PARIS (AP) — The ongoing strike at the Louvre is no longer just a labor dispute. It has become a test of how securely, credibly and competently the world’s most visited museum is being run.
Behind the walkout are not only frayed labor relations, but a building itself under strain, with crumbling parts of the aging former palace now deemed unsafe.
At the heart of the crisis lies a deeper rupture: a $102 million jewel heist that exposed security failures at the core of the institution and transformed long-simmering staff grievances into a national reckoning with global resonance.
The walkout is hardening
Tensions were already rising when a wildcat June strike abruptly shut the museum, stranding visitors beneath I.M. Pei’s glass pyramid. Weeks later, the Louvre announced the closure of offices and a public gallery because of weakened floor beams, deepening concern about neglect across the aging complex.
The October daylight robbery, in which thieves stole crown jewels, intensified scrutiny from lawmakers and auditors and reframing workplace complaints as questions of institutional failure.
Culture Ministry officials have tried to defuse the standoff by proposing to cancel a planned 2026 funding cut, hire additional guards and visitor services staff, and raise pay. Unions rejected the measures as inadequate, signaling that trust has frayed beyond quick fixes.
On Monday, the CFDT union said that 400 workers at a meeting voted to strike over chronic understaffing, deteriorating buildings and management decisions. Workers on Wednesday voted to extend the action, forcing the Louvre to operate on a restricted footing.
The museum partially reopened a limited “masterpiece route,” granting access to the “Mona Lisa,” the Venus de Milo and a handful of galleries — a stopgap that allowed visitors inside while highlighting how far normal operations have slipped.
Pressure has now shifted squarely onto Louvre President Laurence des Cars. The ministry has announced emergency anti-intrusion measures and appointed Philippe Jost, who oversaw the restoration of Notre Dame Cathedral, to help reorganize the museum. It’s a step widely read as a sign that confidence in existing governance has been shaken.
A $102 million failure, measured in seconds
French senators were told last week that thieves who stole crown jewels valued at more than $100 million escaped the Louvre with barely 30 seconds to spare, a detail that crystallized the scale of the breakdown.
A parliamentary inquiry described the Oct. 19 theft as one of the result of cascading failures. Only one of two cameras covering the break-in point was functioning, and security staff lacked enough screens to monitor footage in real time.
When the alarm finally sounded, police were initially sent to the wrong location, investigators said, a delay that proved decisive.
“Give or take 30 seconds, guards or police could have intercepted them,” said Noël Corbin, who led the inquiry.
Audits in 2017 and 2019 had already flagged vulnerabilities later exploited in the heist, but recommended fixes were never fully implemented.
All four suspected robbers have been arrested, but the jewels remain missing. Interpol has listed the pieces in its database of stolen art amid fears they could be broken up or smuggled abroad.
For staff now on strike, the Senate findings confirmed what they say they had warned for years: that the museum’s defenses were thin, its warnings unheeded, and its margin for error measured in seconds.
An institution under physical strain
The heist has sharpened attention on the Louvre’s condition. Parts of the vast complex have been closed after officials discovered structural weaknesses, including nine rooms in the Campana Gallery devoted to ancient Greek ceramics. Technical reports cited “particular fragility” in supporting beams, forcing staff relocations and closures until further notice.
Unions say sections of the centuries-old building are in “very poor condition,” pointing to incidents such as a November water leak that damaged hundreds of historic books as signs of broader neglect.
President Emmanuel Macron’s “New Renaissance” renovation plan, launched in early 2025 to modernize the Louvre and manage overcrowding, includes expanded entrances and major upgrades. Critics say it has moved too slowly and focused too heavily on headline projects. A court audit flagged considerable delays in deploying modern security equipment and found that only a fraction of allocated funds had been spent on safety.
Opposition to a special room for the ‘Mona Lisa’
A proposal to give Leonardo da Vinci’s “Mona Lisa” a dedicated room with its own entrance was intended to ease crushing crowds. Instead, it has become a symbol of what workers see as misplaced priorities.
Backed by Macron, the plan would separate the painting from the Salle des États to improve visitor flow. Supporters say it reflects the reality of mass tourism, with most visitors coming primarily to see the “Mona Lisa.”
Unions counter that the project highlights a fixation on blockbuster attractions while staffing shortages, infrastructure decay and security gaps persist. They argue that money earmarked for redesign would be better spent on repairs, surveillance upgrades and front-line staffing. Some also fear the move could open the door to tiered access or higher prices.
Former director denies responsibility for failures
Former Louvre director Jean-Luc Martinez told senators this week that he believed the museum’s security plan was sufficient, stopping short of accepting personal responsibility for failures exposed by the heist.
Martinez, who led the Louvre from 2013 to 2021, said he was “struck, shaken and wounded” by the robbery and insisted security had been a priority during his tenure. Lawmakers pressed him on why vulnerabilities identified in earlier audits, including a 2019 review of the Galerie d’Apollon, were not addressed.
He acknowledged delays to a broader 54-million-euro security overhaul, with contracts “supposed to be launched in 2022.” When told his successor later judged the plan incomplete, Martinez replied: “I thought this plan was sufficient.”
