Overview of the Lawsuit
Recently, French President Emmanuel Macron and his wife, Brigitte Macron, filed a defamation lawsuit in Delaware against U.S. conservative commentator Candace Owens. The central allegation? Owens has been pushing false claims—including that Brigitte Macron was born male, stole another’s identity, and that the couple are close blood relatives—which the Macrons argue have damaged their reputation worldwide Le Monde.fr+13AP News+13New York Post+13.
What Candace Owens Claimed
Owens promoted her claims through an eight-part podcast series titled “Becoming Brigitte”, as well as social media and merchandising efforts. She insisted Brigitte Macron was biologically male, and that uncovering this secret contributed significantly to her growing platform and financial gain ElHuffPost+5Politico+5The Times of India+5.
The Macrons’ Complaint
The 218‑page lawsuit outlines 22 counts of defamation, accusing Owens of orchestrating a deliberate campaign of “global humiliation.” According to their legal team, Owens ignored repeated demands to retract her statements, prompting the lawsuit as a last resort Omni+5Axios+5TIME+5.
Key points include:
- False and sensational allegations with no factual basis
- Monetizing the conspiracy through her podcast and merchandise
- Ignoring retraction requests, even after legal notice
Legal Foundations: U.S. Defamation Law
In the U.S., public figures like the Macrons must prove “actual malice”—i.e., Owens knowingly disseminated false information or acted with reckless disregard for the truth Wikipedia+15The Washington Post+15AP News+15YouTube+7DW News+7New York Post+7.
The Macrons are seeking punitive damages, pending a jury trial in Delaware, where Owens is based New York Post+9TIME+9Politico+9.
Owens’ Response
Unfazed, Owens and her team dismiss the lawsuit as a threat to her First Amendment rights. She has vowed not to withdraw her claims, calling the legal action “an obvious and desperate PR strategy” Politico+4TIME+4Al Jazeera+4.
Moreover, she claims her podcast and ongoing commentary are legitimate investigative journalism, questioning why this suit is portrayed as censure Axios+6Politico+6DW News+6.
Why This Lawsuit Matters
- Misinformation & Public Harm
- False allegations spurred a wave of international chatter and ridicule, harming reputation and trust DW NewsAP NewsThe Times of India.
- Accountability for Digital Influence
- Influencers with large followings are facing consequences for spreading baseless claims—echoing a shift toward digital accountability.
- Defining Speech Boundaries
- The case tests how free speech protection intersects with responsibility when personal reputations are at stake.
- Global Political Stakes
- A U.S. court now adjudicates a dispute involving foreign heads of state—an unusual scenario highlighting transnational tensions.
Broader Narrative in Owens’ Career
- Known for her MAGA‑aligned commentary, Owens has courted controversy for years Wikipedia+13Wikipedia+13The Daily Beast+13TIME+1The Times of India+1.
- Past remarks include minimizing Holocaust atrocities and conspiracy-laced content, which sparked criticism and consequences—such as her dismissal from The Daily Wire in March 2024 AP News+2Wikipedia+2Wikipedia+2.
- Previous defamation rulings in France have forced Owens and others to retract claims about Brigitte Macron—now the issue arrives in a U.S. courtroom Axios+12DW News+12AP News+12.
Possible Outcomes & Next Steps
- Courtroom showdown: The Macrons could win significant damages and force retractions.
- Free speech test: Owens may cite constitutional protections.
- Precedent setting: Verdicts could define how far influencers can push unverified content without legal liability.
Timeline of Events
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Jan–Mar 2024 | Owens releases “Becoming Brigitte” podcast series |
| 2021–2024 | French courts handle related domestic defamation cases (appealed) |
| Jul 23, 2025 | Macron lawsuit filed in Delaware Superior Court |
| Next Steps | Discovery, hearings, jury trial, and potential damages |
Concluding Insights
In sum, the Macrons’ defamation suit brings several important questions into focus:
- Can influencer speech be held legally accountable?
- How do courts balance free expression with factual integrity?
- What happens when national leaders take U.S. court action over personal smears?
This case thus holds implications for global politics, digital media responsibility, and the reach of U.S. defamation law. The coming months will reveal whether Owens must face legal consequences—or if she emerges as a symbol of unbridled speech rights.
