As President Trump heads back from his meeting with French President Emmanuel Macron, a number of Americans are sighing wistfully for the president we don’t have. Macron’s American admirers see in him everything that we lack in Trump: The new president is young, attractive, concerned about the climate and possesses commanding power in parliament. In short, Macron represents what Democrats here have lost. The French dodged their bullet; we didn’t. Macron stemmed the nationalist tide sweeping across Europe and restored order to the free world reeling after Brexit and Trump. Or so the story goes.

With Marine Le Pen’s National Front as the only alternative in the French runoff earlier this year, Macron was the right and necessary choice. Yet Americans should beware of developing too much of a love affair with France’s latest president: After all, Macron does not provide a truly progressive blueprint that we should or even could emulate here.

American liberals have been quick to embrace Macron. During France’s election, former president Barack Obama called and formally endorsed him. Painting this simply as an effort to stop Le Pen would be a half-truth: Obama reached out before the first round, where a more progressive candidate by the name of Jean-Luc Mélenchon would go on to win the youngest segment of the voting population. Obama was not opting for a lesser evil but an unabashed embrace of centrist politics. As political commentary Joy Ann Reid put it, “Macron found a way to thread the needle between far right and far left populism/socialism. He’s culturally liberal but economically pragmatic.” Neera Tanden, president of the Center for American Progress, was another visible leader in the Democratic establishment who argued that Macron provides a model for progressives here. Enthusiasm for him extended to the popular level. When Macron attended the G-7 Summit in late May, he ignited social media fan fiction over his “impossibly romantic first date” with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

[France’s Emmanuel Macron is about to expand his power in a most remarkable way]

At first, Macron’s liberal boosters seemed to be getting what they bargained for. Macron stood up against Trump, publicly airing his disagreement with him for pulling the United States out of the Paris climate accord while saying, “Make our planet great again.” There was his pre-emptive white-knuckled handshake with Trump which demonstrated firmness.

But look closer, and a much more complicated picture of Macron’s politics emerges. To start, he won the presidency with a weak mandate in an election in which over a third of French voters abstained or cast white ballots. His party En Marche! won an overwhelming majority in parliament only amid record-low turnout. This weak mandate, coupled with his effort to push through controversial labor reforms without debate in parliament, does not sound deeply democratic.

Macron, who took Trump to Napoleon Bonaparte’s tomb, has himself earned comparisons to the French emperor, something he doesn’t entirely seem to mind: He has previously said that France needs a king and Jupiter-like president. Macron has also given other offensive and sometimes utterly bizarre commentary. When he was recently asked if Africa would implement a Marshall Plan for Africa, he described Africa’s economic problems as “civilizational.” After the president skipped the traditional Bastille Day news conference, an administration source explained that Macron’s “complex thought process” didn’t lend itself to interviews with journalists.

[Macron is set to be one of the loudest anti-Trump voices in Europe]

Macron has emphasized tax cuts for businesses and limits on public spending. When the new French Prime Minister Édouard Philippe spoke to FT and was told that these were right-wing measures, Phillippe allegedly burst into laughter and responded, “Yes, what did you expect?” Macron has made a concerted effort to lure capital to France, particularly bankers leery of Brexit. When Macron speaks of revolutionizing and transforming France, in sounds more like a Silicon Valley-style neoliberalization than pro-worker reform that might benefit the poor and working class. Americans, at the very least, should that this has not been to solution to the plight of workers.

Depending on who you ask, Macron’s politics are either masterful compromise or the art of standing for everything and nothing at the same time. He spoke out against France’s colonial complicity in Algeria only to apologize after his comments caused an uproar. Regarding the Muslim burkini, Macron thinks the dress is not religious but ideological and opposed to gender equality. Still, he thinks it is wrong for police to forcibly remove burkinis. Yet again, he supports a partial ban. This is against a backdrop in which Macron has low regard for civil liberties — mosques can be closed if Macron’s Interior Ministry does not like what is said in them — and in which he plans to make France’s state of emergency permanent.

It is unclear whether Macron’s policies will bury the nationalist xenophobic current feeding on economic discontent or further it. Nevertheless, Democrats here should not look to him as the progressive model to emulate here. The Democratic establishment’s attraction to Macron is fueled by nostalgia for a bygone era. Lacking a successor to Obama, it is as if some now look to Macron to imagine an uninterrupted order in which the center is stable, and nothing has changed. But that world is gone now, and dreaming of France won’t bring it back.

