In a move that has drawn international attention and reignited debates around defamation, free speech, and online conspiracies, French President Emmanuel Macron and his wife Brigitte Macron have filed a defamation lawsuit against American right-wing commentator and influencer Candace Owens.
The legal complaint, filed in the U.S. state of Delaware, seeks to address a series of persistent and deeply personal allegations made by Owens on her podcast and social media platforms — most notably, the claim that Brigitte Macron was born male.
This development marks a rare but serious diplomatic and legal escalation between a sitting head of state and a U.S.-based media figure. It also places Candace Owens, a controversial personality with millions of followers, squarely in the legal crosshairs of France’s first couple, who say they have had enough of the “harassment and pain” caused by a conspiracy theory that has lingered on the fringes of the internet for years.
A Conspiracy Theory Goes Mainstream
The central allegation made by Candace Owens — that Brigitte Macron was born male and transitioned to female under the name Jean-Michel Trogneux — has circulated in obscure online spaces since 2021. The theory claims that Brigitte’s brother, Jean-Michel, is in fact her original identity and that the Macron family has participated in a cover-up of epic proportions.
Despite being debunked by mainstream media, fact-checkers, and credible sources in France, the theory persisted, albeit largely in the shadows. What changed in recent months is the volume and amplification provided by Candace Owens, who brought the conspiracy theory into broader public discourse via her widely followed podcast and social media.
In March 2024, Owens escalated her claims dramatically, stating that she would “stake her entire professional reputation” on the belief that Brigitte Macron is “in fact a man.” Owens’ statement was not presented as satire or mere speculation, but as a declaration of conviction, repeated across multiple platforms.
Read : What Is Subconjunctival Hemorrhage That King Charles Suffered During Macron’s State Visit?
Her podcast series “Becoming Brigitte” further explored and promoted these claims, including interviews with known conspiracy theorists and content that the Macrons’ legal team now argue constitutes deliberate defamation. Owens also alleged that President Macron and his wife are blood relatives and that his rise to power was orchestrated by a covert CIA operation — further stretching the bounds of believability, according to the lawsuit.
The Macrons, after multiple attempts to get Owens to retract her statements, say they had no choice but to pursue legal action. In their statement, released through their attorneys, they noted: “Ms Owens’ campaign of defamation was plainly designed to harass and cause pain to us and our families and to garner attention and notoriety. We gave her every opportunity to back away from these claims, but she refused.”
Legal Battle on Foreign Soil
The lawsuit filed in Delaware not only targets Owens personally but also includes her Delaware-based media companies. It seeks unspecified damages and accuses her of acting with “actual malice,” a standard that U.S. law requires for public figures to successfully prove defamation. To meet this threshold, the Macrons will have to show that Owens knew her statements were false or recklessly disregarded the truth.
Legal analysts note that while it is unusual for foreign leaders to sue American citizens for defamation in U.S. courts, it is not without precedent. The decision to file the case in Delaware may be strategic, as the state has jurisdiction over Owens’ companies and is known for its business-friendly legal environment.
The Macrons’ decision to seek legal recourse in the U.S. rather than in France may also stem from a recent setback in the French judicial system. In September, a French court found two women guilty of libel for promoting the same conspiracy theory about Brigitte Macron, but that ruling was overturned on appeal earlier this month. The reversal may have prompted the Macrons to seek a venue where Owens can be held accountable under stricter defamation standards, and where her media companies can be directly implicated.
In response to the lawsuit, Owens released an episode of her podcast in which she dismissed the lawsuit as “goofy” and accused the Macrons of engaging in a “desperate public relations strategy.” Rather than backpedaling, she doubled down on her claims, continuing to challenge Brigitte Macron’s gender identity and portraying herself as a victim of censorship and political intimidation.
This reaction has been consistent with Owens’ broader public persona, which thrives on provocation, controversy, and conspiracies. Before launching her independent podcast in 2024, she was affiliated with conservative media outlet Daily Wire and the student organization Turning Point USA. Her influence in the conservative media ecosystem remains significant, with nearly 7 million followers on X and a growing podcast audience.
Beyond Brigitte: A Pattern of Disinformation
Candace Owens is no stranger to controversial, and often baseless, claims. Over the years, she has questioned the veracity of the COVID-19 pandemic response, cast doubt on the Holocaust, and implied that the moon landing was staged. These statements have cemented her status as a provocateur but have also led to her being widely criticized and labeled as a conspiracy theorist.
In the case of the Macrons, the defamation suit marks a particularly personal affront. Brigitte Macron, a former schoolteacher, has rarely engaged in political debate and has generally kept a low profile. The false narrative about her gender not only affects her dignity and privacy but also has potential implications for her family, including her children from a previous marriage. The Macrons argue that Owens’ campaign is not just about free speech or political critique — it’s about sustained, intentional character assassination.
The lawsuit further alleges that Owens ignored clear evidence refuting her claims and instead “platformed known conspiracy theorists and proven defamers.” It also contends that her actions were calculated to drive traffic and attention to her podcast, regardless of the emotional damage caused to real people.
While some of Owens’ supporters frame this as a free speech issue, legal scholars emphasize that the First Amendment does not protect knowingly false statements made with malicious intent. In cases involving public figures, courts have traditionally protected satire, criticism, and even harsh commentary. But when statements cross into the realm of knowingly disseminating falsehoods with the intent to harm, plaintiffs may have a viable defamation case.
There is also a broader social context to consider. The targeting of women — particularly those in public life — with false claims about gender identity is part of a disturbing trend. Accusations that prominent women are secretly men or transgender have been used to demean, discredit, and dehumanize, often wrapped in layers of misogyny and transphobia. For the Macrons, the stakes are higher than just reputational damage — the lawsuit is a defense of their dignity and a pushback against what they see as a coordinated online harassment campaign.
The defamation suit filed by Emmanuel and Brigitte Macron against Candace Owens represents a significant collision between international politics, social media influence, and the legal boundaries of free speech. It underscores how conspiracy theories once relegated to obscure corners of the internet can now be thrust into global spotlight by influencers with massive audiences.
Whether the lawsuit will be successful in a U.S. court remains to be seen, especially given the high bar set for proving actual malice. But regardless of the outcome, the case sends a clear message: that public figures — even those at the highest levels of government — are increasingly willing to fight back against digital defamation and disinformation. For Owens, it could be a defining moment in her career, testing not only her beliefs but the limits of provocation as a media strategy.
In an age where misinformation can go viral within minutes, the case serves as a sobering reminder of the real-world consequences that can follow online falsehoods — for both the subjects of those claims and the people who make them.