Emmanuel and Brigitte Macron To Present Photographic and Scientific Evidence to the Court To Prove She Is a Woman, While Candace Owens Doubles Down on Claims

Emmanuel and Brigitte Macron are suing US journalist Candace Owens in Delaware.

Published September 19, 2025

In July 2025, French President Emmanuel Macron and First Lady Brigitte Macron filed a defamation lawsuit in Delaware Superior Court against American commentator Candace Owens. At the heart of the case lies a viral conspiracy theory: that Brigitte Macron was born male under the name Jean-Michel Trogneux. The Macrons argue the claim is baseless, malicious, and deeply harmful. Owens, in turn, insists she believes the allegations and has refused to retract them.

Now, as the case advances, the Macrons’ legal team has pledged to submit “photographic and scientific evidence” to prove once and for all that Brigitte Macron is a woman and the biological mother of her children. The trial is set to become a landmark in the intersection of law, politics, and digital misinformation.

The Case and the Evidence

At the core of the Macron–Owens lawsuit is a claim of defamation: that Candace Owens knowingly spread false and damaging allegations about Brigitte Macron’s identity. The complaint, filed in Delaware Superior Court, asserts that Owens repeated a long-running conspiracy theory that Brigitte Macron was born male under the name Jean-Michel Trogneux — a theory that originated on fringe French websites years ago but gained traction after being amplified by social media influencers.

What the Macrons Claim

• Falsehoods with Malice: The Macrons’ legal team argues that Owens acted with “actual malice,” the U.S. legal standard requiring proof that false statements were made knowingly or with reckless disregard for the truth.

• Reputational Harm: They claim the allegations were designed to humiliate the First Lady, destabilize the President, and damage France’s global standing.

• Global Reach: Because Owens’ podcast and social media accounts reach millions worldwide, the lawsuit stresses the international spread and repeated circulation of the rumor.

The Planned Evidence

To counter the conspiracy, the Macrons’ attorneys say they will provide a two-part package of proof:

• Photographic Evidence

  • Images of Brigitte Macron while pregnant with her children.

  • Family photos documenting her role as mother and wife across decades.

  • Historical records that corroborate her life timeline, schooling, and family relationships.

• Scientific and Expert Testimony

  • Potential medical records confirming biological motherhood.

  • Expert witnesses — including doctors and scientists — prepared to testify to the validity of the documentation.

  • Testimony addressing not only the falsehood of the rumors, but also their harmful social implications.

The Defense Response

Owens’ attorneys have filed motions to dismiss or limit the case, arguing:

• Jurisdiction: That Delaware is not the proper venue, since neither the Macrons nor Owens reside there.

• Free Speech Protections: That Owens’ comments fall under the First Amendment as expressions of belief or opinion.

• Statute of Limitations: That some statements may be too old to be actionable under Delaware law.

Owens herself has not backed down publicly, repeating that she “believes” the rumors and casting the lawsuit as a direct attack on free expression.

Why This Matters

The evidence phase will be pivotal. If the Macrons present convincing, verifiable documentation, it could discredit the conspiracy permanently. If the case falters on jurisdiction or free speech grounds, Owens could emerge emboldened — and the rumor may continue to circulate despite evidence to the contrary.

 Implications

1. Legal Implications

• Free Speech vs. Defamation
  The case tests how far defamation laws can go when applied to public figures across international lines. U.S. courts have strong First Amendment protections, while France is stricter on defamation. The ruling could set precedent for how foreign leaders sue American commentators.

• Jurisdiction Questions
  Whether Delaware courts can (or should) handle a case between French plaintiffs and an American defendant matters for future cross-border defamation claims.

• Evidence Standards
  The Macrons offering “photographic and scientific” proof raises questions about what level of personal evidence courts should accept in highly sensitive cases.

2. Media & Technology Implications

• Amplification by Controversy
  By suing, the Macrons may unintentionally amplify the conspiracy. Legal action often drives more media coverage and social media chatter.

• Misinformation Ecosystem
  The case shows how fast personal rumors spread online, and how difficult it is for public figures to contain them once influencers amplify them.

• Digital Responsibility
  It highlights the tension between online platforms’ role in moderating rumors vs. individuals’ right to speak freely.

3. Political & Diplomatic Implications

• Image of Macron Presidency
  Neutral observers might see Macron as defending his family’s honor, but others may see it as a distraction from pressing issues in France (economy, immigration, EU politics).

• U.S.–France Relations
  Even if the case is private, it involves a sitting head of state’s family in an American court, which could complicate diplomatic optics.

• Public Perception of Leaders
  The case underlines how vulnerable world leaders are to viral misinformation that can cross borders instantly.

4. Social & Cultural Implications

• Privacy vs. Transparency
  The Macrons offering deeply personal evidence (family photos, possibly medical testimony) shows the tradeoff between clearing one’s name and sacrificing privacy.

• Gender & Identity Debates
  The case intersects with broader societal debates about gender identity and rumors tied to it — even if untrue, the controversy touches on sensitive cultural ground.

• Trust in Institutions
  Neutral observers might worry more about whether courts, media, and leaders can effectively counter misinformation without undermining trust further.

 Overall Takeaway:

The Macron–Owens defamation lawsuit is more than a personal dispute — it highlights the modern clash between free speech, misinformation, and the reputational risks faced by public figures in a digital age.

On one side, the Macrons argue they must defend their integrity against damaging conspiracy theories, even if it means presenting intimate evidence before a U.S. court. On the other, Owens and her supporters frame the case as a test of speech protections and a warning against global elites attempting to silence dissenting voices.

For neutral observers, the case underscores how quickly personal rumors can cross borders, gain traction, and challenge legal systems not designed for viral, international misinformation. Whatever the verdict, the trial will set a precedent in the ongoing struggle to balance truth, privacy, and freedom of expression in an era where digital influence often outruns facts.

SOURCES: THE GATEWAY PUNDIT – Emmanuel and Brigitte Macron To Present Photographic and Scientific Evidence to the Court To Prove She Is a Woman, While Candace Owens Doubles Down on Claims

THE INDEPENDENT – Brigitte Macron to provide ‘scientific proof’ she is a woman in Candace Owens defamation battle

THE TELEGRAPH – Macrons to offer ‘photographic evidence’ to prove Brigitte is a woman