In a significant legal development, French President Emmanuel Macron and his wife Brigitte have initiated a defamation lawsuit against prominent U.S. conservative influencer and commentator, Candace Owens. The legal action targets Owens’ repeated assertions that the First Lady of France was born male, referring to a well-documented conspiracy theory that has circulated within fringe circles for years. This lawsuit, filed in Delaware, aligns with the Macrons’ attempts to address and counter the allegations which they deem baseless and highly defamatory.
The Macrons allege that Owens has been spreading what they describe as “outrageous, defamatory, and far-fetched fictions” both on her popular podcast and throughout her various social media platforms. Particularly notable was a declaration made by Owens in March of 2024, where she boldly stated she would bet her “entire professional reputation” on the claim that Brigitte Macron “is in fact a man.” This assertion has not only drawn criticism for its outlandish nature but has also raised questions about the standards of content discussed within Owens’ media presence.
In response to the lawsuit, Owens dismissed the legal action on her podcast, referring to it as “goofy.” She further invoked sarcasm by labeling the defamation claim as an obvious “desperate public relations strategy” from the Macron couple. Such remarks indicate her intent to continue discussing the allegations and defending her narrative, positioning herself against what she perceives as undue pressure from the French leaders.
The controversy stems from a longstanding conspiracy theory asserting that Brigitte Macron was born male, purportedly named Jean-Michel Trogneux. This theory has been advanced by Owens to her significant online audience, which includes nearly seven million followers on the X platform (formerly known as Twitter). Earlier in 2024, Owens released a video series titled “Becoming Brigitte,” further propagating the claims.
In statements released through their legal counsel, the Macrons expressed that they had previously requested Owens to retract her claims on numerous occasions. Failing to receive a satisfactory response, they concluded that pursuing legal recourse was their only remaining option for resolution. Their statement characterized Owens’ actions as a deliberate campaign of defamation aimed at instigating pain and harassment towards them and those close to them. The couple emphasized that they provided Owens ample opportunities to retreat from her allegations, yet she persisted unapologetically.
The lawsuit not only accuses Owens of propagating false narratives but also contests her claims of familial relations between the Macrons, alongside the allegation that Emmanuel Macron was installed into his presidential office via a covert CIA conspiracy. Such accusations represent a blend of personal attacks intertwined with broader political conspiracy narratives, reflective of the contentious and polarized discourse surrounding public figures today.
Highlighting the implications of their lawsuit, it is crucial to note that under U.S. law, the Macrons must substantiate claims of “actual malice.” This legal standard requires proving that Owens acknowledged the falsity of her statements yet proceeded to disseminate them nonetheless. Earlier developments in related cases had seen a French court convict two individuals of libel for similar allegations against Brigitte Macron; however, those decisions were recently overturned, showcasing the complexities involved in navigating claims of defamation, especially across different jurisdictions.
Owens, who has a background in conservative media—previously associated with entities such as Turning Point and the Daily Wire—continues to attract attention for her controversial opinions. She has been vocal on various conspiracies beyond this case, making assertions regarding topics ranging from COVID-19 vaccines to historical events like the Holocaust and space exploration. This multifaceted approach to her brand has garnered both considerable acclaim and criticism, illustrating the considerable divide in public reactions to her and her content.
As the legal proceedings unfold, the implications could extend into broader discussions about defamation, media responsibility, and the dynamics of public perception in the realm of political influencers and public figures. The case between the Macrons and Owens symbolizes not just a personal dispute but rather highlights ongoing tensions within contemporary political discourse, particularly in an age where misinformation can rapidly disseminate through social media channels.
