The President of France, Emmanuel Macron, along with his wife Brigitte Macron, has officially filed a defamation lawsuit against prominent American conservative media personality, Candace Owens. The legal action was submitted in the Delaware Superior Court, marking a significant escalation in the ongoing controversy surrounding online misinformation and cross-border defamation claims.
According to the court filing, the lawsuit accuses Owens of spreading “knowingly false and defamatory statements” about Brigitte Macron’s gender identity, alleging that Owens publicly claimed the French First Lady was born male. These assertions, the suit argues, were made by Owens in an effort to sensationalize her online platforms, boost podcast engagement, and attract attention on social media.
The Macrons, citing damage to their reputation and mental well-being, are reportedly seeking unspecified damages from Owens. Legal experts suggest the case could potentially set a precedent for how international defamation lawsuits involving public figures and digital commentary are handled in U.S. courts.
In response to the lawsuit, Candace Owens has come out publicly to defend her actions, framing the legal action as a deliberate attempt by the French First Couple to “silence dissent and stifle free speech.” She maintains that she was merely questioning public narratives and claims to have presented “evidence” to support her commentary — including references to Brigitte Macron’s brother, Jean-Michel Trogneux, a figure she suggests holds relevance to the rumors in question.
Owens insists that her commentary falls under protected free speech in the United States and accuses the Macrons of targeting her due to her political beliefs and influence among conservative audiences.
Legal analysts say that if the Delaware Superior Court finds in favor of the Macrons, Candace Owens could be compelled to issue a public apology, face significant financial penalties, and may be ordered to remove or retract any content related to the false claims. Such an outcome could have broader implications for content creators and political commentators navigating the fine line between opinion and defamation.
The case continues to draw widespread media attention, raising questions about the limits of free speech, online accountability, and the responsibilities of public figures in the digital age. It also underscores the increasing reach and consequences of misinformation in an era of viral media.