Did Candace Owens or her legal team release statements about interactions with law enforcement or protective measures in 2025?

1. Owens’ public safety claims: what she said and where

In late November 2025 Candace Owens posted on X that she had gone to U.S. authorities and that the White House and counterterrorism agencies had “acknowledged receipt” of her report alleging a French-linked assassination plot; she also announced pausing her show because of “escalating threats,” and media outlets relayed her X posts while noting no official confirmation from federal sources ^{[2] [1] [7]}.

2. Media reporting and verification: official sources silent

News organisations covering Owens’ posts reported her claims and that she asserted she had provided material to U.S. agencies, but multiple outlets make explicit that the White House, federal law enforcement and French authorities had not publicly corroborated her allegations at the time of reporting — leaving claims unverified in mainstream reporting ^{[2] [3]}.

3. The Macron defamation litigation and Owens’ legal posture

The Macrons sued Owens in Delaware in July 2025 over repeated public allegations; their lawyers say they will present scientific and eyewitness evidence in court, while Owens’ legal team described the suit as “a baseless defamation suit” and moved to dismiss, arguing venue and corporate ties make Delaware improper and that defending there would cause hardship ^{[8] [4] [5] [6]}.

4. How Owens framed interactions with law enforcement in other reporting

In separate episodes relating to the investigation of Charlie Kirk’s death, Owens publicly questioned law enforcement handling of surveillance video and said she had “leaks” or sources for certain claims; press coverage records her posting and commentary but does not substitute for law-enforcement statements confirming her assertions ^{[9] [10] [11]}.

5. Competing narratives and source motivations

Mainstream outlets and fact-checkers treated Owens’ public allegations skeptically, reporting her posts while underscoring the lack of evidence and official confirmation ^{[3] [2]}. Pro‑Owens outlets and partisan commentators frame her claims as credible or plausible, and her legal team’s statements attacking the Macrons’ suit reflect a strategy to shift attention to procedural defenses and to portray plaintiffs as conducting a PR-driven case ^{[4] [12]}.

6. What the available sources do not say

Available sources do not mention any public, on‑the‑record confirmation from U.S. law enforcement or national-security agencies that Owens’ report triggered formal operational protective measures (e.g., an assigned FBI security detail) nor do they document court filings or official agency statements validating her assassination allegation ^{[2] [3]}.

7. Legal and journalistic implications going forward

The Macrons’ lawsuit creates a formal legal arena where evidence and sworn testimony may be tested; Owens’ public claims to have contacted national-security channels will be easier to evaluate if and when official agencies comment or court discovery produces records — until then reporting correctly treats her public statements as unverified assertions ^{[5] [6] [2]}.

8. Bottom line for readers

Candace Owens did publicly state she reported threats and paused her show for safety, and her legal team has aggressively contested the Macrons’ suit — those are documented in coverage ^{[1] [4]}. Independent, on‑the‑record confirmation from law‑enforcement or counterterrorism agencies about protective measures or the plot she alleges is not found in current reporting ^{[2] [3]}.