French President Emmanuel Macron and his wife Brigitte Macron have filed a defamation lawsuit against right-wing American podcaster, Candace Owens, over false claims about Brigitte Macron’s gender and other conspiracy theories. Here are the key details:
📌 Core Allegations by Owens.
– Gender Identity Claims:
Owens repeatedly asserted that Brigitte Macron was born male under the name Jean-Michel Trogneux (her brother’s actual name) and transitioned to female, stealing another person’s identity.
– Additional Conspiracies:
Owens alleged the Macrons are blood relatives committing incest, and that Emmanuel Macron was installed as president via a CIA-linked mind-control program (MKUltra).
– Monetization:
These claims were central to Owens’ 8-part podcast series “Becoming Brigitte”, which garnered over 2.3 million views and was used to promote subscriptions, merchandise, and donations.
⚖️ Lawsuit Details.
– Legal Action:
Filed on July 23, 2025, in Delaware Superior Court, the 218-page complaint includes 22 counts of defamation, false light, and defamation by implication.
– Damages Sought:
Unspecified punitive and compensatory damages for “substantial economic harm” and emotional distress.
– Plaintiffs’ Stance:
The Macrons sent Owens three retraction demands since December 2024, providing evidence disproving her claims (e.g., Brigitte’s birth records). Owens ignored these and amplified the allegations.
🗣️ Responses from Both Sides.
– Macrons:
> “Owens’ campaign of defamation was designed to harass and cause pain… We gave her every opportunity to back away, but she refused“.
They emphasized the “relentless bullying” and global humiliation affecting their private lives.
– Owens:
– Dismissed the suit as a “desperate PR strategy” and claimed it contained inaccuracies.
– Her spokesperson argued the lawsuit violates her First Amendment rights and constitutes “a foreign government attacking an American journalist“.
⚖️ Legal Challenges.
– Actual Malice Standard:
As public figures, the Macrons must prove Owens knew her claims were false or acted with “reckless disregard for the truth“.
– Precedents:
Similar high-profile cases include Donald Trump’s defamation suits against media outlets, some resulting in settlements (e.g., $15M from ABC in 2024).
🔍 Context of the Conspiracy.
– Origins:
False claims about Brigitte’s gender surfaced in 2021 and were amplified by influencers like Tucker Carlson and Joe Rogan before Owens popularized them in the U.S.
– Pattern of Misogyny:
Experts note such narratives target prominent women (e.g., Michelle Obama) by framing them as “deceptive” to undermine their influence.
– French Cases:
Brigitte previously won a libel case against two women in France (2024), but an appeal overturned the verdict in July 2025. She has appealed to France’s highest court.
💎 Conclusion.
This lawsuit highlights escalating tensions between public figures and conspiracy-driven media. While the Macrons seek to “end this campaign of defamation,” Owens frames the suit as censorship. The outcome hinges on proving Owens’ malicious intent—a high legal bar in U.S. courts.
What are the chances of success of this lawsuit?
Beyond Biology: How a Lawsuit Redefined Truth in the Age of Conspiracy?
The defamation lawsuit filed by Emmanuel and Brigitte Macron against Candace Owens presents a complex legal battle with several factors influencing its potential success. Here’s a breakdown of key considerations:
⚖️ 1. Legal Hurdles: The “Actual Malice” Standard.
– As public figures, the Macrons must prove Owens acted with “actual malice” – meaning she “knew” her claims were false or showed “reckless disregard” for the truth.
– This is a “high legal bar” established by the U.S. Supreme Court precedent (*New York Times v. Sullivan*). Owens’ defense claims the lawsuit violates her First Amendment rights, framing it as “a foreign government attacking an American journalist“.
📍 2. Strengths in the Macrons’ Favor.
– Evidence of Recklessness:
The Macrons sent Owens “three formal retraction demands” (December 2024, March 2025, July 2025) accompanied by documented evidence disproving her claims (e.g., Brigitte’s birth records, family photos). Owens not only ignored these but amplified her allegations. This could demonstrate “reckless disregard.”
