By Gloria Nosa
French President Emmanuel Macron has filed a defamation lawsuit against U.S. conservative commentator Candace Owens over her controversial claims suggesting that his wife, Brigitte Macron, may be biologically male. The legal action comes in response to a series of statements and social media posts by Owens that the French government has labeled as “false, damaging, and deliberately defamatory.”
Brigitte Macron, the French First Lady, has been the subject of unfounded internet conspiracy theories for years, claiming she was born male and underwent gender reassignment. These rumors, which have been debunked multiple times, resurfaced recently after Owens made comments amplifying the baseless claims to her sizable online following.
Owens, known for her outspoken political views and inflammatory rhetoric, allegedly referenced the rumors during a podcast and on social media, suggesting there is truth to the speculation. The Macrons, who have previously dismissed such claims as absurd, now appear determined to take a firmer legal stand.
According to sources close to the Élysée Palace, the French president filed the lawsuit in a Paris court, citing defamation and public insult under French law. “This is not simply about personal attacks — it’s about protecting the dignity of the First Lady of France and confronting the spread of disinformation,” said a spokesperson for the Macron family’s legal team.
Under French law, defamation is taken seriously, especially when it targets public figures with malicious intent. If Owens is found guilty, the consequences could range from financial penalties to court-ordered public retractions.
Legal analysts say the move is a rare but powerful message from a sitting world leader, signaling that global disinformation campaigns — even those driven by foreign commentators — will not go unchallenged. The case also shines a light on how viral misinformation, even when framed as opinion or satire, can escalate into international legal disputes.
Owens has not yet publicly responded to the lawsuit, but supporters have begun framing the case as a free speech issue. Still, critics argue that deliberately spreading false information with real-world consequences goes beyond the bounds of protected expression.
As the case unfolds, it is likely to stir debate on the limits of speech, the responsibilities of influencers, and the legal protections afforded to public figures — especially when gender identity and conspiracy theories collide in the digital age.
