Macrons Sue US Commentator Candace Owens for Defamation Over Gender Claims
Published 23 July 2025
Highlights
- French President Emmanuel Macron and his wife Brigitte have filed a defamation lawsuit against US commentator Candace Owens in Delaware.
- Owens has repeatedly claimed that Brigitte Macron was born male, a conspiracy theory she has spread through her podcast and social media.
- The Macrons have sought retractions from Owens, but she has continued to mock them and escalate her claims.
- The lawsuit accuses Owens of spreading falsehoods for personal gain and demands unspecified damages.
- Under US law, the Macrons must prove "actual malice" to succeed in their defamation case.
-
Rewritten Article
Headline: Macrons Sue US Commentator Candace Owens for Defamation Over Gender Claims
French President Emmanuel Macron and his wife, Brigitte, have initiated legal proceedings against US right-wing commentator Candace Owens, alleging defamation. The lawsuit, filed in Delaware, accuses Owens of disseminating false claims that Brigitte Macron was born male, among other conspiracy theories.
Allegations and Legal Action
Owens, a prominent figure in conservative media, has repeatedly asserted on her podcast and social media channels that Brigitte Macron was born under the name Jean-Michel Trogneux, a claim linked to a long-standing conspiracy theory. Despite the Macrons' repeated requests for retractions, Owens has continued to promote these allegations, even stating she would stake her "entire professional reputation" on their veracity.
The lawsuit, filed on Wednesday, describes Owens' actions as a "campaign of defamation" aimed at increasing her media presence and financial gain. It also accuses her of making further baseless claims, such as alleging that the Macrons are blood relatives and that Emmanuel Macron's presidency is the result of a CIA plot.
Impact and Response
The Macrons have expressed that these falsehoods have caused significant distress and reputational damage, turning their lives into "fodder for profit-driven lies." They have incurred considerable expenses in efforts to correct the public record. "Every time the Macrons leave their home, they do so knowing that countless people have heard, and many believe, these vile fabrications," the lawsuit states.
Owens, who has a substantial following on platforms like X, has dismissed the lawsuit as a "desperate public relations strategy" and has vowed to continue addressing the matter on her show. Her spokesperson confirmed that Owens is "not shutting up."
Legal Context
The Macrons are represented by Clare Locke, a law firm known for handling high-profile defamation cases, including the Dominion lawsuit against Fox News. To succeed in their case, the Macrons must demonstrate "actual malice," meaning Owens knowingly spread false information.
-
Scenario Analysis
The outcome of this lawsuit could have significant implications for public figures seeking to combat misinformation and defamation. If the Macrons succeed, it may set a precedent for holding media personalities accountable for spreading falsehoods. Conversely, a loss could embolden commentators to continue making unsubstantiated claims without fear of legal repercussions. Legal experts suggest that the case will hinge on the ability to prove Owens acted with "actual malice," a challenging standard in US defamation law. As the case unfolds, it will likely attract considerable attention, given the high-profile nature of the individuals involved and the broader implications for media accountability.
French President Emmanuel Macron and his wife, Brigitte, have initiated legal proceedings against US right-wing commentator Candace Owens, alleging defamation. The lawsuit, filed in Delaware, accuses Owens of disseminating false claims that Brigitte Macron was born male, among other conspiracy theories.
Allegations and Legal Action
Owens, a prominent figure in conservative media, has repeatedly asserted on her podcast and social media channels that Brigitte Macron was born under the name Jean-Michel Trogneux, a claim linked to a long-standing conspiracy theory. Despite the Macrons' repeated requests for retractions, Owens has continued to promote these allegations, even stating she would stake her "entire professional reputation" on their veracity.
The lawsuit, filed on Wednesday, describes Owens' actions as a "campaign of defamation" aimed at increasing her media presence and financial gain. It also accuses her of making further baseless claims, such as alleging that the Macrons are blood relatives and that Emmanuel Macron's presidency is the result of a CIA plot.
Impact and Response
The Macrons have expressed that these falsehoods have caused significant distress and reputational damage, turning their lives into "fodder for profit-driven lies." They have incurred considerable expenses in efforts to correct the public record. "Every time the Macrons leave their home, they do so knowing that countless people have heard, and many believe, these vile fabrications," the lawsuit states.
Owens, who has a substantial following on platforms like X, has dismissed the lawsuit as a "desperate public relations strategy" and has vowed to continue addressing the matter on her show. Her spokesperson confirmed that Owens is "not shutting up."
Legal Context
The Macrons are represented by Clare Locke, a law firm known for handling high-profile defamation cases, including the Dominion lawsuit against Fox News. To succeed in their case, the Macrons must demonstrate "actual malice," meaning Owens knowingly spread false information.
What this might mean
The outcome of this lawsuit could have significant implications for public figures seeking to combat misinformation and defamation. If the Macrons succeed, it may set a precedent for holding media personalities accountable for spreading falsehoods. Conversely, a loss could embolden commentators to continue making unsubstantiated claims without fear of legal repercussions. Legal experts suggest that the case will hinge on the ability to prove Owens acted with "actual malice," a challenging standard in US defamation law. As the case unfolds, it will likely attract considerable attention, given the high-profile nature of the individuals involved and the broader implications for media accountability.
