Did any French politicians file complaints or call for action against Candace Owens?

1. What the core claims are — A focused extraction of accusations and targets

The central claims extracted from the reporting are straightforward: Candace Owens repeatedly asserted that Brigitte Macron was born a man, promoting the allegation across U.S. platforms; the Macrons accuse Owens of knowingly spreading a falsehood for notoriety and profit and of contributing to a global harassment campaign that caused reputational harm. The Macrons’ Delaware complaint runs multiple counts and seeks compensatory and punitive damages, contending Owens acted with actual malice and that her conduct goes beyond protected speech into actionable defamation and false-light claims. This litigation follows parallel French proceedings against other individuals who circulated similar rumors domestically, illustrating that the allegation is the nucleus of both civil suits and criminal harassment cases. ^{[3] [1] [4]}

2. The Macron lawsuit: rare, high-profile, and procedural specifics that matter

The Macron suit filed in Delaware in July 2025 is notable as a foreign head of state initiating a U.S. defamation action; the complaint spans more than 200 pages and alleges a 22-count cause of action, emphasizing the scale and specificity of the Macrons’ legal response. The choice of Delaware Superior Court and the framing around actual malice are tactical, as plaintiffs must show Owens either knew the statements were false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth to prevail. The Macrons assert documentary evidence—including civil records and witness testimony—refutes Owens’ claims and underpins requests for both presumed and punitive damages, signaling they seek both compensation and a deterrent effect. This litigation underscores the intersection of transnational reputation law and U.S. free‑speech protections. ^{[1] [5]}

3. Parallel French proceedings: domestic harassment cases and verdicts that set context

Separately, French courts have prosecuted individuals in Paris accused of harassing Brigitte Macron by circulating the same gender‑rumor narrative; a Paris trial involved roughly ten defendants charged with harassment, and French courts previously found two women guilty of defamation for spreading the rumor. Those domestic convictions and proceedings illustrate France’s legal approach to combating gender-based harassment and defamation, and they provided part of the evidentiary and contextual backdrop the Macrons cited when electing to sue Owens abroad. Importantly, these French cases are distinct legal tracks: criminal or civil domestic actions aimed at different defendants, whereas the Delaware suit targets the U.S.-based influencer for cross-border publication effects. ^{[6] [3]}

4. Candace Owens’ response and the jurisdictional battle over where to litigate

Owens has publicly and legally resisted the suit, filing motions seeking dismissal on grounds that Delaware courts lack jurisdiction over her speech and arguing constitutional protections for speech, while simultaneously doubling down on her assertions in social media comments. Her defense mixes First Amendment arguments with procedural challenges—a common strategy in high-profile defamation suits involving public figures—aiming to shift the dispute into constitutional territory where burden-of-proof thresholds for plaintiffs are higher. The Macrons assert they were compelled to sue because the falsehood proliferated in the U.S.; Owens maintains the plaintiff’s forum choice and claims about jurisdiction are legally contestable, setting up a cross‑jurisdictional legal fight. ^{[4] [5]}

5. Timeline and sourcing: who reported what and when — a brief chronology

Reporting converges on July 2025 as the moment the Macrons filed the Delaware complaint; follow-up coverage through August and October 2025 documents the legal filings, Owens’ response, and the ongoing Paris trial of separate defendants who circulated the rumor. Key reporting dates include the initial July 2025 filing and subsequent August commentary by Emmanuel Macron explaining why they sued, with later October accounts describing the Paris proceedings and noting that the Macron family had previously sued other rumor‑spreaders. This sequence shows the domestic French prosecutions came alongside and prior to the Macrons’ transatlantic civil suit, and it helps explain why the presidential couple escalated to U.S. litigation. ^{[1] [2] [6]}

6. What’s not happening — the absence of broad French political complaints and the political optics

Crucially, beyond President Macron and his wife bringing a private suit, there is no well‑documented record of other French politicians formally filing complaints or calling for legal action specifically against Candace Owens; the actions described are the Macrons’ personal legal responses and separate French prosecutions against domestic defendants. Media narratives framing a sweeping French political backlash against Owens overstate the role of institutional French political actors; the Macrons’ lawsuit is high profile because of their offices, but it remains a private civil case initiated by individuals who happen to be the president and first lady. Observers on different sides frame the suit as either a defense of truth or a threat to speech, reflecting partisan agendas in commentary rather than new mass political intervention. ^{[6] [7]}