Did Macron put a hit on owens
Executive summary
Candace Owens has publicly alleged that French President Emmanuel Macron and his wife Brigitte paid $1.5 million to have her killed and that she reported the threat to the White House and U.S. counterterrorism agencies; Owens’ posts have been viewed tens of millions of times but she has provided no publicly verified evidence and no U.S. agency has corroborated the claim in available reporting [1] [2] [3].
1. The allegation and how it was announced
Owens said on X that “a high‑ranking employee of the French Government” told her the Macrons “have executed upon and paid for my assassination,” claiming a $1.5 million payment and naming a purported unit and an Israeli operative; she also announced her show would go off air while the matter was being handled [4] [5] [1].
2. How mainstream outlets are reporting the claim
European and U.S. outlets are treating Owens’ statements as an allegation without corroboration: Euronews noted her post drew over 40 million views and traced her previous amplification of conspiracy narratives about Brigitte Macron while pointing out lack of evidence for the assassination claim [6] [2]. The Wrap and Jerusalem Post summarized Owens’ allegations and her claims she notified federal authorities, but they did not report independent confirmation [1] [7].
3. Official responses, investigations and evidence — what’s on record
Available reporting says no U.S. or French authority has publicly corroborated Owens’ account; fact‑checking outlets and news summaries state Owens has not produced verifiable evidence and that no U.S. agency has confirmed the plot in their reporting to date [3] [8]. France24’s fact‑checking unit put her post in the category of false or unsubstantiated claims about the presidential couple in ongoing coverage [2].
4. The legal and political backdrop that matters
The accusations come amid a defamation lawsuit by the Macrons against Owens for her repeated claims that Brigitte Macron was transgender and had stolen an identity — litigation that news reports say was filed after Owens continued to promote those claims despite lawyers’ requests for retraction [9] [8]. That adversarial context is central to understanding motive and audience dynamics reported alongside the assassination allegation [9] [8].
5. Competing narratives and how different outlets frame risk
Some conservative and niche outlets have amplified Owens’ version and her claim she informed the White House, while mainstream, fact‑checking, and European outlets emphasize the absence of corroboration and link the allegation to prior conspiracy theories about Brigitte Macron; reporting therefore splits between amplification and skepticism [10] [2] [6].
6. What Owens says she told U.S. authorities — and what’s verified
Owens stated she notified “people in the Federal government” and that the White House and counterterrorism agencies “confirmed receipt” of her report; independent checks in the reporting compiled here say no U.S. agency has publicly validated the plot and fact‑checkers list the claim as unproven [1] [3].
7. Evidence claimed, evidence published — gap analysis
Multiple outlets note Owens has described specific details (amounts, alleged unit, an Israeli participant) and offered to provide names and account trails, but as of the reporting collated here she has not publicly produced documents, named her French source, or published verifiable financial or paperwork trails — leaving a substantial evidentiary gap [1] [8] [5].
8. Why this matters beyond personalities
The charges implicate a sitting head of state in an assassination plot and invoke international security institutions; when such claims circulate without public verification they risk diplomatic strain, misinformation spread, and potential harm to people named or targeted by the narratives — concerns highlighted across mainstream and fact‑checking coverage [2] [6] [3].
9. What to watch next
Credible confirmation would require either public statements from U.S. intelligence or law enforcement, verifiable documents (bank transfers, contact records) made available to journalists, or court filings that introduce evidence; absent those, reporting to date treats Owens’ assertions as unverified [3] [8].
Limitations: available sources do not include any official confirmation from U.S. agencies or the French government that verify Owens’ assassination claim; they instead document Owens’ statements, the Macrons’ defamation suit context, and fact‑checking skepticism [3] [9] [2].