Which disputed claims by Candace Owens prompted legal threats or defamation suits?
Executive summary
Candace Owens has faced formal legal threats and at least one high-profile defamation suit after repeatedly promoting a long-running conspiracy that France’s first lady, Brigitte Macron, “was born a man” and related allegations; Emmanuel and Brigitte Macron filed a 218–219 page defamation complaint in Delaware in July 2025 accusing Owens of a “campaign of global humiliation” and seeking substantial damages [1] [2]. Reporting and court filings say Owens continued to republish the claim after retraction demands, produced an eight-part series called “Becoming Brigitte,” and sold related merchandise—facts the complaint cites as evidence she monetized the allegations [2] [1].
1. The claim that triggered a lawsuit: “Becoming Brigitte” and the sex‑swap charge
The central disputed claim in the Macrons’ complaint is that Brigitte Macron was secretly born male—often repeated by Owens as the assertion that Mrs. Macron is actually “Jean‑Michel Trogneux”—and Owens aired and amplified that allegation across her podcast, video series, and social channels, prompting the Macrons to sue for defamation and false light in Delaware in July 2025 [3] [4].
2. How the Macrons say Owens escalated the story
The plaintiffs’ 218–219 page complaint alleges Owens refused retraction requests, persisted after receiving a December retraction demand that “conclusively disproved” the claim, produced an eight‑part miniseries titled “Becoming Brigitte,” and even sold merchandise such as a fake Time cover T‑shirt—conduct the suit says shows she promoted and monetized demonstrably false claims [2] [1].
3. The legal theory and stakes the Macrons presented
The Macrons’ lawyers framed the suit as a response to a “campaign of global humiliation” alleging Owens circulated “outlandish, defamatory, and far‑fetched fictions” to grow and profit from her platform; the complaint points to repeated retraction demands and says Owens ignored credible evidence disproving the claims [1] [3].
4. Coverage and legal context cited by news outlets
Major outlets including Fortune, PBS/Newshour, BBC, The Guardian and Axios reported the filing and highlighted that the suit names Owens personally and her Delaware‑incorporated companies; several reports emphasize the use of Clare Locke—the firm known for extracting large defamation recoveries—underscoring the case’s seriousness [5] [6] [3] [1].
5. What Owens’ defenders and spokespeople said
Owens’ team framed the lawsuit as an attack on free speech; a spokesperson called it “a foreign government attacking the First Amendment rights of an American independent journalist,” and Owens publicly vowed to fight the suit and to “not shut up,” according to reporting [1] [2].
6. Broader pattern reporters link to the Macron suit
News coverage situates the Macron lawsuit within a pattern of Owens platforming conspiracy theories and controversial claims—coverage cites prior instances that stirred official responses, including Australia’s visa cancellation in 2025 that noted a risk she could “incite discord,” and reporting that the Macron claims were part of a wider series of allegations the complaint catalogues [7] [4].
7. Contrasting perspectives on motive and impact
The Macrons’ side argues the allegations were knowingly false, profitable, and intentionally humiliating; critics and outlets say Owens’ “controversy‑as‑currency” business model encourages amplification of sensational claims for audience growth. Owens and her defenders say legal action by foreign leaders threatens press freedoms—both positions are reflected in the reporting and the complaint [5] [1].
8. Limitations and what the available reporting does not say
Available sources document the Macron defamation suit and the specific Brigitte‑Macron sex‑claim as the main disputed allegation prompting legal action; available sources do not mention other separate, specific defamation lawsuits filed against Owens beyond the Macron complaint in July 2025 or judicial resolutions of every related claim [4] [3].
9. Why this matters now
The case tests the boundary between provocative commentary and actionable defamation when amplified at scale and monetized; reporters note the choice of Delaware court (where Owens’ LLC is incorporated) and the involvement of high‑stakes counsel signal this is not merely a reputational dustup but a litigated challenge that could reshape incentives for monetized misinformation [1] [5].
If you want, I can extract the complaint’s specific counts and examples the Macrons cite from the 219‑page filing [7] and summarize them line by line.