Have any French courts or defamation cases addressed transgender rumors about Brigitte Macron?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
French courts and prosecutors have repeatedly been drawn into fights over online claims that Brigitte Macron was “born a man.” A Paris appeals court overturned convictions against two women who spread that claim in July 2025, ruling their statements fell within “good faith” and not defamation; the Macrons have appealed to the Cour de cassation and filed separate defamation suits in the United States, and additional harassment trials followed in 2025 [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. Courtroom roller‑coaster: acquittal on appeal, not a verdict on gender
In July 2025 a Paris court of appeal acquitted two women who had been convicted in a lower court for alleging Brigitte Macron was born a man; the appeals court cleared them on the basis they acted in “good faith,” and the ruling did not adjudicate the truth of the underlying gender claim, a point emphasised in reporting by Reuters and Le Monde [1] [5]. Brigitte Macron and her brother have taken the matter to France’s highest court, the Cour de cassation, signalling the legal fight is ongoing and that the appeal court’s decision is procedural rather than a finding of factual accuracy [2].
2. Not an isolated spat — multiple legal fronts, domestic and international
The Macrons have pursued litigation beyond Paris criminal proceedings. In July 2025 Emmanuel and Brigitte Macron filed a defamation suit in Delaware against U.S. commentator Candace Owens over repeated assertions that Brigitte Macron is a man; that suit frames the issue as international amplification of conspiracies and accuses Owens of monetising misinformation [3] [6]. Back in France, tens of people have also faced harassment or cyber‑bullying charges tied to the same “born a man” rumours, with trials continuing into autumn 2025 [4] [7].
3. Courts balancing defamation law, free speech and “good faith”
French judges in the appeal proceedings applied a standard that in at least one ruling concluded the defendants’ statements did not meet the legal threshold for defamation because they were made in “good faith,” a legal determination that protects some speech even when factually dubious [1] [8]. Reuters’ fact check stressed the appeals court ruled on defamation law rather than Brigitte Macron’s gender itself, a distinction that has been lost in many online summaries [5].
4. How media and political actors shaped the dispute
The rumours spread widely online and were amplified by foreign commentators, gossip outlets and social media; reporting shows American influencers such as Candace Owens repeated the claim and that some media outlets republished or framed the story in ways that fuelled its reach, prompting the Macrons to seek legal remedy internationally [3] [6] [7]. French outlets and commentators have also debated whether mainstream media initially under‑covered the disinformation, which some analysts say helped the conspiracy gain traction [7].
5. Legal limits and public‑interest fault lines
Coverage indicates French courts are wrestling with legal limits: whether calling someone transgender is defamatory, how to weigh “good faith” in speech alleging private facts about a public figure, and when harassment statutes should apply to coordinated online campaigns [5] [2]. RFI and Le Monde note the rulings complicate efforts to counter digital misinformation because an acquittal on defamation does not validate the conspiracies but may reduce avenues for civil redress [7] [2].
6. What the rulings did not decide — and what sources don’t say
The appeals court did not rule that the transgender claim about Brigitte Macron is true; it ruled on defamation and good‑faith grounds [5]. Available sources do not mention any French court finding that Brigitte Macron “was born a man”; reports instead show acquittals or prosecutions turned on legal standards rather than factual determinations about her gender [1] [5]. Several outlets report ongoing appeals and additional trials, showing the issue remains unresolved in the courts [2] [4].
7. Competing narratives and implicit agendas
Proponents of the conspiracy frame the story as exposing a “state lie” or targeting elite privacy; defendants in court cited satire or “thicker skin” for public figures [7] [8]. The Macrons and their lawyers characterise the campaign as monetised, transnational defamation and harassment, an argument that underpins their Delaware suit and appeals in France [3] [6]. Media that amplified the claim have commercial and partisan incentives to run sensational content; legal filings allege some amplifiers sought audience and profit [3] [6].
Limitations: this analysis relies solely on the supplied reporting; I do not assert facts not contained in those sources. All cited facts above are drawn from the listed articles [1] [5] [3] [2] [4] [7] [6].