What did President Biden or Press Secretary say about the Macron-Owens confrontation?
Executive summary
President Biden and the White House press office do not appear in the supplied reporting as having directly confirmed Candace Owens’s claims that French President Emmanuel Macron ordered a plot against her; Owens says she told the White House and that U.S. counterterrorism agencies “confirmed receipt” of her report, but multiple outlets note no official U.S. agency has corroborated her allegations [1] [2] [3]. Coverage instead centers on Owens’s public accusations, the Macrons’ defamation suit, and fact‑checking that highlights a lack of evidence [4] [5] [6].
1. What Owens says she told the White House — and how outlets report it
Candace Owens posted on X that she had informed the White House and U.S. counterterrorism agencies of an alleged Macron‑ordered plot and later said those offices “confirmed receipt” of her report; Barrett Media and other outlets quote her direct posts relaying that claim [1] [3]. Several outlets picking up her posts — including The Daily Guardian and Sportskeeda summaries of coverage — explicitly note that Owens’s statement about White House acknowledgment comes from her social posts, not from a public White House statement [2] [3].
2. What the White House or Biden are reported to have said (or not said)
Available sources do not include any direct quote, statement, or press briefing from President Biden or the White House press secretary that confirms Owens’s substantive allegations. Fact‑check pieces and mainstream reporting cited here emphasize that no U.S. agency has publicly corroborated Owens’s assertions [2] [3]. In short: the claim Owens attributes to the White House is reported by outlets as her claim; no independent White House confirmation appears in the provided reporting [2] [1].
3. How fact‑checkers and mainstream outlets frame the credibility question
Euronews, The Daily Guardian and other outlets summarized in the results underscore the lack of evidence Owens has produced and treat her accusations as unverified. Euronews notes she “provided no evidence” and places her claims in the context of earlier conspiracy work by Owens and others [4]. The Daily Guardian’s fact check says Owens’s claims remain uncorroborated and “stand solely as Owens’ assertions” at this stage [2].
4. The broader context: legal fight between the Macrons and Owens
This confrontation is the latest escalation in a long‑running feud: Emmanuel and Brigitte Macron filed a defamation lawsuit in Delaware against Owens earlier in 2025 over her repeated claims about Brigitte Macron’s birth sex and relationship to the president. Reporting on that suit explains the legal backdrop and the Macrons’ contention that Owens spread falsehoods for attention, which frames why the Macrons are reacting strongly to new accusations [5] [7] [8].
5. Competing narratives and potential motivations
Reporting shows two competing frames: Owens presents herself as a target who has informed U.S. authorities and is pressing for official acknowledgment; the Macrons and fact‑checkers present her claims as part of an escalatory pattern of unproven allegations that prompted legal action [1] [7] [4]. Journalistic pieces note the potential political incentives at play — Owens’s profile benefits from sensational claims, while the Macrons have legal and reputational reasons to refute and litigate against conspiracy narratives [8] [5].
6. What is — and is not — documented in the supplied reporting
Documented: Owens’s X posts claiming she told the White House and that U.S. agencies “confirmed receipt” [1]; widespread media coverage of those posts and of the Macrons’ defamation suit [4] [5]. Not documented in these sources: any independent White House, FBI, or intelligence statement confirming the content or veracity of Owens’s allegations; any presented evidence proving a Macron‑ordered plot [2] [3].
7. What to watch next (and how readers should treat claims now)
Follow authoritative statements from the White House, DOJ, or federal counterterrorism agencies — if any are issued — and watch for court filings in the Macrons’ defamation case that might reference or rebut Owens’s newest claims. Given the current reporting, readers should treat Owens’s claim about White House confirmation as her assertion reported by outlets and not as an independently verified fact [1] [2] [4].
Limitations: this analysis uses only the supplied sources and therefore cannot incorporate subsequent statements or reporting beyond them; if you want I can recheck for any White House press briefings or agency statements published after the pieces cited here.