French President Emmanuel Macron and First Lady Brigitte Macron File Defamation Lawsuit Against Candace Owens

On July 23, 2025, French President Emmanuel Macron and his wife, First Lady Brigitte Macron, filed a high-profile defamation lawsuit against American conservative commentator Candace Owens in Delaware Superior Court. The 22-count complaint accuses Owens of orchestrating a deliberate campaign of falsehoods, alleging that she spread baseless and damaging claims about the couple, including assertions that Brigitte Macron was born male, stole another person’s identity, and that the Macrons are engaged in an incestuous relationship. The lawsuit seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages and demands a jury trial, marking a significant escalation in the couple’s efforts to combat what they describe as a “global campaign of humiliation.”

The Allegations

The Macrons’ lawsuit centers on a series of claims promoted by Owens through her popular podcast, “Becoming Brigitte,” and across her social media platforms, including X, where she has 6.9 million followers, and YouTube, where her channel boasts over 4.5 million subscribers. The complaint details several specific allegations made by Owens, which it labels as “outlandish, defamatory, and far-fetched fictions”:

• Claim of Transgender Identity: Owens repeatedly asserted that Brigitte Macron was born male under the name Jean-Michel Trogneux, her brother’s name, and later transitioned to female. She further claimed that Brigitte stole the identity of another woman to conceal her supposed male birth.
• Incest Allegations: Owens alleged that Emmanuel and Brigitte Macron are blood relatives engaged in an incestuous relationship.
• Conspiracy Theories: The lawsuit highlights Owens’ claims that Emmanuel Macron was installed as France’s president through a CIA-operated mind-control program, portraying him as a puppet of foreign interests.

The Macrons’ legal team, led by Tom Clare of Clare Locke LLP, argues that these claims are not only false but were made with “actual malice,” a legal standard for defamation cases involving public figures in the United States. The complaint asserts that Owens knowingly disregarded evidence disproving her allegations, including public records and prior legal rulings in France, to profit from the controversy and boost her public profile.

The Macrons’ Response

The lawsuit details the severe impact of Owens’ claims on the Macrons, stating that they caused “tremendous damage” to their reputations and subjected them to global ridicule. The couple sent three formal demands for retraction to Owens, which she either ignored or mocked publicly, further fueling the controversy. One such response from Owens, cited in the complaint, saw her dismiss the demands as “goofy” and an attempt to silence her free speech.

The Macrons’ legal action in the U.S. follows Brigitte Macron’s prior efforts to combat similar rumors in France. In 2022, she successfully pursued a libel case against two French women who spread claims that she was born male. That case resulted in a conviction, but the ruling was overturned on appeal in July 2025, with the French appeals court citing “good faith” on the part of the defendants. That case is now pending before France’s highest court, the Cour de Cassation.

Owens’ Defense

Candace Owens, known for her provocative commentary and history of promoting conspiracy theories, has shown no intention of backing down. In response to the lawsuit, she took to X to call the legal action an attempt to “bully” her and infringe on her First Amendment rights as an American journalist. Owens pointed to the French appeals court ruling as evidence supporting her claims, arguing that the court’s decision to overturn the 2022 libel conviction validates her narrative. Her spokesperson issued a statement declaring, “Candace is not shutting up,” and announced that she would address the lawsuit on her podcast.

Owens’ allegations about Brigitte Macron first gained traction in March 2024, when she released a now-deleted YouTube video and dedicated a podcast series to the topic. These claims, rooted in fringe conspiracy theories that emerged in 2021, have been amplified by her large online following. Owens has a track record of promoting controversial narratives, including debunked theories about COVID-19 vaccines and inflammatory comments about the Holocaust, which led to Australia denying her a visa in 2024.

Legal and Cultural Context

The Macrons’ decision to file the lawsuit in Delaware, rather than France, reflects the global reach of Owens’ platform and the couple’s intent to hold her accountable in a jurisdiction where she operates. Defamation cases in the U.S. are notoriously difficult for public figures to win due to the “actual malice” standard, which requires proof that the defendant knowingly made false statements or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. The Macrons’ legal team appears confident in meeting this threshold, citing Owens’ refusal to retract her claims despite being presented with evidence to the contrary.

The lawsuit also highlights broader issues of misinformation and the role of social media in amplifying harmful narratives. Owens’ ability to reach millions through her podcast and X posts underscores the challenges public figures face in combating false information in the digital age. For the Macrons, the case is not only about personal vindication but also about setting a precedent against what they describe as a “malicious campaign” driven by profit and sensationalism.

What’s Next?

As the lawsuit moves forward, it is likely to draw significant attention both in the U.S. and internationally, given the high-profile nature of the parties involved. The Macrons are seeking a jury trial, which could lead to a public airing of evidence and arguments on both sides. For Owens, the case represents a test of her ability to defend her claims under U.S. defamation law, which offers robust protections for free speech but also allows for accountability in cases of deliberate falsehoods.

The outcome of the lawsuit could have implications for how public figures address online defamation and the responsibilities of influencers like Owens, who wield significant influence over their audiences. For now, the legal battle between the Macrons and Owens promises to be a contentious and closely watched affair, with both sides firmly entrenched in their positions.