French President Emmanuel Macron and First Lady Brigitte Macron have launched a sweeping defamation lawsuit in Delaware state court against conservative commentator Candace Owens, marking one of the most aggressive responses by a European leader to online misinformation tied to American political discourse.
The 219-page lawsuit alleges that Owens orchestrated and profited from a long-running smear campaign that repeatedly claimed Brigitte Macron was born male, a conspiracy theory circulating for years in certain fringe circles. The complaint accuses Owens of turning the Macrons’ private lives into fodder for global humiliation, exploiting sensational claims to drive engagement, podcast audiences, and political influence.
In their filing, the Macrons describe Owens’ actions as “invasive, dehumanizing, and deeply unjust,” adding that the spread of these stories not only damaged their family but also set a dangerous precedent for how falsehoods can be monetized at scale. “This is not free speech,” the suit argues. “It is weaponized disinformation.”
Macron Defends His Family – and Broader Principles
Breaking his silence after the lawsuit became public, Macron delivered a sharp statement defending his decision. He framed the lawsuit not as an attack on freedom of expression but as a necessary step to protect personal dignity and establish limits on slander.
“Freedom of speech is not the freedom to destroy truth with lies,” Macron said. “It is not about suppressing voices. It is about preventing deliberate fabrications designed to dehumanize and destabilize.”
He went further, suggesting that Owens’ claims were not isolated but part of a wider trend of online misinformation amplified by political actors in the U.S. This was where he linked the matter back to Donald Trump. Macron criticized the Trump-era media climate, where conspiracy theories and attacks on journalists became normalized. Without mentioning Trump by name in his official remarks, Macron’s message drew a clear parallel: when leaders and influencers encourage or tolerate disinformation, it corrodes public trust globally.
Why Sue in the U.S.?
Observers noted that Macron’s choice to file suit in Delaware was unusual for a French head of state. France has strict defamation laws of its own, but bringing the case to the U.S. gives it international visibility and directly targets the environment where the claims gained traction. Owens’ podcast and social platforms, many U.S.-based, gave the narrative a reach far beyond European borders.
Legal analysts say this also represents a test case: can foreign leaders use American courts to rein in political commentators who push narratives that cross into defamation? If successful, it could set a precedent with major implications for future cross-border litigation around misinformation.
Candace Owens’ Response
Owens, a prominent conservative voice and outspoken Trump ally, has framed the lawsuit as an attack on her First Amendment rights. She argues that Macron is attempting to “criminalize free thought” and “silence conservative voices.” On her podcast, Owens claimed she was being targeted not for defamation but for her political influence and close ties to Trump’s base.
Her supporters view the lawsuit as proof of European elites attempting to police American speech, while critics counter that the spreading of knowingly false claims is not protected speech under U.S. law.
Trump Pulled Into the Crossfire
Though not a defendant, Donald Trump has been indirectly tied to the controversy. Macron highlighted what he described as “a culture of disinformation” that flourished under Trump and now fuels political influencers like Owens. In a veiled swipe, Macron warned that “true democracy cannot exist when truth itself is undermined for profit or for power.”
This framing ensures the case will be interpreted not merely as a personal defense of Brigitte Macron, but as a symbolic confrontation between European democratic norms and the combative style of Trump-aligned U.S. media.
Bigger Picture: Free Speech vs. Defamation
The Macron-Owens case is now being watched as a major flashpoint in the global debate over where free speech ends and defamation begins. Critics of Macron say his lawsuit could embolden other political figures to sue journalists or commentators under the guise of fighting disinformation. Supporters counter that it is long overdue for public figures to push back against falsehoods designed to humiliate and destabilize.
If the court finds in Macron’s favor, it could reshape the balance between speech protections and accountability for conspiracy-driven defamation—potentially reverberating well beyond U.S. borders.
In short: Macron isn’t just fighting a lawsuit. He’s wading into America’s free-speech wars, challenging the culture of conspiracy and media spectacle that Trump and his allies have often embraced—and testing whether U.S. courts will side with truth or tolerate weaponized falsehoods.
About the Author
