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 testimonies to counter trans rumors targeting Brigitte Macron, spread by Candace Owens. After an interview on the BBC podcast, the battle extends from social networks to the American justice system. Indeed, 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 have filed a defamation lawsuit in the Superior Court of Delaware against Candace Owens, an American influencer and podcaster. The complaint, filed on July 23, 2025, targets repeated and unfounded claims about the First Lady’s identity. Drafted by the lawyers of Clare Locke LLP, the file reportedly contains 219 pages and seeks damages, with a "jury trial" requested by the plaintiffs.
At the heart of the media-judicial sequence, one of the Macrons’ lawyers, Mr. Tom Clare, indicated in an interview on the BBC podcast Fame Under Fire that the couple intends to submit to the American justice system "scientific evidence" and family photos, including pregnancy and youth pictures, to document and close a viral rumor about gender. These announcements have been widely covered in France and internationally. They place the case at the intersection of law and political communication. Additionally, they also concern the fight against fake news.
"The lawyer summarized that expert testimonies, of a scientific nature, will be produced. Furthermore, he mentioned family photographs presented within the framework and standards of a court."
Owens, for her part, challenges the jurisdiction of the Delaware courts and invokes the freedom of expression guaranteed by the 1st Amendment.
Timeline: First Paris, Then Delaware for Emmanuel and Brigitte Macron
Born in 2021 in French conspiracy circles, the rumor targeting Brigitte Macron was first addressed by Parisian courts. After an initial conviction in September 2024, the Paris Court of Appeal pronounced an acquittal on July 10, 2025. However, this concerns certain passages without validating the allegations. The First Lady’s lawyers announce an appeal to the Supreme Court.
Following this, 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, lawyer Mr. Tom Clare detailed the evidentiary strategy: submission of expert testimonies "of a scientific nature" and photographs, including pregnancy and youth pictures, intended to close the rumor before the American justice system.
What the Macrons Want to Prove and How
The plaintiffs present an evidentiary strategy centered around material evidence and expertise. They intend to produce family photographs, notably pregnancy and youth pictures. These are supposed to attest to Brigitte Macron‘s personal journey. They aim to counter viral assertions.
These images will be supplemented by expert testimonies "of a scientific nature." Their precise content has not been made public. This aims to legally substantiate the falsity of the allegations. The plaintiffs also oppose, if necessary, the archives to the photos related to ‘Jean-Michel Trogneux’. The whole will be submitted to the admissibility standards of the American justice system, within the framework of a defamation trial.
Owens’ Defense: Jurisdiction, Procedure, and 1st Amendment
On the side of Candace Owens, the defense strategy is twofold. First, procedural: her lawyers challenge the jurisdiction of Delaware. They argue that the dispute would not have sufficient connection with her incorporated entities in this state. Second, constitutional: the defense invokes American freedom of expression. It argues that her statements are protected by the First Amendment and pertain to a matter of public interest.
This interpretation will clash with the status of the plaintiffs, public figures under American law, and the criteria of "actual malice". In defamation matters, a public plaintiff must prove that the defendant knew her statements were false. Additionally, it must demonstrate that she acted with reckless disregard for the truth. This is the core of the upcoming evidentiary challenge.
Why Delaware?
Delaware is not just a common legal seat 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 linked to this state. The plaintiffs assert that the jurisdiction is founded to hear the dispute. Indeed, the contentious content was produced and distributed via Delaware structures. Owens’ motion to dismiss seeks to move the dispute out of this state or to have it dismissed on grounds of timeliness or forum non conveniens.
In France, a Continuing Legal Battle
The French aspect is ongoing. After an acquittal decision on appeal on July 10, 2025, Brigitte Macron and her brother have filed an appeal to the Supreme Court. The appellate judges did not "validate" the rumor, but they ruled on specific passages. The conditions of good faith were met under press law. This nuance is crucial as it does not confer any veracity to the allegations. It refers to the legal criteria of the offense of defamation and the protection of expression in a state of law.
Freedom of Expression vs. Defamation: The American Test
The Macron vs. Owens case replays a classic of American law: protecting public debate without allowing serious harm to reputation. Since the New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) decision, public figures must meet the actual malice standard. In practice, the plaintiffs attempt to demonstrate that the defendant ignored contrary evidence or persisted. She allegedly published highly implausible assertions to monetize their virality. On her side, the defense will seek to reframe her statements as opinions, questions, or investigations. She will rely on good faith regarding a matter of public interest.
This balance was recently confirmed: several attempts to challenge Sullivan have failed before the Supreme Court. The standard remains high, but not insurmountable: recent cases have shown this. Factually false allegations, published with blameworthy carelessness, can lead to settlements. They can also result in convictions.
Political Strategy and Crisis Communication
For the Élysée, the issue is not just legal. Internally, the executive wants to "restore the truth" and protect the honor of the First Lady. However, it wishes to avoid giving oxygen to a gender rumor. Externally, the presidential couple positions itself against a polarized American media ecosystem, where figures close to the Trumpist right shape controversies on a large scale.
This procedure, initiated in the United States, carries a potential precedent effect for European public figures targeted by transnational campaigns. It also raises a sensitive question: how far to reveal one’s private life to prove and convince?
Fake News, Platforms, and "Boomerang Effect"
The trajectory of this rumor illustrates the mechanisms of virality: long content (podcasts, videos), loops on networks, appearances in ideologically aligned media, then replays in the mainstream press to deconstruct. The paradox is known: the more a victim responds, the more they expose elements that can be misused. Conversely, silence leaves the field open. Hence the Macrons’ judicial gamble: producing verifiable pieces before a judge and setting a procedural framework, rather than debating on platforms.
The Targeted Individuals at the Center
Beyond the presidential couple, the case questions the mental health of targeted individuals. Moreover, it raises the reputational costs inflicted by disinformation campaigns. Exposing family archives or resorting to expertise on intimacy can be challenging. Associations urge not to confuse the refutation of a rumor with any stigmatization of trans individuals: the subject of the dispute is strictly factual and legal. Lexical precision matters: reminding that the rumor is unfounded, without suggesting that being trans would be an insult.
What Will Matter Now
The sequence that opens resembles a long procedural filter. First, the Delaware judge will say whether he is competent to hear the case. If the door opens slightly, the threshold of admissibility must be crossed. Indeed, photographs, expert testimonies, and archives will only be valuable for their authenticity. Furthermore, their traceability and the way they illuminate the statements in question are essential. At the center remains the bar of actual malice: it will be necessary to demonstrate that Candace Owens knew the falsity of the statements or chose to ignore it with reckless disregard.
In this judicial theater, the role of a jury, if constituted, will say something about the era. Indeed, 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 under oath, with pieces in hand. Moreover, a significant decision could influence other cases. Whether it takes the form of a judgment or a settlement. It could set a transatlantic guideline. It would encourage caution and remind that rumors, even viral ones, eventually meet the resistance of the law.