Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: Have any public figures taken legal action against Candace Owens for defamation?
Executive Summary
Candace Owens is the target of defamation litigation filed by French President Emmanuel Macron and First Lady Brigitte Macron after Owens repeatedly asserted that Brigitte Macron “was born a man,” prompting the couple to sue and to say they will submit evidence to refute the claim. The suit, publicized in multiple September 23, 2025 reports, accuses Owens of spreading false, harmful claims for notoriety and financial gain while Owens has defended herself by demanding invasive proof from Brigitte Macron [1] [2].
1. Why this lawsuit landed in headlines: a high-profile clash of personalities and platforms
The litigation made headlines because it pits a high-profile American media figure against the sitting French president and first lady, elevating a personal defamation dispute into an international news item. The Macrons allege that Candace Owens repeatedly propagated an unfounded claim about Brigitte Macron’s sex assigned at birth—an allegation the couple calls false and deeply humiliating—and they filed suit to stop the dissemination and to obtain redress. The reporting date is September 23, 2025, indicating this is a recent escalation in a cross-border media conflict that mixes celebrity, politics, and legal remedies [1] [2].
2. What the plaintiffs are accusing Owens of, and the evidence they say they will use
According to the reports, the Macrons’ complaint frames Owens’ statements as defamatory falsehoods promoted for attention and monetary benefit, and the couple’s legal team announced plans to present photographic evidence to establish Brigitte Macron’s gender history as part of their defense. The lawsuit alleges Owens leveraged her sizeable social reach to amplify the claim, and the Macrons seek to remedy reputational and emotional harm. The filings reportedly focus on both the falsity of the statement and the motives ascribed to Owens, portraying this as a deliberate campaign rather than a single offhand remark [1] [2].
3. How Owens responded publicly and the tactics she has used
Reporting indicates that Owens responded aggressively, publicly demanding that Brigitte Macron undergo an “invasive” medical exam to prove she was not born a man—a counter-demand that the coverage characterizes as provocative and inflammatory. Owens’ public posture, including the call for medical proof, escalates the dispute and frames it in confrontational terms, accentuating the media spectacle. The articles emphasize Owens’ large audience—nearly 7 million followers on X and over 4 million YouTube subscribers—suggesting why the Macrons say the alleged falsehood propagated widely and why they felt compelled to pursue legal action [2].
4. Legal context: defamation law, cross-border challenges, and public-figure standards
The reports underscore that defamation cases involving public figures often require plaintiffs to show false statements made with actual malice or reckless disregard for truth, raising complex legal questions when litigation crosses borders. France’s defamation regime differs from U.S. law, and pursuing remedies against a U.S.-based figure with a large online following introduces jurisdictional and enforcement questions. The coverage frames the case as testing both the reach of national libel rules in the digital age and the balance between freedom of expression and protecting personal dignity—questions that will shape litigation strategy and possible outcomes [1].
5. Motive and media economy: are there commercial incentives behind the claims?
The Macrons’ complaint, as described in the articles, explicitly accuses Owens of exploiting the claim to boost her platform and financial bottom line, suggesting commercial motive as part of the alleged damage. The reporting notes Owens’ substantial audience metrics to support that characterization. This line of argument seeks to portray the statements not as private opinion but as intentional disinformation used to generate engagement, donations, or ad revenue—an allegation that, if proven, strengthens claims of recklessness or malice under defamation standards [2].
6. Competing narratives and potential agendas shaping coverage
Coverage of the dispute contains competing narratives: one emphasizes the Macrons’ right to protect dignity and truth against baseless attacks; the other frames Owens as a provocative commentator targeted for her political views. Each narrative aligns with broader media and political leanings, and both sides have incentives—public figures to defend reputation, commentators to amplify controversial claims. The single-day reporting cited (September 23, 2025) may reflect an initial news cycle; follow-up reporting could reveal litigation filings, court dates, or dismissals that adjust the public story [1] [2].
7. What to watch next: legal milestones and evidentiary battlegrounds
The coming steps likely include formal service of the complaint, any jurisdictional or venue challenges by Owens, motions to dismiss, and evidentiary disputes over what constitutes admissible proof of Brigitte Macron’s sex assigned at birth. Courts will grapple with privacy concerns, the relevance of medical or photographic evidence, and whether the plaintiffs can meet the malice standard applicable to public figures. Observers should watch for filings that specify damages sought, preliminary injunctions seeking removal of content, and domestic or international legal maneuvers that determine whether the lawsuit proceeds to discovery or settlement [1] [2].