What is the origin of the rumor that Brigitte Macron is transgender?
Executive summary
The rumor that France’s first lady Brigitte Macron is transgender began circulating in fringe French media and social channels in 2021 and traces back to a December 2021 YouTube interview that claimed she was born “Jean‑Michel Trogneux.” That claim was spread by self‑described journalist Natacha Rey and others, led to defamation suits and convictions in 2024 (later partially overturned on appeal), and was amplified internationally by figures such as Candace Owens in 2024–25 [1] [2] [3].
1. How the story started: a four‑hour online “investigation”
The immediate origin identified by multiple outlets is a long December 2021 YouTube interview in which self‑styled investigator Natacha Rey — joined by internet “medium” Amandine Roy — alleged that Brigitte Macron had been born male and originally called Jean‑Michel Trogneux, the name of the first lady’s real brother [1] [4]. French reporting and later fact checks show that that video packaged family photos and speculative assertions as a “state‑sponsored lie,” giving a simple memeable narrative that a real‑world audience could copy and repost [4] [5].
2. From fringe to court: legal fallout and mixed rulings
Brigitte Macron and her brother filed libel and defamation suits after the 2021 video; in September 2024 two women behind the video were convicted and ordered to pay damages, a ruling widely reported [1]. That conviction was later overturned or modified on appeal in mid‑2025 — an appeals court said some posts were spread “in good faith” and did not amount to defamation under free‑speech reasoning — which further confused public perception and was misread by some as “proof” of the claim itself [3] [6].
3. International amplification: how the rumor jumped language borders
U.S. commentators, most prominently Candace Owens, repackaged and amplified the claim starting in 2024, with long videos and posts that pushed the theory into anglophone networks and far‑right circles; that shift converted a niche French conspiracy into an international talking point [2] [7] [8]. Media trace this leap to Owens’s “Becoming Brigitte” content and to social media recirculation by accounts that trade in outrage and conspiracy [2] [8].
4. Motives and mechanics: why this particular falsehood spread
Sources attribute spread to several explicit and implicit drivers: a political motive to delegitimize the Macron presidency; a general internet pattern of “transvestigation” conspiracy framing public women as secretly trans; and platform dynamics that reward sensational claims with engagement [5] [4] [2]. French analysts note surges in posts after controversial Macron statements, showing how political events can trigger mass reposting of pre‑existing rumors [9].
5. Media, law and misinterpretation: what court decisions did and did not say
Courts have dealt with the disseminators and some forms of harassment, but reputable outlets stress that judicial rulings did not — and could not — determine Brigitte Macron’s private biological history as a public fact. Reuters and other fact‑checks flagged social posts wrongly interpreting appeal rulings as “confirmation” of the rumor; courts addressed defamation and freedom‑of‑expression balances, not gender identity as fact [3] [6].
6. Harm, context and competing perspectives
Reporting frames the rumor as a form of transphobic attack that weaponizes gender identity to shame women in public life; civil‑society commentators warn it fuels real‑world harassment against transgender people and cis women alike [10] [5]. At the same time, some defendants in French trials argued their statements were satire or within free‑speech bounds, a perspective courts sometimes accepted on appeal [11] [3].
7. What credible sources say now — and what they don’t say
Major fact‑checks and mainstream outlets repeatedly classify the story as false and trace its origin to the 2021 video and subsequent amplifiers [1] [6] [3]. Available sources do not mention any verified medical or birth records published to support the conspiracy; instead they document litigation, social amplification and debunking [6] [3].
8. Takeaway for readers: how to judge similar claims
The Brigitte Macron episode illustrates a familiar pattern: an emotive, simple claim originating in a fringe production; rapid social amplification by influencers; selective legal outcomes that are misread as validation; and mainstream fact‑checks that find the claim unsubstantiated. Scrutinize provenance (who produced the initial claim), check for court or official documents cited by outlets, and treat appeals rulings about defamation as legally narrow rather than substantive proof of biographical assertions [4] [3] [6].
Limitations: this account uses only the provided reports and does not claim access to private legal filings or medical records beyond what those sources report.