How has Brigitte Macron responded publicly to rumors or personal attacks in the past?
Executive summary
Brigitte Macron has responded to repeated personal attacks and persistent online rumours primarily through legal action and private testimony about their impact: she filed a formal criminal complaint in August 2024 that led to a cyberharassment investigation and arrests, joined a defamation suit in the U.S. against Candace Owens in 2025, and her lawyers and family have publicly described the claims as harmful and distracting [1] [2] [3]. French court proceedings against ten people accused of online harassment began in October 2025 after prosecutors said the posts spread unsubstantiated claims about her gender and described the age gap with President Macron in defamatory terms [3] [4].
1. Legal counterattack: suing and filing criminal complaints
When conspiracy theories that Brigitte Macron was “born male” escalated, the Élysée mounted a legal response: Brigitte filed a criminal complaint in Paris in August 2024 which prompted police probes and arrests, and the couple later filed a 22‑count defamation suit in Delaware against U.S. influencer Candace Owens in 2025 [1] [5] [2]. French prosecutors launched trials in Paris in October 2025 of ten people accused of cyberbullying over the same claims, showing the Macrons’ strategy has combined domestic criminal complaints and transatlantic civil litigation [3] [4].
2. Public framing: harm, anxiety and distraction
Macron’s camp — including lawyers and family members — have publicly framed the rumours as more than prank discourse: they have described the allegations as “incredibly upsetting,” a “distraction” to the president, and a source of “deep anxiety” that forced Brigitte Macron to police her appearances and wardrobe for fear images would be weaponized online [6] [1] [7]. Her step‑daughter testified in court that the cyberbullying had harmed Brigitte Macron’s health and living conditions, giving a human, medicalized account of the impact in open proceedings [7].
3. Criminal vs. free‑speech debate in court
Defendants in the Paris trial have invoked freedom of expression as a defence; a court of appeals previously acquitted some figures on free‑speech grounds, prompting further appeals by the Macrons [6]. Prosecutors, by contrast, have described the posts as “malicious” and tantamount to defamation, cyberbullying and group harassment — language repeated by Brigitte Macron’s legal team in court [8] [4]. This frames the case as a legal contest over where satire or debate ends and punishable harassment begins [8] [6].
4. Two‑track strategy: court, reputation management and private investigation
Beyond suits, reporting indicates the Élysée has employed investigative and reputational measures: the Macrons have hired outside investigators and pursued both criminal probes and civil cases to trace and counteract the “Jean‑Michel Trogneux” conspiracy that originated online in 2021 and resurged internationally [9] [10]. News outlets note Elysée filings and private inquiries into the origins and amplification networks of the false narrative [9].
5. International amplification and cross‑jurisdictional response
The conspiracy migrated to U.S. platforms after amplification by a high‑profile American podcaster, prompting litigation in Delaware as well as action in Paris — a sign that modern reputational attacks can force cross‑border legal responses when content creators and audiences sit in different jurisdictions [1] [5] [2]. The Delaware complaint alleges a “relentless year‑long campaign,” underlining why the Macrons sought remedies beyond French courts [1].
6. Media coverage and competing narratives
Mainstream outlets (BBC, AFP, Reuters, NYT, Le Monde) document the Macrons’ legal steps and personal testimony about harm; far‑right and conspiracy outlets continue to push the original claim and sometimes cast prosecutions as censorship [4] [11] [9]. Some defendants and commentators argue prosecutions threaten free expression, while the Macron camp asserts prosecutions are necessary to stop targeted defamation and group harassment [6] [8].
7. What available sources do not mention
Available sources do not mention Brigitte Macron making sustained public speeches directly addressing or debunking the conspiracy in her own voice; reporting instead shows her lawyers and family speaking on her behalf and the couple pursuing litigation [6] [1] [7]. Available sources do not mention any formal public apologies or reconciliatory statements from the accused; many defendants denied wrongdoing and invoked free speech in court [4] [3].
Limitations and final note: reporting is centred on court filings, family testimony and coverage of online campaign traces; conclusions about Brigitte Macron’s personal feelings rely on statements from lawyers and relatives rather than extensive direct public remarks by her, as reflected in the cited coverage [6] [7] [1].