Grandparents and other extended relatives are exempt from President Trump’s travel ban, a federal judge in Hawaii declared late Thursday, again stopping the administration from implementing the president’s controversial executive order in the way that it wants.

U.S. District Judge Derrick K. Watson wrote that the government’s “narrowly defined list” of who might be exempt was not supported by either the Supreme Court decision partially unfreezing the ban or by the law.

“Common sense, for instance, dictates that close family members be defined to include grandparents,” Watson wrote. “Indeed, grandparents are the epitome of close family members. The Government’s definition excludes them. That simply cannot be.”

Watson wrote that refugees with an assurance from a resettlement agency could also be exempt from the ban.

[Travel ban takes effect as State Department defines ‘close family’]

Which family members could visit under the travel ban View Graphic Which family members could visit under the travel ban

Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in a statement that Justice Department would “reluctantly return directly to the Supreme Court to again vindicate the rule of law and the Executive Branch’s duty to protect the nation.”

“Once again, we are faced with a situation in which a single federal district court has undertaken by a nationwide injunction to micromanage decisions of the co-equal Executive Branch related to our national security,” Sessions said. “By this decision, the district court has improperly substituted its policy preferences for the national security judgments of the Executive branch in a time of grave threats, defying both the lawful prerogatives of the Executive Branch and the directive of the Supreme Court.”

As of Friday afternoon, the Justice Department already had filed a “notice of appeal” — which lawyers view as a procedural step to help move the matter straight to the Supreme Court.

Justice Department lawyers believe that federal law allows as much and that the Supreme Court still has jurisdiction in the case to clarify the order it issued. There is also a Supreme Court rule that allows the justices to get involved before an appeals court rules if a case is “of such imperative public importance as to justify deviation from normal appellate practice and to require immediate determination in this Court.”

Department of Homeland Security and State Department spokesmen said their agencies were reviewing the decision with the Justice Department to work on implementation.

At issue is how far the administration can go in keeping relatives of U.S. residents out under the president’s travel ban, which temporarily bars entry for all refugees and the issuance of new visas to residents of six Muslim-majority countries.

The Supreme Court ruled late last month that the government could begin enforcing the measure, but not against those with “a credible claim of a bona fide relationship” with a person or entity in the United States.

The court offered only limited guidance on what type of relationship would qualify. “Close familial” relationships would count, the court said, as would ties such as a job offer or school acceptance letter that were “formal, documented, and formed in the ordinary course.”

The administration said it would let into the United States from the six affected countries parents, parents-in-law, siblings, spouses, children, sons and daughters, fiances, and sons-in-law and daughters-in-law of those already here.

Still banned, however, were grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, cousins, brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law. And the administration also said it would keep out refugees who had a formal assurance from a resettlement agency.

The state of Hawaii, which has been suing over the travel ban, soon asked Watson to intervene.

The district judge had initially ruled against Hawaii in the case, telling it to go straight to the Supreme Court. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit also rebuffed the state’s request, although it offered a way forward: Watson, the appeals court said, would have jurisdiction over a reframed request. Hawaii then filed such a request, setting up Watson’s ruling Thursday — which allows the entry of those the government had wanted to keep out.

Hawaii Attorney General Douglas S. Chin said in a statement: “The federal court today makes clear that the U.S. Government may not ignore the scope of the partial travel ban as it sees fit. Family members have been separated and real people have suffered enough. Courts have found that this Executive Order has no basis in stopping terrorism and is just a pretext for illegal and unconstitutional discrimination. We will continue preparing for arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court in October.”

The government had argued that it drew its definition of who counted as a close family member from immigration law. The ruling was a blow to the administration, although not the last word on the case.

Both those suing over the ban and the government lawyers defending it indicated earlier they thought the question of who could properly be kept out after the Supreme Court unfroze the ban was a matter destined for higher courts.

While the Supreme Court partially unfroze Trump’s travel ban, it did so only temporarily, indicating it would truly take up the case in the fall. By that time, the bans might have expired. The barring of new visas to those from six countries is supposed to last 90 days, and the barring of refugees is supposed to last 120 days.