French President Emmanuel Macron and First Lady Brigitte Macron have filed a civil defamation lawsuit in Delaware against American right-wing commentator Candace Owens. The rare legal move by a sitting head of state and his spouse targets a series of online broadcasts and social media posts in which Owens made false claims about France’s first lady.
The lawsuit, submitted to the Delaware Superior Court earlier this week, alleges that Owens deliberately spread baseless rumors that Brigitte Macron was born male and that the couple are blood relatives. According to the filing, Owens’ actions form part of a broader campaign of “relentless bullying and humiliation” that has caused reputational damage and emotional harm to the Macrons on a global scale.
The Macrons are seeking a jury trial and unspecified damages. They claim Owens ignored multiple cease-and-desist letters and retraction requests, instead choosing to amplify her statements across platforms including a multi-episode podcast series titled “Becoming Brigitte.”
“The lies told by Owens aren’t political commentary or satire,” reads the lawsuit. “They are deliberate, malicious attacks designed to defame and dehumanize.”
Brigitte Macron had previously initiated legal proceedings in France against similar claims circulated online. While two bloggers were convicted, the convictions were later overturned on appeal, and the case has since reached France’s highest court. The U.S. case marks the first time the French presidential couple has taken their legal battle overseas.
Owens, a prominent media figure in conservative circles and host for The Daily Wire, responded by accusing the Macrons of trying to silence American journalism. In a public statement, she framed the lawsuit as “foreign interference” in U.S. free speech rights.
“This is a direct attack on the First Amendment,” Owens said. “I asked for an interview. They declined. Now they want to sue? I will not be silenced.”
Legal experts note the high bar for public figures to win defamation cases in the U.S., where plaintiffs must prove that the defendant acted with “actual malice”—that is, knowingly spreading falsehoods or doing so with reckless disregard for the truth.
