Emmanuel Macron and his wife, Brigitte, are taking a bold step to defend Brigitte’s identity in court. They’re suing right-wing influencer Candace Owens for claims she made about Brigitte’s gender. Owens has suggested that Brigitte was born male, a statement the Macrons find deeply hurtful.
The couple’s lawyer, Tom Clare, points out that this situation is stressful for Brigitte and a distraction for the president. “Family attacks wear on you,” he mentioned, emphasizing that everyone, even a president, can feel the pressure of public scrutiny.
To counter the allegations, the Macrons plan to present scientific evidence in court. While Clare hasn’t disclosed all the details, he insists they will show proof that these claims are false. “It’s upsetting to have to lay this out publicly,” he said, highlighting Brigitte’s determination to clear her name.
When asked if they would share personal photos, including those of Brigitte during her pregnancies, Clare confirmed that such evidence exists and will be part of the court proceedings. This legal battle isn’t just about their personal lives; it’s about setting the record straight against damaging misinformation.
Owens, known for her controversial views and a significant following on social media, has previously staked her career on her claims. This debate isn’t new; it has roots in fringe online discussions that date back years. There was a notable rise in these claims after a YouTube video by French bloggers in 2021.
In the past, the Macrons faced a similar situation in France. They initially won a defamation suit against the bloggers, but the ruling was overturned on appeal in 2025. The court’s decision was based on freedom of speech, not the truth of the claims. The couple is currently appealing that decision.
The lawsuit against Owens, filed in the U.S., stresses that she ignored credible evidence and instead chose to amplify conspiracy theories. In defamation cases involving public figures in America, the burden is high. The plaintiffs must prove that the accused acted with “actual malice,” meaning they knowingly spread false information.
The stakes are high for the Macrons. In August, Macron explained their motivation for taking legal action: “This is about defending my honour! This is nonsense,” he said, expressing frustration over the harmful implications of the allegations. Meanwhile, Owens’ team is contesting where the case is filed, arguing that forcing her to defend it in Delaware would cause significant difficulties for her business.
This case has sparked significant attention online, with many users weighing in on social media. The situation reflects a concerning trend where misinformation can rapidly spread, affecting real lives and reputations. Public reactions show a mix of support for the Macrons and criticism directed at Owens, illustrating how divided opinions can be in today’s climate.
For more on this topic and the legal intricacies involved, you can refer to credible sources like [Reuters](https://www.reuters.com) or [BBC](https://www.bbc.com) for ongoing updates and expert analysis.
