Credits: European Union, 2025 / EC Audiovisual Service, CC BY 4.0.
At the heart of a defamation complaint filed on July 23, 2025 in Delaware, the Macron couple is preparing to submit pregnancy and youth photos and expert testimony to counter trans rumors targeting Brigitte Macron, relayed by Candace Owens. After an interview on the BBC podcast, the battle has moved from social media to the U.S. courts. In effect, it pits freedom of expression against protection of reputation.
Defamation Complaint In Delaware Against Candace Owens
The French presidential couple Emmanuel Macron and Brigitte Macron has filed a defamation action in the Superior Court of Delaware against Candace Owens, an American influencer and podcaster. The complaint, filed on July 23, 2025, targets repeated and baseless claims about the First Lady’s identity. Drafted by the lawyers at Clare Locke LLP, the case reportedly runs 219 pages and seeks damages, with a jury trial requested by the plaintiffs.
At the center of the media-legal sequence, one of the Macrons’ attorneys, Me Tom Clare, said in an interview on the BBC podcast Fame Under Fire that the couple intends to submit “scientific evidence” and family photos to the U.S. courts, including pregnancy and youth photos, in order to document and put to rest a gender rumor that has gone viral. These statements were widely reported in France and internationally. They place the case at the intersection of law and political communication. They also concern the fight against fake news.
“The lawyer summarized that expert testimony of a scientific nature will be presented. He also mentioned family photographs presented within the framework and standards of a court.”
Owens, for her part, disputes the Delaware court’s jurisdiction and invokes the freedom of expression guaranteed by the First Amendment.
Timeline: First Paris, Then Delaware For Emmanuel and Brigitte Macron
Originating in 2021 in French conspiracy circles, the rumor targeting Brigitte Macron was first handled by the Paris courts. After an initial conviction in September 2024, the Paris Court of Appeal issued an acquittal on July 10, 2025. However, this concerned certain passages without validating the allegations. The First Lady’s lawyers announced an appeal to the Court of Cassation.
Shortly after, on July 23, 2025, the Macrons filed a defamation complaint in Delaware against Candace Owens and her entities, describing a coordinated campaign and seeking damages as well as a jury trial.
On September 18, 2025, during the BBC podcast Fame Under Fire, attorney Me Tom Clare laid out the evidentiary strategy: submitting expert testimony “of a scientific nature” and photographs, including pregnancy and youth photos meant to end the rumor before the U.S. courts.
What The Macrons Want To Prove And How
The plaintiffs present an evidentiary strategy built around physical evidence and expert analysis. They intend to produce family photographs, notably pregnancy and youth photos. These are meant to attest to Brigitte Macron’s personal history. They are intended to counter claims that have gone viral.
These images will be supplemented by expert testimony “of a scientific nature.” The exact content has not been made public. The goal is to legally substantiate the falsity of the claims. The plaintiffs also rely, if necessary, on archives and the photos tied to “Jean-Michel Trogneux.” The whole package will be submitted under the admissibility standards of the U.S. justice system, in the context of a defamation trial.
Owens’s Defense: Jurisdiction, Procedure, And The First Amendment
On Candace Owens’s side, the defense strategy is twofold. First, procedural: her lawyers challenge Delaware’s jurisdiction. They argue that the dispute lacks a sufficient connection to her entities incorporated in that state. Second, constitutional: the defense invokes American freedom of expression. It argues that her statements are protected by the First Amendment and fall within a matter of public interest.
This view will collide with the status of the plaintiffs, who are public figures under U.S. law, and with the “actual malice” standard. In defamation cases, a public plaintiff must prove that the defendant knew her statements were false. She must also show that the defendant acted with reckless disregard for the truth. That is the core of the evidentiary challenge ahead.
Why Delaware?
