Macrons Sue Candace Owens over “Becoming Brigitte” Trans Conspiracy
French President Emmanuel Macron and First Lady Brigitte Macron have launched a major defamation lawsuit in Delaware against U.S. conservative influencer Candace Owens. The 219-page complaint accuses Owens of publishing a sensational conspiracy theory that Brigitte Macron was “born male” and assumed her sister’s identity. This bold legal move spotlights deep tensions between defamation law, online misinformation, and First Amendment protections.
A Baseless and Explosive Allegation
In March 2024, Owens publicly claimed she would “stake [her] entire professional reputation” on Brigitte Macron having been born male. This incendiary narrative was repeated on social media, including a fake “Time Magazine Man of the Year” t-shirt, and notably amplified through an eight‑episode podcast titled Becoming Brigitte.
According to the lawsuit, Owens continued spreading these claims long after being presented with clear documentary proof—such as birth announcements and childhood photos—demonstrating that Brigitte was indeed female at birth.
The Complaint Details
Filed on July 23, 2025, in Delaware, the complaint enumerates 22 counts of defamation and “false light” against Owens. The Macrons argue that the influencer knowingly trafficked in falsehoods, including allegations of incest, rape, and CIA mind-control involvement, merely to boost her profile and revenue.
The complaint refers to evidence such as:
- Family documents– Birth records, childhood photos and announcements.
- Merchandise– The “Man of the Year” t‑shirt.
- Continued false claims – To reinforce and monetize conspiracies even after requests to retract them.
It contends that these statements have caused “global humiliation” and harmed the reputations of both Emmanuel and Brigitte Macron.
A Strategy of Truth and Duty
The Macrons’ legal team—led by Clare Locke—presents the lawsuit as a defensive battle for truth, not censorship. Their goal is to hold Owens accountable for spreading harmful falsehoods, despite repeated opportunities to retract her claims.
Thomas Clare, one of the lawyers, emphasized that this lawsuit represents “a last resort” after attempts to engage Owens caught no response. The decision to file in Delaware was strategic, reflecting the extensive and sustained nature of her campaign.
Owens Pushes Back
Far from backing down, Candace Owens has embraced the spotlight. On her podcast, she reiterated that the lawsuit itself is proof of her claims—citing Brigitte Macron as a “man” and suggesting the lawsuit is a form of “global elitist conspiracy”.
Owens has promised further episodes of Becoming Brigitte and even floated the possibility of deposing President Trump and questioning Brigitte under oath. She asserts that suing her only proves she hit a nerve.
Her spokesperson framed the case as a First Amendment battle, accusing the Macrons of attempting to “silence a journalist,” and vowed to fight in court.
Wider Repercussions
This lawsuit highlights several major issues:
- Misinformation crossing borders: False claims from U.S. platforms reaching international targets.
- Defamation in the digital age: How conspiracy theories can evolve into legal liability.
- Free speech vs. harmful rumors: Balancing First Amendment rights with protecting individuals from reputational harm.
Similar lawsuits in France—like cases against medium Amandine Roy and YouTuber Natacha Rey—have seen mixed verdicts. The Macrons are appealing one such decision to France’s highest court.
Why This Matters
This case is a watershed moment. For public figures, it offers a path to defend reputations tainted by global conspiracy narratives. For content creators, it serves as a warning that defamation in pursuit of attention could carry serious consequences—especially when targeted at foreign dignitaries.
Conclusion
Emmanuel and Brigitte Macron’s defamation lawsuit against Candace Owens represents a bold challenge to unchecked online conspiracies. It marks an intersection of legal accountability, international reputation, and digital-era speech.
As court proceedings unfold, this case may influence how defamation is handled globally, shaping future standards for online discourse and cross-border misinformation.
