^{Emmanuel Macron, President of France, arrives in Downing Street with his wife Brigitte Macron during his first inward State Visit to the United Kingdom on 9th July 2025 in London, United Kingdom. Mark Kerrison | In Pictures | Getty Images}

French President Emmanuel Macron and First Lady Brigitte Macron have filed a sweeping 22-count defamation lawsuit against U.S. political commentator Candace Owens, alleging she has repeatedly and falsely claimed that Brigitte Macron is a transgender woman and part of a broader conspiracy involving mind control and familial misconduct.

The lawsuit, filed in Delaware Superior Court, accuses Owens of launching a calculated and persistent campaign of misinformation beginning in March 2024. According to court documents, Owens used her eight-part podcast series, “Becoming Brigitte,” and a series of inflammatory posts on X (formerly Twitter) to broadcast these unfounded claims to a global audience.

Allegations Detailed in the Lawsuit

The Macrons allege Owens falsely stated:

• Brigitte Macron “is in fact a man.”
• The Macrons are “blood relatives” engaged in incest.
• Emmanuel Macron became president via a CIA-backed mind-control program.

The lawsuit claims Owens ignored all credible documentation, including the fact that Brigitte Macron has three biological children from her first marriage, in favor of platforming conspiracy theorists and known defamers.

“Rather than engage with efforts to correct the record, Owens mocked the Macrons and used them as bait to fuel her online following,” the complaint says.

Legal Representation and Damages

The couple is represented by prominent defamation law firm Clare Locke, known for securing a $787.5 million settlement for Dominion Voting Systems in their case against Fox News in 2023. In this case, the Macrons are seeking monetary damages to be determined at trial, citing the reputational harm and emotional distress inflicted on both themselves and their families.

“If ever there was a clear-cut case of defamation, this is it,” said attorney Tom Clare of Clare Locke.

In a joint public statement, Emmanuel and Brigitte Macron explained their decision to litigate:

“We gave Ms. Owens multiple chances to retract her statements. Her refusal left us no choice but to seek justice through the courts.”

They added:

“This campaign was plainly designed to harass and damage our reputation. We hope the courts can bring closure and restore the truth.”

Owens Responds: Free Speech or Defamation?

Candace Owens has not retracted any of her statements and instead defended her claims as an exercise of her First Amendment rights. In a statement provided to CNBC, her spokesperson responded:

“This is a foreign government attacking the First Amendment rights of an American independent journalist. Candace Owens is not shutting up.”

The spokesperson added that Owens had requested an interview with Brigitte Macron, which was denied.

“In France, politicians can bully journalists, but this is not France. This is America.”

On July 2, Clare Locke sent Owens’ legal team a formal letter demanding a full retraction of the defamatory remarks. No retraction has been issued to date.

Owens has announced she will address the lawsuit and her defense on her podcast, continuing her public commentary on the matter.

International Ramifications and Reputational Stakes

The lawsuit could have significant implications for cross-border legal standards, particularly concerning freedom of speech, defamation laws, and the reach of public figures in a digital age. The Macrons are reportedly pursuing legal action in a U.S. court rather than in France, likely due to the international scope of Owens’ audience and the fact that the claims were primarily circulated within American media circles.

Legal experts suggest the case could test the limits of speech protections when the targets are foreign political figures and the speaker is based in the United States.

As the story unfolds, it raises broader questions about the consequences of conspiracy theories, the responsibility of digital media figures, and the global reach of false claims in the internet era. The final outcome may have lasting consequences for both political discourse and defamation law in the digital age.

‍