Credits: The Kremlin, Moscow / Wikimedia Commons, CC BY 4.0.
In Paris, on October 27 and 28, 2025, the criminal court is trying ten people for sexist cyberharassment. This harassment targets Brigitte Macron, the French First Lady. At the center of the case is a transphobic rumor that spread online. It started with an absurd mention on impots.gouv.fr. Then it was relayed through videos and hashtags. The hearing is meant to shed light on the responsibilities and methods behind a digital witch hunt. Opinion has overridden facts. It must also examine the concrete effects of this situation.
Brigitte Macron Rumor: The Facts, Without the Noise
The wife of the head of state, Brigitte Macron is at the center of a **cyberharassment trial. This trial targeting Brigitte Macron opens in Paris. It will take place on October 27 and 28, 2025. Ten people with varied backgrounds, from a publicist to a self-proclaimed medium, are being brought before the court for their actions. A local elected official is also involved in this case. They fueled and spread a transphobic hoax on social media. This hoax targeted the First Lady directly. In the background: a rumor born in France, moved to the United States and then amplified on its return, through videos and hashtags.
An Opening Scene: Civil Status Gone Off the Rails
A few years ago, Tristan Bromet, Brigitte Macron’s chief of staff, recounts a scene that has become emblematic of the drift: when logging into her personal account on impots.gouv.fr, the First Lady sees the odd entry displayed: “Jean-Michel said Brigitte Macron.” Shock. The manipulation is impossible on the user side, but a complaint is filed to understand the source of this anomaly. The investigation aims to identify the actors.
The episode was recently detailed in a television documentary, highlighting important aspects. An administrative error (or sabotage) can serve as the spark for baseless theories.
From Viral Video to Courtroom: A Quick Timeline
December 10, 2021: a nearly four-hour YouTube video popularizes the theory; two names emerge, Amandine Roy and Natacha Rey. The hashtag #JeanMichelTrogneux spreads and the uproar follows.
September 12, 2024: at first instance, the Paris criminal court convicts the two women for defamation.
July 10, 2025: acquittal on appeal. The judges consider that some of the passages singled out do not go beyond the bounds of good faith. In addition, those passages do not fall within the criminal definition of harm to honor.
Mid-July 2025: appeal to the Court of Cassation announced by the Macron camp.
October 27–28, 2025: a new legal front opens, because ten defendants are accused of online and sexist cyberharassment. The rumor has migrated from “investigative” videos to coordinated campaigns of online attacks.
Who Is in the Dock?
Among the ten is Aurélien Poirson-Atlan, a publicist known online under the pseudonym “Zoé Sagan,” identified as one of the vectors of a narrative mixing insinuations and fabrications. Other names have been circulating for months in the proceedings: activist relays, regulars in the conspiracy scene, local figures who retweeted, commented, pinned. All are presumed innocent.
The charge of cyberharassment concerns less an isolated statement than a chain: repetition, a cluster of messages, and stigmatizing intent. Here, the target: Brigitte Macron’s gender and personal life, used as a pretext for mockery and damaging accusations.
Paris Court Case and American Echo: When the Rumor Takes Flight
The case crossed the Atlantic. In the United States, Candace Owens (defamation component in the United States), influencer and podcaster, devoted a series (Becoming Brigitte) to these allegations, ultimately prompting a defamation lawsuit filed in Delaware by Emmanuel and Brigitte Macron. Lawyers cite “photographic and scientific evidence” (civil-status records, family photos, medical evidence) to dismantle the conspiracy narrative. The American legal battle is ongoing.
How the Brigitte Macron Hoax Spread
The modus operandi is now well known. Videos “discover” coincidences. In addition, photos are altered or taken out of context. Then quotes are truncated. Finally, suspicions are presented as proof. One meme chases another; the algorithm does the rest.
Successive fact-checks have established that several viral posts were false. Example: a doctored image showing a young man presented as “Brigitte Macron in her youth”; the original actually comes from a stock photo database and has no connection to the First Lady.
Paris Court Hearing: What the Proceedings Reveal
At the hearing, the court is examining the volume, frequency, and reach of the posts. The brigade for the repression of crimes against persons traced the waves of messages. The investigation identified peaks synchronized with the release of episodes or “investigations.” It also established links with the pro-Trump ecosystem.
The civil parties stress the sexist nature of the attacks. These include reducing her to her body, gender, and stereotype. They also underline the length of the campaign as well as its effects: harm to dignity, threats, and stress. The defense argues for freedom of expression and the right to question public figures. It also cites the disengagement of a flood of comments. According to them, they merely quoted or relayed them.
Legal Background: What Has Already Been Decided
The defamation episode delivered a two-part lesson. In 2024, the conviction at first instance drew a red line. The court thus set this limit on the repetition of unproven allegations. In 2025, the acquittal on appeal recalled a crucial point. Under French law, proof of defamation requires crossing a specific threshold. That threshold is the attribution of a specific fact that harms honor. However, that was ultimately not retained for several passages in the video. The appeal will settle the law, not the hashtags.
The Core Debate: Freedom of Expression, Respect for People
On social media, freedom of expression often serves as a shield. The law, meanwhile, draws two limits: the ban on defamation and the punishment of harassment. This case highlights the boundary between criticism and sanction. It is not about preventing the criticism of a public figure. However, it aims to punish the repeated targeting of a person based on their identity, often fueled by false or demeaning content.
Caution is necessary: trans people are not the rumor. The instrumentalization of trans identity for the purpose of humiliation is unacceptable. It falls within a discriminatory register. It has no place in democratic debate.
How the Rumor Thrives
- An “administrative” spark: an absurd label appearing in an online account, taken as a clue.
- A long-form “revelation”: hours of video, backed by false leads.
- Relays: high-reach accounts, the conspiracy media sphere, and a snowball effect.
- Improvised images: edits, cropping, morphing, and sometimes AI to “confirm.”
- Monetization: audience, merchandise, subscriptions, donations.
What Do the Defendants Face?
The maximum penalty for online harassment linked to sex or gender identity is severe. It can go up to two years in prison and a fine. Penalties increase in the event of aggravating circumstances. The court will assess case by case the degree of participation: perpetrator, accomplice, relay.
What the Macrons Are Arguing
The First Lady’s and the presidential couple’s lawyers emphasize:
- The falsity of the allegations (civil status, family photos, consistent testimony).
- The harm caused by prolonged online and sexist harassment, up to intimidation.
- The existence of an audience system and profits tied to disinformation in France.
And Now?
This Paris trial must document the mechanisms and responsibilities in the chain of dissemination: who creates, who orchestrates, who relays? The judges will apply the law, but the decision will not address some supposed “hidden truth.” It will instead assess behavior under the law.
At the same time, the American proceedings will continue, with their specific rules and a symbolic stake: reminding us that reputation is not a commodity and privacy is not a stage.
Video unavailable
