The French presidential couple has initiated legal proceedings in response to what they describe as a campaign of falsehoods and malicious defamation. President Emmanuel Macron and First Lady Brigitte Macron have filed a defamation lawsuit in a Delaware court against right-wing American media personality Candace Owens.
The legal action, filed on Wednesday, follows repeated unsubstantiated claims made by Owens that Brigitte Macron does not actually exist and is, in fact, President Macron’s brother, Jean-Michel, who allegedly transitioned into a woman. According to the lawsuit, these assertions have been made without any evidence and have caused significant harm to the couple’s reputation.
The suit alleges that “global humiliation” and serious reputational damage resulted from Owens’ continued promotion of the theory, despite being asked on three separate occasions to issue a retraction.
In addition to questioning Brigitte Macron’s identity, Owens is also accused of making even more inflammatory claims—suggesting, without proof, that the Macrons are blood relatives involved in an incestuous relationship, and that President Macron was chosen to be part of a secret CIA mind-control experiment.
These conspiracy-laden assertions have reportedly gained traction within fringe circles, including far-right groups, COVID-19 skeptics, and online conspiracy theorists. Owens is said to have amplified these claims in an eight-part podcast series, further broadening their reach and deepening the alleged harm to the Macrons’ public image.
Earlier in the year, Brigitte Macron pursued legal action against two French women who propagated a similar theory, claiming she was born male. While a French court initially ruled in her favor, that decision was recently overturned on appeal. The case is now being escalated to France’s highest court of appeal.
The lawsuit filed in the United States marks an international expansion of the Macrons’ legal battle to counter what they argue is a sustained and defamatory narrative with no factual basis. As the case unfolds, it is likely to further test the limits of free speech, defamation law, and the global reach of online misinformation.
