DELEWARE – The legal battle between Candace Owens and the French First Family takes a surprising turn as a heavyweight attorney leaves the defense team.
Marc Kasowitz, one of America’s most prominent trial lawyers and a long-time attorney for Donald Trump, has officially withdrawn from representing conservative commentator Candace Owens. Owens is currently fighting a massive defamation lawsuit filed by French President Emmanuel Macron and First Lady Brigitte Macron.
The sudden departure of Kasowitz leaves Owens facing a highly complex international legal battle without one of the country’s most aggressive litigators in her corner. The move also adds another layer of drama to a lawsuit that is already capturing global attention.
A Shocking Legal Shakeup
Kasowitz filed a formal notice of withdrawal in a Delaware court on April 21, 2026. Before his exit, he served as a key figure on Owens’ defense team. His law firm, Kasowitz Benson Torres, is known for handling high-stakes corporate litigation, and Kasowitz himself built a reputation as a fierce defender of Donald Trump during various legal challenges.
The exact internal reasons for the split between Kasowitz and Owens remain private. However, the timing coincides with a messy public feud between Owens and fellow conservative media personality Laura Loomer.
In the days leading up to the withdrawal, Loomer launched a series of social media attacks against Owens. Loomer highlighted the fact that Owens—who frequently uses her platform to heavily criticize Jewish people and Zionism—had hired a prominent Jewish lawyer with close ties to Trump. Loomer publicly took credit for Kasowitz leaving the case, claiming her posts exposed the stark hypocrisy of the working relationship.
While the court documents do not confirm Loomer’s narrative, the withdrawal of Kasowitz marks a significant shakeup in how Owens will fight the charges moving forward.
The Defamation Lawsuit: Macron vs. Owens
To understand why this legal team change matters, you have to look at the sheer size and scope of the lawsuit. In July 2025, Emmanuel and Brigitte Macron took the rare step of suing an American podcaster in a US court.
They filed a 219-page complaint in Delaware, accusing Owens of launching a campaign of global humiliation. The core issue revolves around a baseless internet conspiracy theory claiming that Brigitte Macron was born a biological male.
Instead of treating the rumor as fringe internet gossip, Owens amplified it to her millions of followers. She stated publicly that she would stake her entire professional reputation on the claim that the French First Lady is a man.
The Macrons decided they had seen enough. According to The Guardian, the lawsuit argues that Owens engaged in an ongoing, malicious attack to boost her own fame and line her pockets. World leaders rarely sue members of the media, making this a historic test of how far online commentators can go before facing severe legal consequences.
The “Becoming Brigitte” Series
The conflict escalated long before the lawsuit was officially filed. In late 2024, lawyers representing the Macrons sent Owens a detailed letter demanding she retract her statements. The letter included hard evidence proving Brigitte Macron’s identity, including birth announcements and photos of her youth.
Owens did not back down. Instead, she used the legal threat as content. She launched an eight-part podcast series called “Becoming Brigitte.” During these episodes, she doubled down on her claims and wove an even larger narrative, suggesting a massive cover-up involving the French government.
The origins of this specific conspiracy theory did not start with Owens. It first gained traction in France through a self-proclaimed clairvoyant and an amateur online detective. The Macrons actually pursued legal action against those individuals in France, initially securing libel convictions that were later overturned on a technicality, a decision currently being appealed.
Candace Owens took this localized European rumor and repackaged it for a massive American audience, effectively giving the false story a second life on a global scale.
The lawsuit claims Owens aggressively monetized this series. She sold merchandise, including shirts featuring Brigitte Macron on a fake magazine cover calling her “Man of the Year.” The Macrons argue this proves Owens was not acting as a journalist making an honest mistake, but as an entertainer profiting off deliberate lies.
The Core Allegations Against Candace Owens
The Macrons have outlined several specific grievances in their lawsuit. Their legal team, which includes a firm famous for winning major defamation settlements, has built a case around these key points:
- Spreading Fabricated Stories: The central claim is that Owens knowingly broadcast the false rumor that Brigitte Macron transitioned from male to female.
- Ignoring Hard Evidence: Owens allegedly received concrete proof disproving her claims but chose to ignore it and continue her broadcasts.
- Monetizing the Controversy: The lawsuit highlights how Owens used the dispute to sell merchandise, drive podcast subscriptions, and elevate her personal brand.
- Relentless Harassment: The Macrons argue that Owens’ constant attacks have forced them to spend significant money clearing their names while dealing with daily public humiliation.
- Malicious Intent: To win a defamation case in the United States, public figures must prove “actual malice.” The Macrons claim Owens knew she was lying or acted with reckless disregard for the truth just to get clicks.
The Challenge of Proving Defamation
Defamation law in the United States heavily favors free speech. Because the Macrons are world leaders, they are classified as public figures. This means they cannot just prove that Owens said something false; they must clear the high hurdle of actual malice.
However, the Macrons are bringing serious legal firepower to the fight. They hired Clare Locke LLP, a law firm widely recognized for securing massive payouts in high-profile defamation battles. The detailed complaint shows they are ready to go to trial and present evidence that Owens ignored the truth for financial gain.
Owens remains publicly defiant. Following the lawsuit’s filing, she took to her podcast to laugh off the legal threat. As reported by Time Magazine, she called the lawsuit a catastrophic public relations strategy by the French government. She told her audience that she is an independent journalist exercising her First Amendment rights and accused the Macrons of trying to bully her into silence.
What Happens Next for Candace Owens?
With Marc Kasowitz out of the picture, Owens is now relying on her remaining legal counsel from firms based in Delaware and elsewhere. Her current strategy is not focused entirely on defending her speech. Instead, her lawyers have filed motions to dismiss the case based on technicalities, arguing issues with court jurisdiction and the statute of limitations.
If the judge rejects those motions, Owens could find herself sitting in a courtroom facing the President of France. The Macrons have reportedly stated they are willing to travel to Delaware to testify in person if the case goes to trial.
This lawsuit serves as a major warning sign for the modern media landscape. It tests the boundaries between opinion podcasting and illegal defamation. It also highlights the real-world consequences of treating wild internet theories as factual news.
As the legal deadlines approach, all eyes will be on how Candace Owens adapts her defense strategy without one of America’s top trial lawyers by her side. The outcome of this case could reshape how public figures fight back against viral online rumors for years to come.
