The National Rally (RN), a French political party, has proposed banning the Islamic headscarf in public spaces if it wins the presidential election. The party frames this proposal as a response to what it calls the threat of Islamism. However, research suggests that the wearing of the headscarf cannot be easily linked to political motives. Such a ban would challenge the principle of religious freedom and might conflict with existing legal standards. The idea of restricting the headscarf in public spaces is not new in French politics. Over the years, similar proposals have been made, including bans on the headscarf in schools, the full veil in public areas, the burkini on beaches, and even the abaya in schools. These proposals have sometimes succeeded, but they have also sparked debates about the balance between secularism and religious freedom. One of the main challenges in proposing such a ban is the legal justification. In a country that upholds the rule of law, any restriction on fundamental freedoms, such as religious freedom, must be based on a clear legal foundation. Unlike previous bans that relied on secularism—principles of state neutrality and equality among citizens—this new proposal does not base itself on secularism but instead on the idea that the headscarf is a sign of Islamism. This approach represents a shift in the reasoning used to justify restrictions on religious symbols. While earlier laws focused on secularism or the need for neutrality in public service, the current proposal argues that the headscarf represents a political ideology. However, sociological studies show that the headscarf can have varied meanings—such as religious expression, identity, or personal autonomy—and is not uniformly linked to political extremism. Legally, such a ban would be problematic. It would rely on a general assumption that wearing the headscarf equates to political adherence, which is not supported by evidence. International human rights standards, including the European Convention on Human Rights, protect the freedom of religion and require that any restrictions be necessary and proportionate. A ban based on political assumptions rather than specific threats could be seen as discriminatory and a violation of these rights.