How did Candace Owens and other international influencers spread the Brigitte Macron gender conspiracy and what legal consequences followed?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
The claim that France’s first lady Brigitte Macron was born a man originated in fringe online circles after Emmanuel Macron’s 2017 election and was amplified internationally by right-wing influencers, most notably U.S. podcaster Candace Owens, who repeated and repackaged the allegation across social platforms and an episodic series; French courts have now convicted ten people for cyber‑harassment over those same false gender claims while the Macrons have filed a high‑profile defamation lawsuit against Owens in the United States [1] [2] [3]. The legal fallout thus spans criminal convictions in France for individual harassers and an ongoing civil defamation suit in U.S. courts targeting a major international influencer [4] [5].
1. How the rumor germinated and why it stuck
The rumor that Brigitte Macron had been born male — sometimes presented as the false claim she was originally named “Jean‑Michel Trogneux,” a real brother — circulated in French conspiracy and far‑right communities from as early as Macron’s 2017 election, fed by persistent scrutiny of the couple’s age gap and the former teacher‑student origin story of their relationship, which provided a recurring narrative hook for skeptics and trolls [1] [6] [3].
2. Candace Owens’ role in international amplification
Candace Owens, a right‑wing U.S. podcaster with large reach, repeatedly promoted the assertion on social platforms and produced an eight‑part series titled “Becoming Brigitte,” actions the Macrons’ U.S. complaint says were done “to promote her independent platform, gain notoriety, and make money” while disregarding evidence disproving the claim; multiple outlets report her posts materially broadened the audience for the conspiracy beyond French online niches [7] [2] [8].
3. Networked spread: influencers, conspiracy communities and cross‑border virality
Beyond Owens, the conspiracy was circulated by French and international far‑right figures, conspiracy theorists and online communities that trade in celebrity‑gender myths; those networks recycled the allegation, linked it to other culture‑war grievances (notably U.S. debates over transgender issues), and amplified each repeated claim into new audiences on social platforms [1] [7] [3].
4. Tactics used to sustain the narrative
Promoters relied on repetition, selective “evidence” (misattributed photos and invented identity claims), ridicule tied to the Macron age difference, and monetized content such as podcasts and merchandise to reward engagement; when challenged, some amplified persecution narratives — including Owen’s later assertions that France was plotting against her — which further inflamed followers and framed legal pushback as censorship [9] [10] [7].
5. Criminal convictions in France: targeted social‑media defendants
A Paris court found ten individuals guilty of cyber‑harassing Brigitte Macron for making malicious comments about her gender and sexuality, handing suspended sentences and other penalties; judges treated the case as symptomatic of broader toxic online culture and explicitly linked defendants’ posts to the same false gender allegations circulated internationally [4] [1] [11].
6. The U.S. defamation suit and cross‑jurisdictional implications
Separately, the Macrons filed a civil defamation suit in the U.S. against Owens seeking “substantial” damages and planning to introduce documentary and allegedly “scientific” evidence in court to prove Brigitte Macron was born female; Owens’ legal team has sought dismissal on procedural grounds, arguing the Delaware filing is improper, so the U.S. case remains active and could test how American defamation law applies to influential foreign‑targeted misinformation [5] [8] [1].
7. Competing narratives, motives and the public interest
Supporters of Owens frame her activity as free‑speech skepticism of elites and political provocation, while the Macrons and many journalists and researchers characterize it as monetized misinformation that weaponizes gendered attacks against prominent women; reporting from outlets including The New York Times, The Guardian and investigative outlets highlights both political motives and the commercial incentives behind repeated falsehoods [2] [6] [7].