Brigitte Macron’s Legal Battle Against Conspiracy Claims: When Personal Identity Becomes Public Debate
In an unprecedented legal confrontation bridging international borders, French First Lady Brigitte Macron has launched a defamation lawsuit against American right-wing influencer Candace Owens over persistent claims that Macron was born a man. This extraordinary case, filed in Delaware in July, places the battle against digital misinformation in a formal legal setting, potentially establishing precedents for how such cases are handled across international jurisdictions. According to Tom Clare, the Macrons’ attorney, the legal team plans to present “scientific evidence” to definitively prove Brigitte Macron’s gender identity—bringing what would normally be intensely private matters into the public courtroom. The case represents not just a personal quest for vindication but raises broader questions about the intersection of free speech, public figures’ privacy rights, and the responsibility of influencers in the digital age.
The unfounded conspiracy theory that Brigitte Macron was born as “Jean-Michel Trogneux” first emerged in France in 2021 but was given new life when Owens amplified it through her podcast series titled “Becoming Brigitte” and through numerous posts on social media platform X. The lawsuit filed by the French presidential couple describes Owens’ actions as a “campaign of global humiliation” that pushed “outlandish, defamatory, and far-fetched fictions” despite “all credible evidence disproving her claim.” Beyond the gender identity allegations, Owens has also perpetuated related conspiracies suggesting the Macrons are blood relatives engaging in forgery and fraud to conceal their supposed secrets. These claims have evidently caused significant distress to the French First Lady, who now finds herself in the unusual position of having to publicly prove fundamental aspects of her identity that most people would never have questioned.
The legal strategy employed by the Macrons appears comprehensive and direct. Clare told the BBC’s “Fame Under Fire” podcast that as plaintiffs, they bear the burden of proving the falsity of Owens’ statements, which they intend to accomplish through testimony from both Emmanuel and Brigitte Macron, along with expert scientific evidence. Though specific details of this evidence remain undisclosed, Clare indicated they would present images of Brigitte Macron pregnant and raising her children—intimate family moments that would now become courtroom exhibits. “It is a process that she will have to subject herself to in a very public way,” Clare explained, adding that his client is “firmly resolved to do what it takes to set the record straight.” This commitment underscores the severe emotional toll these allegations have taken on Brigitte Macron, compelling her to take the extraordinary step of providing scientific proof of her gender in a public forum.
In response, Owens and her legal team have framed the lawsuit as politically motivated and an attempt to suppress free speech. They describe it as “a baseless defamation suit against an independent American journalist” and a “transparent ruse” that contravenes “a sacred precept of U.S. Constitutional Law.” This defense positions the case as a clash between European approaches to harmful speech and America’s First Amendment protections—a tension that frequently arises in international defamation cases. Owens has shown no signs of retracting her statements, having declared in March 2024 that she “would stake [her] entire professional reputation on the fact that Brigitte Macron is in fact a man.” This unwavering stance, despite the absence of credible evidence supporting her claims, has forced the unusual situation where a First Lady must scientifically prove her gender identity in court.
The legal proceedings now face preliminary hurdles as Owens’ team seeks dismissal on technical grounds, including lack of jurisdiction, expiration of France’s statute of limitations, and the doctrine of forum “non conveniens”—a legal principle questioning whether Delaware is an appropriate venue for a dispute with minimal connection to the state. These procedural challenges may determine whether the substantive issues at the heart of the case—the falsity of the claims and whether they constitute legally actionable defamation—will ever be adjudicated. Should the judge decide the case can proceed in Delaware, it would set the stage for an extraordinary courtroom confrontation where deeply personal aspects of Brigitte Macron’s identity would be subject to legal examination and public scrutiny, potentially including scientific evidence concerning her biological sex.
This case transcends the individuals involved, highlighting the evolving challenges of our digital information landscape where conspiracy theories can rapidly gain global traction regardless of factual basis. For Brigitte Macron, the lawsuit represents a painful but perhaps necessary step to reclaim her narrative and dignity. For legal observers, it presents fascinating questions about jurisdiction in international defamation cases and the proper balance between free speech and protection from harmful falsehoods. For the broader public, it serves as a sobering reminder of how easily digital platforms can be used to propagate damaging conspiracies that can force even the most powerful individuals into difficult positions of having to prove the most basic facts about themselves. As this case unfolds, it may establish important precedents for how similar cases involving cross-border defamation and conspiracy theories are handled in our increasingly interconnected world.
