By Jordan Ellis | M•I•A MEDIA GROUP
Emmanuel Macron, who has served as France’s president since 2017, and his wife, Brigitte Macron, France’s first lady and a former teacher, have filed a federal defamation lawsuit against American podcaster Candace Owens in Tennessee. The couple says Owens damaged their reputations by repeatedly promoting the false claim that Brigitte Macron was born male and by spreading other false allegations about their marriage.
The Macrons filed the new lawsuit on Nov. 4, eight days after a Delaware judge ruled that his court lacked jurisdiction over Owens personally. The Delaware case against two of her companies remains pending. The Tennessee case names Owens individually in the state where she lives.
Why the Macrons went to court
At the center of the dispute is Owens’ false claim that Brigitte Macron assumed the identity of another person. Owens identified her as Jean-Michel Trogneux, who is Brigitte Macron’s older brother. The couple says Owens built a series of broadcasts and social media posts around that claim, using it to attract viewers and make money while damaging their reputations.
The Macrons sought retractions before filing their first lawsuit in July 2025, according to the Delaware court’s account of their complaint. By then, Owens had released an eight-part podcast series titled Becoming Brigitte and promoted it on social media. The couple alleges she kept repeating the claims after they challenged them and after they took the dispute to court.
The Tennessee complaint also cites Owens’ use of a doll depicting Brigitte Macron. The couple alleges Owens used it to mock the first lady’s appearance as part of a broader effort that included selling merchandise and soliciting donations tied to the coverage. Owens has characterized the litigation as an abuse of power and accused Emmanuel Macron of trying to bankrupt her.
What each court is weighing
Delaware Superior Court Judge Sheldon Rennie’s Oct. 27 ruling addressed the court’s authority to hear claims against Owens personally. The claims against Candace Owens LLC and Georgetom Inc., both registered in Delaware, remain pending while the judge considers whether the couple filed within the applicable deadline. The Macrons have asked the Delaware court to reconsider its ruling.
In Tennessee, the Macrons are seeking to hold Owens personally responsible for the alleged harm. Their federal complaint includes claims of defamation, defamation by implication and false light, a privacy claim involving a misleading portrayal. Those claims will be considered in federal court in Nashville.
What the Macrons would have to prove
In U.S. defamation cases, public figures generally face a demanding standard known as actual malice. It concerns what a publisher knew or believed at the time of publication. A plaintiff must show that the defendant knew a defamatory statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for whether it was true. The Macrons’ retraction requests could matter because they document when the couple challenged the claims and what they told Owens.
For independent publishers, the dispute puts a longstanding legal question in the context of a business built on recurring episodes, social media clips and direct audience support. Each new broadcast can carry a claim to more people. If the Tennessee case reaches the merits, the court will examine what Owens said, what she knew when she said it and whether the Macrons can prove the statements caused harm for which the law provides a remedy.
