What evidence do the Macrons allege in their July 2025 Delaware defamation complaint to refute Owens’s claims?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
The Macrons’ July 23, 2025 complaint in Delaware denies Candace Owens’ allegations and says it attaches documentary and contextual evidence to show her claims are false, points to prior French court rulings and correspondence demanding retractions, and catalogs Owens’ use of monetization and known conspiracy sources to rebut her narrative [1] [2] [3].
1. The core charges and the factual claims the complaint seeks to rebut
The complaint frames the case around a discrete set of demonstrably false narratives — principally that Brigitte Macron was born male, that the Macrons are blood relatives, and that Emmanuel Macron was installed via CIA mind‑control or similar conspiracies — and alleges Owens broadcast those claims widely on her platforms, reviving them in March 2025 and thereafter [2] [1] [4].
2. Documentary and procedural evidence the plaintiffs say they supplied before suing
The Macrons’ lawyers say they repeatedly demanded retractions and provided “credible evidence disproving” Owens’ claims before filing suit; press summaries of the complaint state the plaintiffs sent three separate retraction demands that included evidence purporting to disprove the allegations, and that Owens refused to retract [2] [1] [5]. The public reporting of the complaint emphasizes those pre‑suit letters as central to the Macrons’ claim that Owens acted with “actual malice” by continuing to publish despite being shown contrary evidence [1].
3. How the complaint uses prior French litigation and rulings as support
The complaint cites prior French libel litigation and verdicts involving others who propagated similar rumors about Mrs. Macron: French courts previously found two women guilty of libel for spreading the “born male” claims, though an appellate court later overturned that judgment on other grounds, a fact noted in filings and public descriptions of the record [6] [7]. The Macrons’ filing relies on this history to show the allegations have been adjudicated in related proceedings and to rebut Owens’ portrayal of the rumor as newly or credibly substantiated [7] [6].
4. Allegations about Owens’ sources, promotion tactics and monetization
Beyond direct documents about the Macrons’ identities, the complaint highlights Owens’ amplification chain — naming known conspiracy theorists and “proven defamers” she allegedly platformed — and points to commercial incentives, including merchandise (for example, a fake TIME “Man of the Year” T‑shirt) and platform monetization, as evidence she promoted the lies for attention and profit rather than as a bona fide investigation [5] [3] [8].
5. The legal theory tying the alleged evidence to defamation and “actual malice”
Because Emmanuel and Brigitte Macron are public figures, the complaint asserts the higher U.S. standard of “actual malice” — that Owens knew the statements were false or acted with reckless disregard for truth — and frames the pre‑suit correspondence, the existence of contrary documentary and adjudicative material, and Owens’ continued publication and monetization as direct proof of that mental state [1] [5]. The complaint also seeks punitive damages and a jury trial, underscoring its contention that Owens’ conduct was intentional and commercially motivated [5] [4].
6. What the complaint does not (publicly) produce in the media summaries
Public reporting and press summaries emphasize the Macrons’ allegation that they provided “credible evidence” and retraction demands, but available news excerpts and filings quoted in reports do not publish the full documentary exhibits or identify a single passport, birth record, or other specific primary document in the press summaries; therefore, outside the court filing itself, the precise contents of every piece of documentary evidence relied upon are not fully laid out in the news coverage reviewed here [2] [7] [9].
7. Counterclaims, Owens’ response and the political context
Owens and her defenders frame the suit as an attack on free speech and have pushed back publicly; she has questioned the plaintiffs’ motives and suggested the litigation is bullying, while the Macrons’ lawyers and a heavyweight firm, Clare Locke, counter that this is a straight defamation claim against a profitable media operation whose “business model” the complaint alleges includes trafficking in falsehood for engagement [3] [8] [2]. Observers note the high stakes and political overtones — the Macrons using U.S. courts and a Delaware corporate forum to confront a U.S. influencer with a global audience [8] [1].