– Monetization and Malice:
Owens’ 8-part series “Becoming Brigitte” (with 2.3M + views) and related merchandise directly profited from the claims. The lawsuit argues she prioritized “attention and financial gain” over truth.
– Pattern of Conspiracy Peddling:
Owens’ history of promoting debunked theories (e.g., COVID misinformation, anti-vaccine rhetoric) may undermine her credibility as an “investigative journalist“.
– Legal Firepower:
The Macrons hired “Clare Locke”, a top defamation firm that won the $787M Dominion Voting Systems case against Fox News.
⚠️ 3. Challenges and Defense Strategies.
– Subjectivity in Interpretation:
Owens may argue her statements were “opinion” or hyperbolic commentary, though specific factual assertions (e.g., “Brigitte was born Jean-Michel Trogneux“) are harder to defend unless supported with actual birth certificates and earlier school records.
– Prior French Case Precedent:
Brigitte Macron previously lost an appeal in a similar French libel case against two women spreading the same claims. While not binding in the U.S., this could be cited to question the allegations’ harm.
– Owens’ Dismissive Response:
She called the lawsuit “goofy” and a “PR strategy,” claiming it contains inaccuracies and vowing to fight it vigorously.
📈 4. Likelihood of Outcomes.
– Settlement:
High probability, given the costs and reputational risks for both sides. Recent high-profile cases (e.g., Trump’s $15M settlement with ABC) suggest Owens may opt for this to avoid a jury trial.
– Partial Success at Trial:
If proven, Owens’ disregard for evidence could meet the “actual malice” threshold. However, damages might be reduced if the court finds some statements non-actionable opinions.
– Dismissal Possible:
If the court deems the claims too speculative or protected speech, though the documented retraction refusals make this less likely.
💎 Conclusion: Moderate to Good Chances with Caveats.
The Macrons have a “stronger-than-average defamation case” due to Owens’ documented refusal to return claims despite evidence, her profit motive, and the extreme nature of the allegations.
However, U.S. free speech protections and the “actual malice” requirement create significant hurdles. “Most probable outcomes are a settlement or partial victory”, with a full trial victory possible but not guaranteed. The case could set a precedent for foreign leaders suing in U.S. courts over conspiracy theories.
Can The Defendants Ask For Medical Gender Tests To Verify Gender Identity?
No, “defendants cannot legally compel medical gender testing” in this defamation case, nor would such a request be relevant to the legal issues at hand. Here’s why:
⚖️ 1. Irrelevance to Defamation Claims.
– The core issue is whether Owens “knowingly spread false facts” (e.g., “Brigitte Macron was born male”).
– The Macrons already provided “official birth records” and historical evidence disproving Owens’ claims.
– Medical tests would not address the “legality” of Owens’ statements—only whether they were made with ”actual malice” (knowledge of falsity/reckless disregard).
🛑 2. U.S. Courts Reject Invasive Discovery Requests.
– U.S. courts routinely deny requests for physical/medical examinations unless “directly relevant” to the claim (e.g., personal injury cases).
– Here, Brigitte Macron’s biology is “not material” to whether Owens defamed her. Courts would deem such a demand “harassment” and a violation of privacy.
– “Precedent”: Similar requests in gender-related cases (e.g., “Bălșan v. Romania”, ECHR) were ruled degrading and unlawful.
🌍 3. Human Rights and Privacy Protections.
– Forcing gender verification violates:
– “International human rights standards” (UN/WHO condemn non-consensual gender testing).
– **French privacy laws** (Brigitte Macron’s medical history is protected).
– “U.S. constitutional protections” (Fourth Amendment against unreasonable frisking).
– The European Court of Human Rights has ruled such tests “degrading and discriminatory” (“AP, Garçon and Nicot v. France”).
⚠️ 4. Owens’ Defense Would Gain Nothing.
