“It’s incredibly annoying,” said the presidential couple’s lawyer, announcing the presentation in the American court of technological evidence that Brigitte Macron is simply a woman. This is not an absurd performance, but a real conflict for the limits of freedom of speech in a time of conspiracy, influencers and transatlantic disinformation.
Brigitte Macron and Emmanuel Macron / Fot. President.gov.ua, CC BY 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/
Emmanuel and Brigitte Macrons sue American commentator Candace Owens, who has been publically for months promotes the explanation that the First woman of France was born as a man. The case that began on the margin of French YouTube is now facing court in Delaware. This is not only a fight for a good name, but besides a test of how modern democracies respond to widespread misinformation.
A conspiracy explanation that gained global reach
The beginning of this communicative dates back to 2021 erstwhile French bloggers Amanda Roy and Natach Rey published a video suggesting that Brigitte Macron was in fact her brother Jean-Michel Trogneux after a sex shift operation. Although the material contained no evidence, it rapidly gained popularity in alt-right circles and spilled on the French-speaking Internet.
In March 2024 the explanation was picked up by Candace Owens, an American influencer and erstwhile portal contributor The regular Wire. In a series of recordings and posts under a common title Being Brigitte She portrayed Macronova as the alleged "product of the elite". Her communicative reached the level of conspiracy absurdity – from CIA ties and MK Ultra program to numerology inspired by a prison experimentation at Stanford. At the same time, she released a collection of shirts and described her actions as “the conflict for truth”.
French conviction and American Trial
In 2024 The Macrons won in France a defamation case against Roy and Rey, but in July 2025 the appeal court overturned this sentence, citing the constitutional right to freedom of expression. It was then that the presidential couple decided to take the next step – a suit against Owens in the US.
A suit filed in Delaware State Court (N25C-07-194 CLS) demands compensation, apology and judicial prohibition of further spread of slander. Owens, as the Macrons' lawyers argue, ignored the facts available, consciously fueled false communicative and platformed individuals known for spreading conspiracy theories.
In August Emmanuel Macron gave an interview Paris Matchin which he emphasized the individual dimension of the case. "It's an attack on the far right. I defend my honor. It is individual who knew perfectly well that he had false information, and did so in order to harm the service of ideology and with established ties to the leaders of the far right.”
“This is annoying but necessary”
Candace Owens doesn't accept charges. Her lawyers filed on September 15 a motion to dismiss the case, arguing that Delaware is not the appropriate jurisdiction, and the full constitutes an attack on freedom of speech. Owens portrays himself as a victim of a political assault, and on platform X mobilizes his supporters to financially support the defense.
Two days later, Macron's lawyer, Tom Clare, announced in a conversation with the BBC that his clients were willing to introduce both Scientific opinions of expertsand photos of Brigitte Macron pregnant and with children. “It is annoying that she has to go through this, but she is willing to do anything to clear her name” said Clare.
Different laws, different boundaries
The case is in a completely different legal context than the 1 we are dealing with in France or Poland. While French law powerfully accentuates the protection of reputation and privacy, the American constitution much stronger protects freedom of speech, even if it means allowing content controversial or offensive.
In the American system, a public person, in order to win a defamation case, must prove the so-called. real malice (actual small). This is simply a advanced threshold – it must be shown that the accusations were published with awareness of their falseness or with gross disregard for the truth. This is the standard that will be decisive for the destiny of the Macron suit against Owens.
Background: echo of another fake news cases
Although Brigitte Macron's suit seems unprecedented due to its subject and individual context, it is not isolated in the American legal landscape. In 2023, Dominion Voting Systems won the trial against Fox News, proving that the station deliberately spread lies about falsifying elections. On the another hand, Alex Jones, a proponent of the explanation of a "fified" massacre at Sandy Hook school, was sentenced to multimillion damages.
These cases show that courts are starting to respond to media abuse, but provided that there is hard evidence and a clear line of responsibility. The Macrons are counting on the same thing this time.
A Test for Democracy
Although many may respect the substance as a farce, a presidential couple proving that the First woman is simply a woman, her consequences may prove very real. In a planet where reaches find what we consider to be the truth, and the boundaries between opinion and disinformation become more and more blurred, a judicial precedent in this case may set fresh standards of accountability.
If the Macrons win, this can encourage another politicians and public figures to fight legal disinformation, including outside the United States. If Owens wins, for many it could be a signal that the limits of freedom of speech on the net stay virtually non-existent. This is not only a trial for photos from the household album, but about the future of public debate in the digital era.
Dariusz Frach, thefad.pl Source: The Guardian, BBC, Paris Match
