DELEWARE – French President Emmanuel Macron and his wife, Brigitte Macron, have filed a major defamation lawsuit against US commentator Candace Owens over her exposé becoming Brigitte in Delaware.
The 218-page filing accuses Owens of running a “campaign of global humiliation,” targeting Brigitte Macron with false claims that she was born male. The suit includes 22 counts covering defamation, false light, and defamation.
The Lawsuit alleges Owens spread these stories to promote her podcast Becoming Brigitte and profit from her large online following: nearly 7 million on X and 4.5 million on YouTube.
Filed on July 23, 2025, the case marks a dramatic moment in a dispute that began on minor internet forums but has grown into a high-profile international legal fight.
The Macrons are now at odds with an outspoken US influencer, forcing a conversation about the limits of free speech, defamation across borders, and the responsibilities of public figures.
While Owens’ lawyers argue the suit is a foreign attempt to silence an American journalist, the Macrons’ aggressive stance and refusal to release certain evidence leave lingering questions and fuel online conspiracies.
Macrons Defamation Claims
According to the lawsuit, Owens began publicly asserting in March 2024 that Brigitte Macron, 72, was born male under the name Jean-Michel Trogneux, who is her brother. These allegations featured prominently in Owens’ eight-part YouTube series Becoming Brigitte, which drew over 2.3 million views.
The series also accused the Macrons of being blood relatives, identity theft, and suggested Emmanuel Macron’s rise to power was the result of a US mind-control plot.
The Macrons claim Owens made these statements knowing they were false, meeting the strict “actual malice” standard in US law, which requires proof that Owens either lied knowingly or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.
The suit describes the harm the couple has faced, including constant public insults and an intrusion into their lives. “Every time the Macrons leave their home, they do so knowing that countless people have heard, and many believe, these vile fabrications,” the complaint says.
Their attorney, Tom Clare of Clare Locke LLP, who previously worked on the Dominion Voting Systems case, calls this suit “a clear-cut case of defamation.” Clare says Owens dismissed solid evidence disproving her story and continued to produce content and merchandise that kept the rumours alive.
Owens’ Response and First Amendment Arguments
Candace Owens has responded with characteristic boldness, dismissing the lawsuit as “goofy” and a shallow publicity move. During a livestream on July 23, she doubled down on her attacks, calling Brigitte Macron the “First Lady man of France.”
Owens’ spokesperson asserts that this is an illegal effort by a foreign government to threaten the First Amendment rights of a US journalist.
“Candace repeatedly requested an interview with Brigitte Macron. Instead of talking, Brigitte tries to bully a reporter into silence. In France, politicians bully the press, but this is America.”
Owens and her legal team look forward to discovery, aiming to question Brigitte Macron under oath and, according to them, get to the truth in court. Owens promises her supporters that she will see the Macrons in court and that the process may reveal even more about the couple.
Owen’s defence is based strongly on her freedom of speech as protected in the US. Public figures like the Macrons have a tough standard to meet. Legal analysts note that because Owens is more of a commentator than a traditional reporter, her work blends opinion and fact, which could work in her favour.
Her team insists that even harsh opinions and speculation are protected by law, given the Macrons’ high profile. Since Owens’ businesses are registered in Delaware, that state’s courts—known for protecting speech—will hear the case.
Experts Weigh in on the Suit and Possible Motives
This lawsuit has divided legal experts. Some believe it’s a weak or even “frivolous” effort designed more to protect the Macrons’ reputation than to win in court. Three top US defamation lawyers, speaking off the record, expressed doubts about whether the Macrons could prove actual malice.
One noted, “Owens can say she relied on French sources, even bad ones, and that could protect her.” Another called the case a “face-saving effort” and argued that the Macrons’ refusal to answer Owens’ requests for comment may hurt their position.
A third expert labelled the case “partially frivolous,” highlighting that the high number of accusations and the demand for damages may be more about intimidation and publicity than about justice.
“Filing in Delaware looks like a stunt,” said the expert, “and could end up helping Owens by giving her a platform during discovery.”
Other lawyers point out that the Macrons have carefully documented their attempts to get retractions from Owens and could prevail if they prove she ignored solid evidence. Since Owens has millions of followers, the couple argues, the personal impact is enormous.
French Lawsuits and Accusations of Overreach
This is not the Macrons’ first attempt to tackle these claims. In France, Brigitte Macron has filed lawsuits against two women, Amandine Roy and Natacha Rey, for spreading similar stories online. In late 2021, the two posted a viral video claiming Brigitte was born male.
A French court convicted them of libel in September 2024, ordering damages, but in July 2025, an appeals court overturned the decision, saying that the pair acted in “good faith.” Brigitte Macron is now appealing that decision to a higher court.
The treatment of Roy and Rey has raised concerns. Natacha Rey, who is reportedly battling cancer, has faced intense legal and police pressure that many see as excessive.
French journalists and activists argue that the Macrons’ focus on these individuals, who have limited resources, threatens press freedom and could discourage open discussion. As one Paris-based journalist put it, “It looks like the Macrons are trying to silence critics rather than address the claims.
Targeting a cancer patient doesn’t help their case, especially when a court already said the allegations were made in good faith.”
Owens has pointed to the appeals court’s ruling as evidence supporting her case, saying the Macrons have switched tactics after failing to win in France. But that leaves out the fact that the ruling focused on good faith, not the truth of the claims.
A Persistent Question: The Missing Proof
A key point in this story is Brigitte Macron’s refusal to release photos, medical documents, or other evidence that could end the rumours for good. The Macrons say they provided Owens with credible information, but have not made it public.
Critics argue that a simple birth certificate or old photos could clear things up quickly. Owens raised this issue again during her recent live stream, and many of her supporters on X agree.
Macron’s lawyers argue public figures should not have to reveal private records just to refute baseless attacks. The lawsuit notes that Brigitte had three children in her first marriage as further proof of her biological sex.
Still, the lack of clear evidence has allowed conspiracy theories to grow even as the couple fights to clear their name in court. The Macrons’ lawsuit situates Owens’ claims within this toxic pattern, accusing her of using gender stereotypes and bigotry for profit and attention.
Owens and her supporters push back, saying she is simply conducting real journalism by investigating these allegations. They point to her use of sources from France, like Natacha Rey, whose claims have not been fully disproven in public.
The recent appeals court ruling in France, they argue, supports their right to discuss unproven stories as long as they act in good faith, which blurs the Macrons’ position as clear-cut victims.
What’s Next: A Case with International Impact
The Delaware case guarantees further debate about the role of social media, the boundaries of speech, and how reputations are protected or damaged worldwide.
If the Macrons win, it could set an example for public figures seeking recourse against false claims made by global influencers. If Owens wins, it would reaffirm broad speech protections for American commentators and raise questions about how far defamation law should go in an era of viral rumours.
Macron’s decision to avoid interviews with Owens or release decisive evidence may be strategic, but it has fed doubts online. At the same time, French authorities’ tough handling of smaller players like Natacha Rey and Amandine Roy has alarmed many about the state of press freedom in France.
As the court proceedings continue, the conflict will highlight the tension between privacy, reputation, and free speech in the age of internet-driven conspiracy theories. The outcome will shape the future of defamation law—on both sides of the Atlantic.
