How did French officials or media respond to Candace Owens' remarks about France?

1. A Lawsuit as a Political and Legal Counterpunch — Why the Macrons Sued and What It Alleges

The Macrons brought a civil defamation suit against Candace Owens in Delaware in July 2025, alleging a deliberate campaign of global humiliation and “verifiably false” claims that Brigitte Macron was born male; the complaint lists multiple counts of defamation, false light and seeks compensatory and punitive relief while demanding a jury trial. The plaintiffs’ legal theory relies on U.S. First Amendment jurisprudence: to prevail they must prove Owens acted with actual malice — that she knew the statements were false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth — and Macrons’ lawyers say Owens’ repeated denials and amplification of the theory strengthen that claim ^{[4] [5]}. The filing is notable both for its international dimension — a French head of state suing an American commentator — and for the Macrons’ willingness to litigate in U.S. courts to secure an evidentiary forum to rebut the allegations.

2. French Government Tone and Institutional Response — From Presidential Statements to Parisian Courts

French officials have publicly condemned the rumors and emphasized their harms; President Macron described the transgender allegation about his wife as false information, and French courts previously fined individuals who circulated similar claims, signaling institutional intolerance for targeted defamation of public figures. French prosecutors and civil courts have already treated related rumor-mongering as actionable domestic defamation, and the Élysée framed the transatlantic lawsuit as part of a broader effort to “end this campaign of defamation once and for all,” positioning the case as both reputational defense and deterrent against online conspiracies ^{[2] [6]}. The legal posture reflects a French approach that combines private litigation and criminal or civil remedies to curtail what national institutions see as toxic misinformation.

3. Media Coverage and the Narrative Battle — French Outlets, Commentators, and the Framing of Disinformation

France’s media ecosystem has largely depicted Owens’ claims as conspiracy-driven and transphobic, with national press and commentators situating the story within prior episodes where Brigitte Macron was targeted and courts sanctioned purveyors of falsehoods. Coverage has emphasized the pattern — similar rumors promoted about other public women — and highlighted concerns about the cross-border spread of disinformation amplified by U.S.-based platforms and personalities. French journalists and analysts have linked the phenomenon to wider political movements and online ecosystems that profit from controversy, portraying the Macrons’ lawsuit as an attempt to both reclaim truth about a private figure and push back against a profitable misinformation market ^{[6] [3]}.

4. Owens’ Reaction and U.S. Free-Speech Context — Doubling Down and Casting the Lawsuit as a Publicity Fight

Candace Owens responded to the Macrons’ suit by doubling down on her narrative, calling the presidential couple’s legal action a bullying tactic and asserting readiness to contest the case in public; her responses include stronger language alleging wrongdoing by the Macrons and framing the dispute as a platform battle. U.S.-centered outlets note Owens’ history of provocative commentary and prior platform penalties, which the Macrons’ complaint cites to challenge credibility and motive; however, Owens’ defenders invoke free-speech norms and warn against litigation chilling political expression. This dynamic sets up a U.S. legal context where First Amendment protections and the stringent actual-malice standard will be central if the case proceeds to trial ^{[1] [4] [7]}.

5. Two Parallel Messages — French Emphasis on Harm, Owens’ Emphasis on Exposure, and What’s Missing

The public record shows two competing frames: French officials and much of the domestic media stress the harmful effects of false, identity-based rumors on individual dignity, public discourse and women’s safety, while Owens emphasizes exposure and controversy as expressive rights and commercial platform-building. Missing from much coverage are independent forensic or neutral expert reports publicly cited in media pieces to adjudicate factual claims beyond the parties’ assertions; the Macrons’ filing signals they will introduce scientific and testimonial evidence to rebut the rumor, but the matter’s adjudication will hinge on evidentiary findings in court rather than media narratives. The case crystallizes larger tensions between cross-border misinformation proliferation, national defamation remedies, and U.S. free-speech protections ^{[8] [9]}.