What media coverage and public opinion in France have followed Candace Owens' remarks?

1. The explosive allegation and the Macrons’ legal counterpunch — what the claims say and why the Macrons sued

The core claim circulating in this controversy is that Brigitte Macron was born a man — a narrative Owens repeated despite being debunked and traced to far-right sources in France. The Macrons filed a 22-count defamation lawsuit in July 2025 seeking damages and arguing that the charge is a grotesque lie that has been repeatedly amplified online; their lawyers say they asked Owens to retract before suing ^{[1] [4] [3]}. French reporting situates the claim’s origins in a 2021 French conspiracy moment tied to pandemic distrust and gilets jaunes fallout, noting earlier defamation wins by the Macrons against similar purveyors of the rumor ^[5]. The legal filing and public statements by the Macrons frame the suit as an effort to stem disinformation that “takes root” when left unchallenged ^{[4] [5]}.

2. How French media covered the story — from law desks to social commentary

French press coverage has been sustained and multifaceted: mainstream outlets emphasized the lawsuit and the Macron couple’s legal strategy, while cultural outlets traced the rumor’s provenance and its spread through far-right channels. Coverage from July through November 2025 shows a pattern: initial stories focused on the Macrons’ legal filing and the defamatory nature of Owens’ statements (July 2025 reporting) and later pieces linked the claims to an extreme-right journalist’s book and to Owens’ role in amplifying it globally (August–November 2025) ^{[1] [6] [2]}. French trial reporting in late October 2025 broadened the lens to criminal prosecutions for cyberharassment against multiple defendants, illustrating that French media treated the affair as both a legal matter and a social-media phenomenon ^[7]. The press consistently foregrounded misinformation’s trajectory from fringe French sources to U.S. influencer networks.

3. Public opinion in France — legal prosecutions, social reaction, and national sensitivities

Public reaction in France, as reflected in court cases and commentary, centers on outrage at harassment of the first lady and concern about online mob dynamics. A criminal trial in October 2025 prosecuted ten individuals for cyberharassment of Brigitte Macron, with some defendants minimizing actions as jokes or invoking free expression; French outlets framed those defenses skeptically, underscoring a societal boundary between ridicule and targeted humiliation ^[7]. Political context matters: distrust of politicians after Covid-era controversies and social movements created fertile ground for conspiracy narratives in 2021, and observers link that climate to the rumor’s initial traction ^[5]. French media and legal actors emphasize the reputational harm experienced by public figures when foreign influencers amplify domestic conspiracy threads.

4. Candace Owens’ response and the U.S. free-speech narrative competing with French legal claims

Owens and her team positioned the Macrons’ lawsuit as an assault on her First Amendment rights and described legal action as a PR tactic; she has publicly doubled down on her assertions and characterized requests for retraction as ignored or mocked ^{[1] [8]}. U.S.-facing outlets covered the lawsuit through a free-speech prism, noting Owens’ prominence in MAGA networks and her claim that the suit threatens journalistic freedom. French lawyers and commentators counter that public-figure status does not permit knowingly false, reputationally damaging claims to circulate without recourse, framing the suit as a defense against transnational misinformation rather than censorship ^{[4] [9]}. The discrepancy highlights divergent legal and cultural approaches to defamation and speech across the Atlantic.

5. The wider ecosystem — far-right amplification, pandemic-era distrust, and misinformation pathways

Reporting across July–November 2025 traces the rumor’s spread from a book by an extreme-right journalist and a 2021 YouTube interview into broader online ecosystems where far-right, anti-vaccine, and partisan networks amplified it. French articles situate the phenomenon within a pattern of conspiracy narratives that surged after Covid and the gilets jaunes protests, arguing that such narratives migrate from fringe domestic sources to global platforms when picked up by influential foreign personalities ^{[5] [2]}. Analysts and the Macrons’ lawyers treat Owens’ amplification as an accelerant; Owens’ defenders call for U.S. free-speech protections. This dynamic reveals cross-border friction when national legal remedies confront global social-media reach.

6. What the differing framings mean — legal stakes, public norms, and what to watch next

The immediate legal stakes are the Macrons’ civil defamation suit in the U.S. and France’s domestic cyberharassment prosecutions; outcomes will shape precedents about accountability for cross-border amplification of false claims ^{[4] [7]}. Watch for whether courts require proof of actual malice—knowing falsity or reckless disregard for truth—given the plaintiffs’ status as public figures, and whether judicial findings lead to greater platform moderation or political responses in France and the U.S. Media narratives show competing agendas: French sources emphasize reputational defense and anti-misinformation aims, while some U.S. commentators emphasize free-speech risks. The case therefore functions as a bellwether for how democracies reconcile free expression with protections against coordinated reputational harm.