Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What exactly did Candace Owens say about France and when did she say it?
Executive Summary
Candace Owens repeatedly promoted and amplified a long-running conspiracy that France’s First Lady, Brigitte Macron, is biologically male and formerly known as Jean-Michel Trogneux, asserting this on her shows and social platforms beginning in March 2024 and continuing through 2024–2025; Owens framed the claims as credible, pressed for photographic proof, and argued the backlash itself suggested a cover-up [1] [2]. The claims drew swift denials from official sources, widespread media rebuttals calling the narrative transphobic and unverified, and culminated in a July 2025 defamation lawsuit by the Macrons after Owens doubled down on the allegations [2] [3] [4].
1. How Owens first set the story alight — timing, sources, and the core allegation
On March 11–13, 2024, Owens aired allegations on her program that Brigitte Macron had been born Jean-Michel Trogneux and lived as a man for three decades before transitioning, citing a French right‑wing magazine’s multiyear investigation and press items such as the Daily Mail as her sources; she urged Emmanuel Macron to produce early-life photos to refute the claims and described the controversy as a scandal that merited investigation [1] [5]. Owens presented the lack of widely circulated childhood photographs as suspicious and asserted the story’s credibility partly because of the intensity of criticism she received, positioning media condemnation as evidence of gaslighting rather than disproof [1].
2. Media pushback and characterization of the claims as unverified and harmful
Within days, multiple outlets and commentators labeled Owens’ assertions unverified and transphobic, noting French courts and authorities had previously rebuked similar claims; President Macron publicly called the rumor false and journalists who examined it found no credible proof that Brigitte Macron was the person Owens described [2] [5]. Critics documented factual problems Owens relied on — misidentified photos and weak sourcing — and warned the narrative trafficked in gender-based misinformation, arguing Owens’ amplification risked causing harm by repeating unsubstantiated personal attacks rather than presenting new evidence [5] [2].
3. Owens escalated the rhetoric — implications, threats, and extreme assertions
Following the initial broadcasts, Owens broadened her claims beyond identity to allege institutional cover‑ups and even suggested links to serious criminality, at times implying that the Macron couple’s position related to failures to confront pedophilia in France; she explicitly said that if the state truly fought pedophilia the Macrons would not be in power, thereby connecting the identity rumors to allegations of moral corruption [6] [1]. This escalation converted a disputed biographical claim into sweeping accusations about political legitimacy and criminal tolerance, prompting defenders of the Macrons to characterize the narrative as both defamatory and an attempt to undermine public trust in established institutions [1].
4. Continued repetition, social media amplification, and legal consequences
Owens continued to repost podcast segments and social clips through 2024 and into 2025, at times swearing to stake her reputation on the allegation and mocking attempts to correct the record, which contributed to sustained visibility of the rumor in international conversations [2] [3]. The Macrons and their legal team attempted private engagement to stop the spread, according to reports, but the matter culminated in a July 24, 2025 defamation suit filed in Delaware seeking damages and presenting documentation that Brigitte Macron was born female — the suit was filed after what the plaintiffs say was a year of repeated false claims [3] [4]. The lawsuit frames the episode as disinformation with reputational injury, not merely debate.
5. What the public record actually supports — evidence, rebuttals, and the unresolved aspects
Public reporting included journalistic and legal rebuttals establishing that key claims lack verifiable evidence: courts fined previous purveyors of the rumor, French officials labeled it false, and the Macrons’ lawyers offered documentary proof of Brigitte Macron’s sex at birth as part of their legal challenge, yet Owens and supporters flagged gaps and court actions as signs of suppression [2] [4]. The balance of authoritative reporting finds no credible proof supporting Owens’ claim, while Owens portrays institutional responses and legal actions as part of the controversy she says proves the story — an interpretation accepted by some audiences but rejected by mainstream outlets and the plaintiffs in court [5] [4].
6. Broader context: motives, agendas, and why the story spread internationally
The narrative’s spread reflects a mix of factors: sensational claims about elite figures attract attention, partisan media ecosystems reward provocation, and social media algorithms amplify controversy; Owens leveraged these dynamics by citing fringe investigations and framing pushback as censorship, a strategy that resonated with audiences predisposed to distrust mainstream reporting [1] [5]. Observers warn that such tactics conflate legitimate skepticism with targeted personal attacks on identity, which complicates normal fact‑checking and invites legal pushback from those targeted, as the July 2025 lawsuit demonstrates [3] [4].