuvre – à l’instar des mesures individuelles de contrôle administratif et de surveillance (MICAS) – apparaissent peu adaptées, en ce qu’elles ne permettent pas la mise en place des soins qu’ils exigent.
Souscrivant à la nécessité d’une meilleure prise en charge psychiatrique de tels individus radicalisés, la commission a souhaité préciser explicitement, à l’initiative de son rapporteur, que cette mesure visait, en même temps que la prévention de la commission d’actes de terrorisme, à permettre également la protection de la santé des personnes internés. Elle a également adopté plusieurs amendements de son rapporteur afin de sécuriser juridiquement le dispositif proposé, en prévoyant notamment :
• que le psychiatre choisi pour procéder à l’examen psychiatrique ne pourrait avoir eu, dans le passé, la personne faisant l’objet de l’injonction comme patient, afin de garantir son impartialité ;
• de renforcer les garanties procédurales, en indiquant que la requête et l’ordonnance du juge autorisant la visite domiciliaire aux fins de procéder à l’examen psychiatrique devraient être motivées.
Several amendments adopted by the Senate
On article 1, which establishes the injunction for psychiatric examination, the rapporteur Hervé Reynaud (Les Républicains, Loire) voted for an amendment to remove the prior opinion on the psychiatrist’s file, required for the prefect to be able to impose the examination on a radicalized person. He explains in the explanatory memorandum that it appears “not very relevant since the prefect is informed by the intelligence services of the monitoring of radicalized individuals who probably present psychiatric disorders”. The psychiatrist “integrated into the intelligence service teams will examine the file and will mention, in the note sent to the prefect, the potential existence of a psychiatric disorder”continues the elected official. It is therefore not “no need to supplement this alert from the intelligence services with an opinion on file from a psychiatrist, who will rule on the basis of the same elements and with the same reservations”. While the subject of the injunction “is precisely to establish a diagnosis of possible psychiatric disorders of the individual” concerned.
Another amendment adopted provides that “ the list of psychiatrists who can carry out the psychiatric examination (…) will be established by the administrative authority« . “A decree in the Council of State will determine the conditions for establishing this list and will specify, in particular, the administrative authority in charge of its drafting“. The first version of the text referred to a list established by the Court of Appeal allowing the use of legal experts to carry out these examinations. But the senator points out the fact that certain departments “are completely devoid of legal experts, due to the reduction in their number observed over the past two decades, and the time required to obtain an appointment is sometimes measured in months”. Create a list “broader by the administrative authority (…) will help avoid these pitfalls”concludes the rapporteur.
The text will now continue the shuttle by returning to the National Assembly.
Learn more:
• Report on Mr. Charles Rodwell’s bill and several of his colleagues aimed at strengthening security, administrative detention and preventing the risk of attack (2180), no. 2468, filed on Wednesday February 11, 2026.
• “Extension of psychiatric care without consent for radicalized people: a legislative drift creating confusion between psychiatric illness and radicalization and going against the recommendations of good medical practices of the HAS”, press release of February 10, 2026.
• List of amendments adopted in order of discussion Proposal for a law: Strengthening the prevention of attack risks – 1st reading.