Delaware is not just a common legal home for American companies. In this case, the complaint targets not only Candace Owens but also two entities owned or controlled by her, Candace Owens LLC and GeorgeTom, Inc., both tied to that state. The plaintiffs argue that the court is entitled to hear the dispute. Indeed, the contested content was produced and distributed through Delaware-based structures. Owens’s motion to dismiss, by contrast, seeks to move the case out of that state, or have it dismissed on timeliness or forum non conveniens grounds.
In France, A Legal Battle That Continues
The French front is still unfolding. After an acquittal on appeal on July 10, 2025, Brigitte Macron and her brother filed an appeal to the Court of Cassation. The appellate judges did not “validate” the rumor, but ruled on specific passages. The good-faith conditions were met under press law. That distinction is crucial because it does not lend any truth to the claims. It refers to the legal criteria for the offense of defamation and to the protection of expression in a state governed by the rule of law.
Freedom Of Expression Vs. Defamation: The U.S. Test
The Macron vs. Owens case revisits a classic of American law: protecting public debate without allowing serious reputational harm to flourish. Since New York Times v. Sullivan (1964), public figures have had to meet the actual malice standard. In practice, the plaintiffs try to show that the defendant ignored contrary evidence or persisted. She allegedly published statements that were highly implausible, in order to monetize their virality. For her part, the defense will try to reframe the remarks as opinions, questions, or inquiries. It will rely on good faith regarding a matter of public interest.
This back-and-forth has recently been confirmed: several attempts to overturn Sullivan have failed before the Supreme Court. The standard remains high, but not impossible: recent cases have shown that. Factually false claims published with reckless disregard can lead to settlements. They can also lead to convictions.
Political Strategy And Crisis Communications
For the Élysée, the issue is not just legal. Domestically, the executive branch wants to “restore the truth” and protect the First Lady’s honor. However, it also wants to avoid giving oxygen to a gender rumor. Externally, the presidential couple is confronting a polarized American media ecosystem, where figures close to the Trump-aligned right shape controversies on a massive scale.
This proceeding, brought in the United States, could set a precedent for European public figures targeted by transnational campaigns. It also raises a sensitive question: how far should one go in exposing one’s private life to prove and persuade?
Fake News, Platforms, And The “Boomerang Effect”
The trajectory of this rumor illustrates the mechanisms of virality: long-form content (podcasts, videos), social-media loops, appearances in ideologically aligned outlets, then coverage in the mainstream press to debunk it. The paradox is familiar: the more a victim responds, the more they expose elements that can be twisted. Conversely, silence leaves the field open. Hence the Macrons’ legal bet: present verifiable evidence before a judge and set a procedural framework, rather than debating it on platforms.
The People Targeted At The Center
Beyond the presidential couple, the case raises questions about the mental health of the people targeted. It also raises the reputational costs inflicted by campaigns of disinformation. Exposing family archives or resorting to expert analysis of private life can be exhausting. Advocacy groups urge people not to confuse rebutting a rumor with any kind of stigmatization of trans people: the subject of the dispute is strictly factual and legal. The wording matters: making clear that the rumor is baseless, without suggesting that being trans is an insult.
What Will Matter From Here On
The sequence now unfolding looks like a long procedural filter. First, the Delaware judge will say whether the court is competent to hear the case. If the door opens even slightly, the hurdle of admissibility remains. Indeed, photographs, expert testimony, and archives will matter only insofar as they are authentic. Their traceability and the way they illuminate the statements at issue are also essential. At the center remains the actual malice standard: it will be necessary to show that Candace Owens knew the statements were false or chose to ignore that fact with reckless disregard.
In this courtroom drama, the role of a jury, if one is empaneled, will say something about the times. In effect, the debate between freedom of expression and protection of reputation is no longer limited to platforms. It now extends to other spaces. It now unfolds in other arenas. It now takes place under oath, evidence in hand. In addition, an important ruling could influence other cases, whether it takes the form of a judgment or a settlement. It could set a transatlantic guidepost. It would encourage caution and remind us that rumors, even viral ones, eventually meet the resistance of the law.
