French President Emmanuel Macron and his wife, Brigitte Macron, have filed a 218-page defamation lawsuit in Delaware Superior Court against U.S. conservative commentator Candace Owens.
The suit, which includes 22 counts, accuses Owens of promoting wildly false and harmful claims—including that Brigitte Macron was born a man under the name Jean‑Michel Trogneux, that the couple are blood relatives, and that Emmanuel was chosen as president through a CIA mind-control experiment—all allegedly engineered to boost her audience and profit from sensationalism.
The lawsuit details how Owens launched an eight-part series titled “Becoming Brigitte”, alongside social media posts, spreading outrageous accusations. The Macrons’ legal team sent three separate retraction requests, only to have Owens double down and mock their attempts to correct the record.
According to the filing, Owens intentionally repeated and exaggerated the falsehoods, which the Macrons describe as fueling a “campaign of global humiliation” and “relentless bullying” against them.
Represented by prominent American law firm Clare Locke—renowned for its involvement in the Dominion Voting Systems defamation case against Fox News—the Macrons are seeking a jury trial and unspecified damages.
Their lawyers emphasize that when a subject is repeatedly defamed with malicious intent for personal gain, legal action becomes essential to protect their integrit.
In response, Owens’ spokesperson defended her rights under the First Amendment, calling the lawsuit an attempt by a foreign government to suppress free speech.
Owens herself confirmed during a livestream that she has no intention of backing down and accused the Macrons of refusing to grant her an interview, alleging they chose litigation over dialogue.
U.S. defamation law requires public figures like the Macrons to prove that Owens made false statements with “actual malice”—knowing the claims were untrue or acting with reckless disregard for the truth.
Legal experts view this as a high bar but note that the detailed nature of this complaint, combined with ignored retraction demands, may strengthen the plaintiffs’ case.
This ruling marks one of the rare instances in which a sitting head of state and spouse have taken legal action in an American court over personal reputational damage.
It follows previous defamation victories Brigitte Macron secured in France against similar conspiracy-driven allegations—although one such case was recently overturned on appeal, prompting an appeal to France’s highest court.
Until a court date is set in Delaware, there’s been no formal response from Owens’s legal team.
However, the case has already reignited a broad debate about the limits of free speech, the spread of misinformation, and the responsibilities of influencers reaching global audiences.