– Even if testing occurred (hypothetically):
– “Negative result” (confirms female biology): Proves Owens lied, strengthening the Macrons’ case.
– Inconclusive/positive result:
Scientifically meaningless, as chromosomes/anatomy don’t define legal gender identity in France or the U.S.
– Judges would likely “sanction Owens” for abusive litigation tactics.
🏛️ 5. Legal Precedent Favors Dignity Over Intrusion.
– In “Griswold v. Connecticut”, the U.S. The Supreme Court established a right to “bodily autonomy”.
– French courts (e.g., Brigitte’s prior libel case) focused on “documentary evidence” (birth certificates, school records)—not medical exams.
– Gender verification is banned in athletics (World Athletics policy) due to ethical concerns; courts apply similar principles.
💎 Conclusion.
“Medical gender testing is legally impermissible and irrelevant here.” The Macron’ s lawsuit hinges on Owens’ “intent” and the “falsity” of her statements—not Brigitte Macron’s biology. Any attempt to demand such tests would be dismissed as a “frivolous, bad-faith tactic” and could backfire by demonstrating Owens’ continued malice. The case will be decided on “documentary evidence and Owens’ conduct”, not invasive procedures.
How Can Anybody Verify False Statements Without Gender Proof?
Verifying false statements about gender identity does “not” require medical proof—and in fact, legal systems actively reject such demands as irrelevant, unethical, and discriminatory. Here’s how courts and society verify such claims “without” invasive tests:
🛡️ 1. Legal & Documentary Evidence Prevails.
Courts rely on **official records and verifiable history**, not biology:
– Birth certificates:
Brigitte Macron provided her 1953 birth certificate (naming her “Brigitte Marie-Claude Trogneux”) and childhood records.
– Marriage/civil documents:
Marriage licenses, divorce decrees (from her first marriage), and adoption papers for her children.
– Photographic/archival proof:
Decades of photos, school yearbooks, employment records, and public documentation trace her life as a girl/woman.
– Witness testimony:
Family, friends, colleagues, and historical sources corroborate her identity.
Medical gender verification is “legally irrelevant”—the law recognizes identity through documentation, not anatomy.
⚖️ 2. The Burden of Proof Falls on the Accuser (Owens).
– In defamation cases, the “defendant” (Owens) must prove her claims are “true”—not the plaintiff.
– Owens’ failure to provide “any credible evidence” (e.g., no record of “Jean-Michel Trogneux” as Brigitte’s alleged birth name) weakens her defense.
– Her dismissal of the Macrons’ evidence (e.g., calling birth certificates “fake”) without proof further demonstrates “reckless disregard for truth.”
🌍 3. International Human Rights Standards.
– Forcing gender verification violates:
– The Yogyakarta Principles:
Ban non-consensual medical gender checks.
– UN/WHO guidelines:
Classify involuntary testing as torture.
– EU law:
Gender identity is protected under privacy rights (GDPR, ECHR).
– Courts universally reject such requests to avoid legitimizing discrimination.
📉 4. Why Gender “Proof” is Scientifically & Legally Meaningless.
– Chromosomes ≠ gender:
Biological sex traits (chromosomes, hormones, anatomy) exist on spectrums and don’t define legal identity.
– Legal gender ≠ biology:
France (since 2016) and many U.S. states allow self-identified gender markers on IDs without medical checks.
– No test exists:
There’s no universal “gender test“—chromosomal, anatomical, and hormonal variations occur naturally (e.g., intersex traits in 1.7% of births).
⚠️ 5. Owens’ Claims Fail Basic Fact-Checks.
Her narrative collapses under scrutiny:
– Brigitte’s brother (the real “Jean-Michel Trogneux”) publicly refuted Owens.
– French archives show Brigitte’s consistent identity: school records, teaching career, marriage history.
– The “CIA mind-control” claim lacks evidence linking Macron to MKUltra (disbanded in 1973).
