Have credible news organizations investigated claims about Brigitte Macron's gender?
Executive summary
Major international news organisations have repeatedly reported that persistent online rumours claim Brigitte Macron was assigned male at birth, and that courts have handled defamation cases about those claims rather than ruling on her gender (see Reuters on the July appeal ruling) [1]. The Macrons have filed defamation suits in France and the United States and said they will present photographic and “scientific” evidence in the U.S. case to rebut the allegation [2] [3].
1. What the reputable press has investigated — courts, trials and legal filings
Credible outlets have focused their reporting on legal developments and the social harms of the rumours rather than on investigating Brigitte Macron’s private medical or birth records. Reuters examined the July 2025 Paris Court of Appeal decision and reported the court acquitted two defendants of defamation but did not rule on the truth of the gender allegation — a point Reuters emphasised to correct viral misreadings of the judgment [1]. France24, BBC, Politico, AFP-linked reports and others have covered the criminal and civil cases linked to the rumours, including arrests, trials for cyber-harassment and the Macrons’ U.S. defamation suit [4] [2] [3] [5].
2. How major outlets frame the core question — dispute over truth vs. legal process
Mainstream reporting distinguishes two things: the existence and spread of the conspiracy theory, and what courts have or have not decided. Reuters explicitly states the appeal court “did not rule on the truth” of the gender claims [1]. BBC, Politico and others describe the Macrons’ plan to present “photographic and scientific evidence” in the U.S. court to refute the charge — a litigated attempt at proof rather than a journalistic unveiling of private records [2] [3].
3. Where journalists have exposed the origins and mechanics of the rumours
Investigations in France24 and related reporting trace the conspiracy’s roots to a 2021 YouTube video by self-styled investigators and a self-proclaimed medium, and show how the story circulated from fringe channels into wider social media ecosystems [6]. Reporters note the narrative’s persistence since Emmanuel Macron’s 2017 election and how it has been amplified by influencers, prompting legal countermeasures from the presidential couple [6] [5].
4. Evidence in reporting about “scientific” proof — what outlets say the Macrons will present
Several credible outlets report the Macrons’ lawyer has said they plan to present photographic and “scientific” evidence — including images purportedly showing Brigitte pregnant — in the U.S. defamation suit against Candace Owens and others [2] [7] [3]. Press coverage frames this as part of a legal strategy to demonstrate falsity to a U.S. jury, not as independent journalistic verification of personal medical facts [2] [3].
5. Victim impact reporting — why journalists care about the story beyond proof
News organisations have documented the personal and familial impact of the rumours. Reporting from Le Monde, CNN and France24 highlights testimony that the allegations caused anxiety and harassment affecting Brigitte Macron and her family, leading to criminal complaints and trials for cyber‑harassment [8] [9] [4]. This victim-impact angle is central in mainstream coverage.
6. Corrections, fact-checking and limits of court findings
Fact-checkers and reporting explicitly correct claims that courts “declared” the allegation true. Reuters’ fact-check headline: “French court ruled on defamation case appeals, not Brigitte Macron’s gender,” underlines that acquittals or reversals in defamation appeals concern legal thresholds and freedom-of-expression issues rather than factual adjudication of someone’s sex at birth [1]. Major outlets caution readers against conflating procedural appellate outcomes with determinations of biological fact [1].
7. What credible reporting does not (yet) show
Available sources do not mention any mainstream news organisation independently obtaining Brigitte Macron’s birth certificate, medical records or other direct personal documentation proving her sex at birth; coverage concentrates on court filings, public statements by lawyers, the provenance of the rumour and its harms [1] [2] [6]. No source here reports journalists conducting forensic verification of the private facts the conspiracy alleges.
8. Competing perspectives and implicit agendas in coverage
Sources show two competing dynamics: the Macrons and many outlets treat the story as disinformation and sexualized harassment, framing legal action to stop it [5] [9]. Conversely, some defendants and free‑speech arguments cited in appeals framed their publications as within permissible expression, which the Paris appeals court accepted for the two defendants on procedural grounds [1] [10]. U.S. influencers who promoted the claim (e.g., Candace Owens) bring an ideological and partisan element that outlets note as relevant to motive and amplification [2] [3].
Limitations: reporting cited here is legal and journalistic; it does not include private medical documentation and explicitly treats courts’ procedural rulings as distinct from factual proof [1] [2].