French President and Wife Take Candace Owens to Court Again
French President Emmanuel Macron and his wife, Brigitte Macron, have filed a new defamation lawsuit against American conservative commentator and podcaster Candace Owens. The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Tennessee on November 4, 2026, represents another chapter in the couple’s ongoing legal battle over claims Owens has repeatedly made about Brigitte Macron’s identity, personal history and marriage. The new case comes after a separate lawsuit filed in Delaware in 2025 was narrowed by a judge who ruled that the court did not have jurisdiction over Owens personally.
The latest complaint contains 88 claims involving defamation, false light and defamation by implication. The Macrons accuse Owens of continuing to publish statements they describe as false and damaging, even after they initiated their earlier legal action. The complaint focuses on material Owens allegedly shared through her podcast series, Becoming Brigitte, and posts on the social media platform X. The couple argues that the statements have harmed their reputations and subjected them to widespread public humiliation.
One of the central allegations concerns Owens’s repeated claim that Brigitte Macron was born male and had concealed her identity. Owens has promoted the claim that Brigitte was formerly known as Jean-Michel Trogneux. However, Jean-Michel Trogneux is the name of Brigitte Macron’s older brother. The Macrons maintain that the allegations are false and that Owens has presented them as factual despite information contradicting them. These assertions form part of the plaintiffs’ legal case and will be evaluated through the judicial process.
The complaint also addresses other claims Owens allegedly circulated about the French president and his wife. These include allegations that Emmanuel Macron was selected for the presidency through a CIA mind-control program and that the couple are blood-related relatives engaged in incest. The Macrons argue that these statements go beyond ordinary political criticism or commentary because they allegedly accuse the couple of deception and criminal conduct. Their lawyers contend that the claims were presented as factual assertions rather than protected expressions of opinion.
The new lawsuit also places attention on Owens’s eight-part podcast series, Becoming Brigitte. According to the complaint, the series expanded the allegations and encouraged audiences to accept the claims as part of a larger narrative about the French first lady. The Macrons allege that Owens continued publishing similar material after the first lawsuit was filed in 2025. They argue that the continued publication demonstrates that the earlier legal action did not stop the alleged conduct and that a new case in Owens’s home state was necessary.
Another unusual element of the complaint concerns a doll Owens has reportedly used in videos and other online content. The Macrons object to the doll, which they say caricatures Brigitte Macron’s appearance and is used as a prop to ridicule her. The complaint describes the figure in highly critical terms and argues that its use forms part of a broader campaign targeting the first lady. The dispute over the doll is among the specific issues highlighted in the latest filing, adding a merchandising and personal-ridicule dimension to the legal battle.
The Macrons further allege that Owens has benefited financially from the controversy. Their complaint claims that she used the allegations to attract attention, grow her audience, promote subscriptions, sell merchandise and collect donations connected to her coverage of the couple. The plaintiffs argue that the allegations have helped Owens expand her media platform while causing reputational damage to them. These financial-motive claims are allegations in the complaint and have not been established through a court finding.
The lawsuit seeks actual damages, presumed damages and punitive damages. Actual damages are intended to compensate for losses that can be established, while presumed damages may be available under applicable law in certain circumstances. Punitive damages, if permitted and ultimately awarded, are intended to punish particularly wrongful conduct and discourage similar behavior. The Macrons are also requesting a narrowly tailored court order that would prevent Owens from republishing statements found to be defamatory. Whether such an order is legally justified will be for the court to determine.
The new Tennessee filing follows an important procedural development in the couple’s earlier Delaware lawsuit. In July 2025, the Macrons sued Owens and two businesses associated with her, alleging that they had participated in a campaign of false statements. Owens challenged the Delaware court’s authority over her personally because she resides in Tennessee. A judge agreed that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over Owens as an individual, dismissing her from that case on jurisdictional grounds. However, the case against the two companies was allowed to continue. That decision did not resolve the truth or falsity of the underlying allegations.
The Tennessee lawsuit places Owens herself at the center of the new legal proceedings because the case was filed in the state where she lives. The Macrons’ legal team has indicated that the filing responds to Owens’s own position that Tennessee was the appropriate location for a lawsuit against her personally. Owens acknowledged the new claims in a post on X and responded publicly, including with comments about the Brigitte doll. Her response does not resolve the legal issues, and the allegations in the complaint remain subject to the court process. The case is separate from the ongoing Delaware proceedings involving her companies.
The dispute also comes against the background of earlier legal action in France involving people who spread claims about Brigitte Macron’s gender identity. In September 2024, two women were convicted in a French case concerning false claims about the first lady, although that ruling was later overturned on appeal on legal grounds. Other proceedings have also addressed online harassment directed at her. Those cases are distinct from the American lawsuits and do not determine whether Owens is liable under U.S. defamation law. They do, however, illustrate how the claims have circulated internationally and generated repeated legal disputes.
The new lawsuit now places the dispute before a federal court in Tennessee, where questions of jurisdiction, the legal status of the statements and the evidence supporting the Macrons’ claims will have to be addressed. The couple must establish the elements of their legal claims under the applicable law, while Owens will have an opportunity to respond and raise defenses. Filing a complaint does not establish liability, and the court has not ruled that Owens is legally responsible for the alleged harm. The case could become an important test of how American courts handle defamation claims involving international public figures, online commentary and allegations spread through podcasts and social media.
Key Legal Outcomes
- New federal lawsuit: Emmanuel and Brigitte Macron filed a new defamation case against Candace Owens in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on November 4, 2026.
- 88 legal claims: The complaint includes claims involving defamation, false light and defamation by implication.
- Damages requested: The Macrons seek actual, presumed and punitive damages, along with a limited injunction against the republication of statements found to be defamatory.
- Earlier Delaware case continues: A judge dismissed Owens personally from the Delaware lawsuit on jurisdictional grounds but allowed the case against her associated companies to proceed.
- No liability finding yet: The Tennessee case is newly filed. Owens has the opportunity to defend herself, and the court has not determined whether she is liable.
Why It Matters
- Online accountability: The case raises questions about the legal consequences of repeatedly publishing allegations about public figures through podcasts and social media.
- Defamation standards: The proceedings may examine the distinction between protected commentary and factual statements that plaintiffs claim are false and damaging.
- Jurisdiction matters: The move from Delaware to Tennessee demonstrates how the location of a defendant can affect where a lawsuit may proceed.
- Financial incentives and media platforms: The complaint raises questions about whether alleged false claims can create financial benefits through audience growth, merchandise and subscriptions.
- International legal impact: The dispute illustrates how online allegations can cross national borders and lead to legal proceedings in multiple countries.
Editorial note: The new complaint contains allegations, not court findings. The Delaware case and the Tennessee case are separate proceedings, and the earlier jurisdictional ruling did not decide whether the disputed statements were defamatory.
Related:
