What legal defenses has Candace Owens used in response to defamation threats?
Executive summary
Candace Owens has publicly responded to defamation threats — and a July 2025 defamation lawsuit from French President Emmanuel Macron and First Lady Brigitte Macron — by doubling down on her claims, framing litigation as an attack on her First Amendment rights, and promising to fight in court rather than retracting statements [1] [2]. The Macrons’ complaint alleges Owens ignored three retraction demands between December 2024 and July 2025 and brings 22 counts against Owens, her company and a website operator, seeking unspecified damages [3] [4].
1. Owens’ immediate rhetorical defense: defiance and doubling down
From the day the Macrons filed suit, Owens used her podcast and social channels to reject the allegations, criticize the plaintiffs, and repeat the contested claims — a rhetorical posture she described on-air as readiness to “take on this battle” rather than to back down [1]. Multiple outlets reported that her July 24 podcast episode ran more than 30 minutes and included direct attacks on the Macrons and reiterated the theory at the center of the complaint [1] [5].
2. Legal posture she and allies articulate: First Amendment framing
Owens’ camp has argued the lawsuit amounts to an effort by a foreign government to chill American speech, framing the case as a free‑speech fight rather than an ordinary damage claim [2]. Her spokesperson portrayed the Macrons’ action as an attempt to suppress an “American journalist’s First Amendment rights,” according to reporting on her response [2].
3. Reported legal facts: the Macrons’ claims and procedural posture
The plaintiffs filed a detailed, 219‑page Delaware complaint in July 2025 alleging a “campaign of global humiliation” and asserting 22 counts of defamation and related claims against Owens, Candace Owens LLC and GeorgeTom Inc.; the complaint says Owens ignored three retraction demands sent between December 2024 and July 1, 2025 [4] [3]. News coverage places the suit in Delaware Superior Court and notes the complaint seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages [4] [1].
4. Owens’ substantive defense strategy in public: doubling down on facts she claims to have
Rather than retracting, Owens has repeatedly presented materials and threads to support her assertions — a pattern noted by outlets describing an eight‑part podcast series (“Becoming Brigitte”) and other posts where she presented records and images she said supported her claims [1] [6]. Reports say she called the lawsuit proof that her reporting mattered and continued to promote the underlying conspiracy narrative [5] [6].
5. How media and legal observers interpret her tactics
Coverage from Fortune, Euronews and other outlets frames Owens’ approach as characteristic of “controversy-as-currency”: boosting audience engagement and revenue while treating litigation as another platform to amplify claims [4] [7]. Law‑focused pieces note the Macrons retained Clare Locke — the firm behind major media defamation litigation — signaling the plaintiffs intend an aggressive legal strategy [4].
6. What the record shows about formal legal defenses (what’s reported and what isn’t)
Available reporting documents Owens’ public responses, her First Amendment framing, and her refusal to retract allegations after retraction demands [2] [3] [1]. Available sources do not mention any formal pleadings filed by Owens laying out specific legal defenses (for example, truth, opinion, lack of malice, or jurisdictional challenges) in response to the Delaware complaint; reporting instead emphasizes her public rhetoric and vow to contest the suit [3] [1] [4].
7. Competing perspectives and implicit incentives
Plaintiffs say Owens ran a “relentless smear campaign” and ignored multiple chances to retract; they seek to stop the spread and obtain damages [5] [3]. Owens and her supporters cast the suit as suppression of journalistic speech and a foreign‑led attempt to intimidate an American commentator [2]. Observers warn both that litigation can amplify claims and that a monetized media brand has incentives to resist retraction — a point raised explicitly by critics quoted in Fortune and by media‑watch groups [4].
8. Limitations and what to watch next
Current reporting provides extensive coverage of public statements, the plaintiffs’ detailed complaint and retraction‑demand timeline [3] [4] [1]. Not found in current reporting are Owens’ filed legal briefs laying out affirmative defenses in the Delaware case or any court rulings resolving those defenses; forthcoming court filings and decisions will be the primary source for which defenses are formally raised and how a judge evaluates them [3] [4].
Takeaway: Owens’ defense so far is public, combative and constitutional in tone — a strategic refusal to retract combined with a free‑speech framing — while the Macrons press an aggressive legal case alleging ignored retraction demands and 22 counts of defamation [1] [3]. Future court filings will reveal whether Owens formalizes traditional legal defenses (truth, opinion, privilege, or lack of malice) or continues to rely primarily on public persuasion. Not found in current reporting: the specific legal pleadings from Owens detailing those defenses [3] [4].