💎 Conclusion.
“Truth is established through documentation, evidence, and reason—not medical voyeurism.”
– The Macrons have already proven falsity via official records.
– Owens’ refusal to engage with evidence shows “actual malice” —the core issue in defamation law.
– Demanding “gender proof” is a tactic to harass, dehumanize, and evade accountability.
Courts will rule based on Owens’ “knowing falsehoods”, not Brigitte Macron’s body. This protects both truth and human dignity.
Suppose Macron’s Medical Records Are Forged: A Second Medical Opinion Is Inevitable?
Body of Proof: When Defamation Law Refused to Undress Brigitte Macron.
“No, a “second medical opinion” would not be legally inevitable, relevant, or permissible—even if the authenticity of medical records were questioned.” Here’s why:
⚖️ 1. Medical Records Are Legally Irrelevant to the Case.
– “Defamation hinges on falsity and malice”, not biology. The Macrons’ lawsuit focuses on Owens’ false statements (e.g., “Brigitte was born male”), not Brigitte’s medical history.
– “Birth certificates, school records, and decades of public documentation” are the primary evidence. These are issued by governments and institutions—not hospitals—and carry independent legal weight.
– “U.S./French courts” have *”never”required medical gender verification in defamation cases. Such demands would violate privacy laws and human rights norms.
🚫 2. Challenging Document Authenticity Requires Proof.
The Paper Shield: How Birth Certificates Outlawed Biological Theater.
– If Owens alleges forgery, “she must prove it”—not the Macrons. Empty speculation is inadmissible.
– Burden of proof:
Owens would need forensic experts, whistleblowers, or inconsistencies in the documents. She has provided “zero evidence” of forgery after 8+ months.
– “French civil records” (like Brigitte’s 1953 birth certificate) are cryptographically secured. Forgery claims would require showing:
– Tampering with national archives,
– Conspiracy across schools, employers, and media over 70+ years.
→ Courts dismiss such “grand conspiracy” theories as frivolous.
⚠️ 3. Medical Records Wouldn’t Resolve the Defamation Claim.
Even if obtained (hypothetically):
– **A “female” result proves Owens lied, strengthening the Macrons’ case.
– An “intersex” or complex result is medically/legally meaningless:
– France has recognized gender identity without medical checks since 2016.
– U.S. courts don’t equate intersex traits with being “male at birth.”
– Biology ≠ gender identity:
Brigitte has lived publicly as a woman for 70+ years. No test overrides that.
⚡ 4. Legal Consequences of Demanding Medical Tests.
– Sanctions:
Courts would punish Owens’ lawyers for abusive litigation.
– **Dismissal**:
Judges reject irrelevant discovery requests (“fishing expeditions”).
– Ethical violations:
Demanding genital/chromosomal verification could be ruled:
– “Degrading treatment” under the European Convention on Human Rights (Article 3).
– “Sex discrimination” under U.S./EU law.
🌍 5. Real-World Precedents.
– Michelle Obama rumors:
Courts never entertained demands for “birth proof” or medical exams.
– Caster Semenya cases:
International sports bodies (like World Athletics) banned gender testing due to ethical/medical backlash.
– French courts:
Brigitte previously won a libel case (2024) using school records— “medical evidence was never submitted or requested”.
💎 Conclusion: When Facts Need No Forensic Proof: Defamation’s Triumph Over Voyeurism.
The “forged medical records” theory is a deflection tactic with no legal basis.
– Defamation law addresses “false statements”, not biological trivia.
– Owens must defend her claims with “evidence”—not demand invasive procedures.
– Judges control discovery: Identity in the Dock: Why Law Recognizes Documents, Not DNA.
They would block medical demands as harassing, irrelevant, and discriminatory.
The Macrons’ victory depends on proving Owens’ malice —not Brigitte’s anatomy. No credible legal system would entertain medical verification here.
Read more analysis by Rutashubanyuma Nestory
