Macrons Sue U.S. Commentator Candace Owens in Landmark Cross-Border Defamation Case
…Seek redress in Delaware court over “cruel” and “knowingly false” claims
French President Emmanuel Macron and First Lady Brigitte Macron have filed a 218-page defamation lawsuit against American far-right commentator, Candace Owens, accusing her of spreading “cruel, outlandish, and knowingly false” claims, including the allegation that Brigitte Macron is secretly a man named Jean-Michel Trogneux.
The lawsuit, filed on Wednesday in Delaware, represents an extraordinary escalation in a long-simmering controversy that has, until now, largely played out in the shadows of social media and far-right conspiracy forums.
It is exceedingly rare for a sitting head of state and spouse to initiate legal proceedings on foreign soil against a media personality, highlighting the severity with which the Macrons view the allegations.
According to the filing, Owens propagated the falsehoods through her widely followed podcast and social media platforms, using inflammatory rhetoric and misleading insinuations to cast aspersions on Brigitte Macron’s gender identity.
The lawsuit asserts that Owens’ statements were made with “actual malice”, aimed not only at spreading misinformation but also at “humiliating, inciting harassment, and scoring political points”.
Owens, known for her provocative commentary and prominent presence within conservative political circles in the United States, has previously courted controversy by amplifying baseless conspiracy theories.
In this case, she is accused of engaging in a pattern of “malicious and defamatory conduct” by repeatedly referring to France’s First Lady as “a man in disguise”.
While Brigitte Macron has previously been the target of similar smears from fringe voices within France’s far-right ecosystem, she has typically refrained from legal action or public rebuttal.
The decision to pursue litigation on American soil indicates a significant shift in strategy – one that reflects growing international concern about the real-world consequences of viral misinformation.
A source close to the Macron legal team, which includes high-profile U.S. law firm Clare Locke LLP – known for representing clients like Dominion Voting Systems and actor Johnny Depp – described the case as a necessary step in setting a precedent. “The lies are not just absurd – they’re dangerous,” the source said. “There must be accountability, even across borders.”
Legal experts say the case could break new ground in defining the legal limits of transnational disinformation, particularly when it involves defamatory content aimed at public figures.
Although Owens has yet to publicly respond to the lawsuit, her supporters have begun framing the move as an assault on free speech.
However, constitutional scholars caution against that interpretation. “This isn’t about silencing opinions or political beliefs,” said one analyst. “It’s about holding individuals accountable when they knowingly spread falsehoods with the intent to damage reputations.”
Should the Macrons succeed, the outcome could signal a watershed moment in the global fight against digital disinformation – especially as public figures seek redress beyond their national borders in response to viral conspiracy theories.
The case is now set to test the limits of U.S. defamation law in the context of cross-border reputation damage – raising profound questions about the balance between free expression and personal dignity in an age where misinformation knows no borders.
