The Candace Owens Lawsuit from the Macrons Is Unlike Anything in Modern Defamation Law

There is a version of this story that remains in the corners of the internet where it originated. It is a long-standing conspiracy theory that has been circulated through fringe forums and anonymous accounts, asserting that France’s first lady was born a man. No Delaware courtroom ever sees that version. Like most such theories, that version fades without any repercussions. However, in early 2024, Candace Owens made the decision that the theory was worth risking her career for. She spent the better part of a year promoting it to a nearly seven million-person audience on X, releasing a multi-part video series titled “Becoming Brigitte,” and turning down every chance the Macrons gave her to back down. The French president and his spouse became impatient in July 2025 and filed a 218-page defamation lawsuit in Delaware Superior Court.

The length of the legal complaint—218 pages is not a typical filing—as well as the variety of accusations it makes are noteworthy. The lawsuit goes beyond the assertion that Brigitte Macron was born under her brother’s name. Additionally, it charges Owens with propagating the idea that the Macrons are related by blood and asserting that a covert CIA operation was used to install Emmanuel Macron as president. In addition to naming Owens directly, the complaint also names the Delaware-registered business entities that she uses to run her media operations. The campaign is described as “relentless and unjustified,” in the complaint. The Macrons claim that they made numerous attempts to obtain a retraction. Owens refused time and time again. Their lawyers claimed that the lawsuit was their only remaining option.

On the day the lawsuit was filed, Owens replied. She referred to it as “goofy.” She characterized it as a desperate attempt by a foreign government to stifle an American journalist through public relations. She claimed that the lawsuit’s existence was evidence in and of itself that her accusations were true, which is, to put it simply, not how defamation law operates. Despite the legal proceedings now associated with her name in a US court, she has since filed a motion to dismiss and continued to post about Brigitte Macron on her platforms.

As I watch this develop, the jurisdictional scope of what’s taking place is almost overwhelming. Based on a conspiracy theory that started in anonymous online forums and made its way through the information ecosystems of several nations before ending up in a podcast studio, a sitting French head of state is suing an American podcaster in a state best known for its corporate registration laws over content published on a platform owned by a South African-American billionaire. Twenty years ago, every word in that sentence would have seemed unreal. In American media, today is merely a Wednesday.

The Macrons face an extremely challenging legal environment. Public figures, like the current president of France and his spouse, must demonstrate actual malice in order to prevail in a defamation case under U.S. defamation law. This means that they have to show not just that Owens published false information, but also that she either acted recklessly with regard to its veracity or knew it was false and published it anyhow. Meeting that standard is more difficult than it seems. It is necessary to demonstrate what an individual knew when they made a claim, not just that the claim proved to be incorrect. Owens’ team will likely contend that she truly believed what she was saying, which is a significant legal defense even if it seems unlikely in light of the abundance of evidence that refutes the conspiracy.

A version of this has already occurred in the French legal system. A French court found two women guilty of libel in September 2025 for disseminating similar allegations about Brigitte Macron. On appeal, that conviction was later reversed. Even in countries with more plaintiff-friendly defamation laws than the United States, the pattern of a conviction not surviving appeal illustrates how difficult it is to win these cases. However, the French case had a different legal system, different standards, and a different factual record.

The Macrons may have filed despite being fully aware of the difficult legal path ahead of them. Sometimes the purpose of defamation lawsuits is to force a public reckoning rather than to win at trial. This includes putting the accusations on record, requiring the defendant to defend their claims under oath, and exposing the source of a conspiracy theory to judicial scrutiny. That procedure is costly and time-consuming, but it is real in a way that retraction requests are not. Owens disregarded the Macrons’ pleas. A discovery order cannot be disregarded by her.

It is more difficult to forecast how this case will ultimately affect Owens’ career path. After leaving The Daily Wire in 2024, she established a sizable independent media presence and attracted a following that mostly shared her distaste for conventional wisdom and her mistrust of established institutions. Being sued by the French president may serve as confirmation of relevance for that audience, so it is not obviously harmful. Owens seems to have a thorough understanding of that dynamic and has been playing to it ever since the lawsuit was filed. It might take years to determine whether a Delaware jury will eventually have a different opinion.