French First Lady Brigitte Macron and her husband, French President Emmanuel Macron, have filed a defamation lawsuit in a Delaware court against American political commentator Candace Owens, alleging that Owens spearheaded a “campaign of global humiliation” through the repeated spread of false and malicious claims, including assertions that the First Lady was born male and that the couple engaged in incest and statutory rape.
Filed by prominent defamation firm Clare Locke LLP, the 219-page civil complaint demands unspecified actual, presumed, and punitive damages, citing 22 counts of defamation and false light.
The lawsuit accuses Owens of leveraging a conspiracy theory for personal and financial gain, including the sale of merchandise and the production of a monetized video series titled Becoming Brigitte.
Background: A Cross-Border Defamation Battle
The complaint marks a rare case of cross-border defamation litigation involving sitting foreign heads of state suing a U.S.-based media figure in an American court, where First Amendment protections for public commentary and satire are among the most robust in the world.
To prevail, the Macrons must meet the high standard of “actual malice” under New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, proving that Owens knowingly spread falsehoods or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. The lawsuit outlines what it calls “overwhelming evidence” of actual malice, including Owens’ refusal to retract her statements despite being presented with contemporaneous documentation, such as Brigitte Macron’s birth records, childhood photographs, and confirmation that she gave birth to three children.
Legal Context: Public Figures and the First Amendment
Legal analysts note that while U.S. courts typically offer wide latitude for commentary, even on public figures, the case hinges on whether Owens’ claims cross the line into defamatory falsehoods with malicious intent.
“Defamation cases involving public officials are always an uphill battle in the U.S.,” said a constitutional law scholar familiar with high-profile defamation law. “But if Owens monetized and knowingly promoted false claims, the plaintiffs may have a narrow but viable legal path.”
Owens’ Response: “I Will See You in Court”
Owens has responded defiantly on her podcast and social media, refusing to retract her comments.
“If you need any more evidence that Brigitte Macron is definitely a man, it is just what is happening right now,” she said, characterizing the lawsuit as a politically motivated effort to silence her.
She has also vowed to pursue discovery aggressively, even suggesting she will seek to depose former President Donald Trump, who Owens claims discussed the matter with President Macron during an undisclosed meeting.
“We’re not going to shut up,” Owens said on her show. “You’re not going to bully us.”
Credibility on Trial
The Macrons’ lawsuit also highlights Owens’ history of spreading conspiracy theories, including anti-vaccine misinformation and Holocaust distortion—claims Owens has denied. It further accuses her of citing discredited sources, including two French women previously found liable for libel in a French court for spreading similar falsehoods. Although that judgment was overturned on procedural grounds, the French high court is currently reviewing an appeal.
In addition, the complaint calls attention to Owens’ alleged financial motives, including merchandise featuring a photoshopped TIME Magazine “Man of the Year” cover with Brigitte Macron’s face.
Precedent and Jurisdiction
Although the Macrons are pursuing the case in a U.S. court, their status as foreign public officials could complicate matters. The court will need to assess jurisdictional validity, the viability of enforcing any judgment across borders, and whether Owens’ statements, though offensive and potentially harmful, qualify as protected opinion or satire under U.S. defamation law.
Legal observers say this lawsuit may be a litmus test for how far U.S. courts are willing to go in protecting reputations in the digital age—especially when defamation becomes transnational and social media reach is global.
What Happens Next
The case has just been filed, and Owens has yet to file a formal legal response. If the case proceeds to trial, discovery could involve international depositions, subpoenas, and scrutiny of Owens’ finances, sources, and editorial process.
For now, the legal community will watch closely as two worlds—French privacy law and American free speech doctrine—collide in what could be one of the year’s most watched defamation cases.
