French First Lady Strikes Back as Lawsuit Sparks Global Debate on Defamation and Online Influence

In a saga that blends internet conspiracy, celebrity punditry, and international diplomacy, conservative media personality Candace Owens now finds herself at the center of a transatlantic legal firestorm. The French First Lady, Brigitte Macron, has filed a defamation lawsuit in U.S. court against Owens, who for years has promoted a bizarre and deeply offensive conspiracy theory suggesting that Macron is a transgender woman—and more absurdly, part of a centuries-old cult.

What began as fringe rumor-mongering on obscure far-right blogs in France has exploded into a global controversy, largely fueled by Owens’ high-profile docuseries and aggressive social media campaigns. Owens’ videos, rife with pseudoscientific “evidence” and slanderous insinuations, gained massive traction online, drawing millions of views on platforms like YouTube and TikTok. Even prominent public figures like Joe Rogan unwittingly amplified the claims, giving the theory a troubling boost in visibility and perceived legitimacy.

But for the Macrons, the impact has been anything but abstract. According to the nearly 300-page lawsuit filed in a U.S. court, Brigitte Macron has endured emotional trauma and reputational harm stemming from Owens’ accusations. The suit also targets the methodical and relentless nature of Owens’ campaign, which includes claims that Macron was born a man, had her identity stolen by her own brother, and belongs to a “medieval cult” orchestrating global events behind the scenes. It’s the kind of claim so outlandish it defies parody—but Owens is deadly serious.

In fact, the lawsuit contends that Owens staked her professional reputation on this narrative. She’s repeatedly boasted about how the docuseries grew her audience and increased her revenue. “This is something I fervently believe in,” Owens declared, underscoring the campaign’s centrality to her media brand. That could become a legal liability: If Owens knowingly spread falsehoods for financial gain, it might strengthen the Macron family’s case.

Defamation law in the United States, especially when it concerns public figures, sets a high bar. Plaintiffs must prove not only that a statement is false and damaging, but also that it was made with “actual malice”—knowledge of its falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. The Macrons appear prepared to take on that challenge, having retained Clare Locke LLP, a heavyweight defamation law firm best known for bringing down Gawker in a landmark case on behalf of Hulk Hogan and Peter Thiel.

Despite the seriousness of the suit, Owens is reportedly unfazed. According to sources close to her, she has not yet been served and has no intention of backing down. Her allies frame the lawsuit as an example of the “Streisand Effect”—the idea that trying to silence someone only draws more attention to the issue. Owens is reportedly planning to address the legal challenge on her own media platform, continuing to portray herself as a victim of elite suppression.

Yet many within the right-wing media ecosystem are distancing themselves from Owens over this particular claim. Even figures typically sympathetic to fringe conspiracies have balked at the wildness of her allegations. Behind the scenes, some conservative influencers have reportedly urged her to drop the subject, worried it could damage the broader movement’s credibility.

Interestingly, Owens claims that former President Donald Trump himself asked her to stop spreading the rumor. She alleges that Trump told her Brigitte Macron’s distress over the videos was disrupting France’s involvement in the Ukrainian peace process. While the White House declined to confirm or deny this alleged conversation, the very mention of international diplomacy highlights how far-reaching the fallout from this conspiracy has become.

Candace Owens is no stranger to controversy. From anti-vaccine rhetoric to attacks on Holocaust survivors and inflammatory anti-Israel stances, she has long been a lightning rod even among her ideological peers. But this lawsuit could represent a turning point. By directly targeting a high-profile international figure with specific, defamatory accusations—not vague references to nameless cabals or abstract ideologies—Owens has made herself vulnerable in a way few online personalities dare.

The case raises important questions about the limits of online speech, especially when wielded by influential figures. As misinformation continues to spread faster than facts, the Macron lawsuit may serve as a litmus test for whether the U.S. legal system can—or will—hold such voices accountable.

For now, one thing is clear: Candace Owens may have built a brand on outrage and controversy, but this time, the cost could be higher than she ever anticipated.