Has Candace Owens ever issued formal retractions or corrections for false statements, and where were they published?

1. How retraction demands and lawsuits entered the public record

Reporting by The Guardian and other outlets documents that the Macrons’ legal team sent “three separate retraction demands” to Candace Owens, including materials aimed at disproving her claims about Brigitte Macron; those demands are cited as a proximate cause of the defamation lawsuit filed in Delaware ^[1]. Barrett Media’s coverage similarly says the Macrons’ lawyers asked Owens for retractions and that the couple filed suit after she continued to share the contested material ^[2].

2. What Owens is alleged to have published that sparked retraction requests

Encyclopaedia Britannica and other profiles summarize the content at issue: Owens promoted claims that the French first lady was “born male” and aired an eight-part podcast series called Becoming Brigitte that the Macrons’ complaint said contained “outlandish, defamatory, and far-fetched fictions” ^[3]. The Guardian reports Owens doubled down on those claims rather than withdrawing them after the retraction demands ^[1].

3. Did Candace Owens publish formal retractions or corrections? — What the sources say

None of the provided sources report a formal, published retraction or correction issued by Owens to resolve the Macrons’ allegations; instead, the Macrons’ statements and the lawsuit say she ignored their requests and continued to amplify the claims ^{[1] [2]}. Wikipedia’s entry notes Owens continued to make and repeat contentious claims and claimed to have “credible” information in later posts, but it does not document a retraction published by her ^[4]. Therefore, available sources do not mention a specific Owens-published formal retraction.

4. Owens’s public response as reported

According to The Guardian and other outlets, Owens did not quietly retract: a spokesperson said she was “not shutting up,” and Owens reportedly mocked the Macrons and treated the dispute as fodder for her audience, even after the retraction requests ^[1]. Britannica records that she “mocked them” and used the controversy to further her messaging rather than issuing a correction ^[3].

5. Broader pattern in the record supplied here

The documents in the search results show a pattern where third parties (the Macrons’ lawyers, Reuters reporting on other disputes) demanded retractions or legal remedies after contested statements by Owens; those sources emphasize legal escalation and public rebuttal rather than Owens issuing formal corrections ^{[1] [5]}. Other pieces cited in the results discuss additional controversial claims she has made (e.g., on assassination plots and on Charlie Kirk), but the sources do not show Owens publishing formal corrections for those episodes either ^{[6] [7] [8]}.

6. Competing perspectives and what to watch in reporting

One set of sources frames the Macrons’ action as necessary legal redress after failed private efforts at correction, noting they provided evidence to deny the claims and sought retractions that they say were ignored ^[1]. Another perspective, reflected in Owens’ camp, portrays legal action as an attack on her free-speech or journalistic independence; The Guardian cites a spokesperson saying this was a foreign government “attacking the first amendment” ^[1]. Readers should weigh the Macrons’ claim of documented disproving evidence ^[1] against Owens’ public posture of defiance as reported ^[1].

7. Limitations and final assessment

These search results document retraction demands, public denials by the Macrons, and Owens’ continued publishing of contested claims ^{[1] [2] [3]}. They do not show a published, formal retraction or correction from Owens herself; therefore, available sources do not mention a formal Owens-published retraction ^{[1] [2] [4]}. If you need confirmation of corrections beyond these items, further primary-source searches (Owens’ podcast archives, her verified social posts, or formal correction notices) would be the next step.