In a transatlantic legal strike, French President Emmanuel Macron and his wife Brigitte have filed a defamation lawsuit in Delaware against conservative U.S. commentator Candace Owens, accusing her of orchestrating a “global humiliation campaign” built on one extraordinary falsehood: that France’s First Lady is a man.
The lawsuit, rare in both scope and symbolism, charges Owens with spreading a conspiracy theory claiming Brigitte Macron was born “Jean-Michel Trogneux”—the name of her older brother. According to the complaint, this isn’t idle internet gossip but a calculated, high-velocity smear designed to stoke outrage, fuel a following, and harvest attention in the digital coliseum.
“This is not just defamation,” the lawsuit states. “This is a weaponized fiction parade, marching across borders, aimed directly at our family.”
Owens, predictably defiant, fired back on her own show, calling the lawsuit “factually off-base” and “nothing more than a PR stunt.” She claims she had no advance notice of the legal filing—despite her legal team reportedly exchanging communications with the Macrons’ attorneys for months.
Her camp is framing the suit as an assault on free speech. A spokesperson called it “a foreign government’s attempt to silence an American journalist.” They also claim Owens only pursued the story after repeated, ignored requests for an interview with Brigitte.
The Macrons say they gave Owens three chances to retract and correct her claims. She declined. Now they’re asking the U.S. courts to intervene—not only to defend their names, but to draw a line around what qualifies as legitimate political critique and what crosses into defamation theater.
Their lawsuit highlights a podcast series titled *Becoming Brigitte*—eight episodes packed with salacious speculation, including accusations that Brigitte assumed another’s identity, transitioned genders, and is related to her husband by blood. The Macrons’ complaint calls the content “verifiably false, malicious, and deeply injurious.”
The controversy traces back to 2021, when conspiracy chatter about Brigitte’s identity first went viral. That fire was later fanned by mentions on right-wing media giants like Joe Rogan and Tucker Carlson, further entrenching the tale among conservative circles.
Though Brigitte Macron won a related case last year in a French court against two women—including one who claimed to be a psychic—that ruling was recently overturned. She’s now appealing to France’s highest court.
Meanwhile, Owens is hardly a fringe figure. With over 6.9 million followers on X and 4.5 million subscribers on YouTube, her reach rivals that of mainstream networks. *Becoming Brigitte* has already racked up more than 2.3 million views.
But in the U.S., defamation law presents a steep hill for public figures. To succeed, the Macrons must prove “actual malice”—that Owens either knew her claims were false or had a reckless disregard for their truth. It’s the same legal gauntlet that former President Donald Trump has attempted to navigate in his own high-profile lawsuits against media outlets.
Yet this is no ordinary spat. It’s a modern morality play about the limits of free speech, the consequences of viral conspiracy, and the ways global figures must now defend their dignity not just in parliament or press briefings—but in YouTube comment sections and Delaware courtrooms.
The case is docketed as *Macron et al. v. Owens et al*, Delaware Superior Court, No. N25C-07-194.
