Has the French Embassy or Macron's office responded to claims about Candace Owens?
Executive summary
Coverage of Candace Owens’s November 2025 allegation that President Emmanuel Macron and the Macrons plotted to assassinate her is active across many outlets, but none of the provided sources show an official response from the French Embassy in Washington or the Élysée/President Macron’s office denying or confirming the claim (not found in current reporting). Reporting does confirm the Macrons filed a 219‑page defamation suit against Owens in July 2025 over her claims about Brigitte Macron [1] [2] [3].
1. What Owens is claiming and how she framed it
Candace Owens posted on X that a “high‑ranking employee of the French Government” told her the Macrons had authorized a plot and moved $1.5 million toward her assassination, mentioning alleged involvement of elite French units and an Israeli operative; she later said the White House and U.S. counterterrorism agencies had “confirmed receipt” of her report [4] [5] [6]. Owens tied the accusation to a months‑long feud that includes her podcast series asserting false claims about Brigitte Macron and to the Macrons’ defamation lawsuit against her [1] [2].
2. The legal and factual backdrop
Emmanuel and Brigitte Macron sued Owens in Delaware in July 2025, filing a detailed 219‑page complaint that accuses her of spreading “outlandish” and demonstrably false allegations about the first lady; reporting states the Macrons repeatedly requested retractions before suing [1] [2] [3]. The lawsuit is the clear context for the escalation in public back‑and‑forth and helps explain why newspapers and wire services are covering Owens’s new allegations closely [1] [2].
3. What outlets report and what they do not
Numerous outlets — including Barrett Media, Sportskeeda, Times of India, Axios, BBC, and others in the collected set — have reprinted or summarized Owens’s public statements and her claim that U.S. agencies “received” her report; many articles note there was no immediate confirmation from French, Israeli or U.S. authorities reported in their pieces [5] [4] [7] [3]. Several pieces explicitly say no official response had been received from the French Embassy or French authorities at the time of reporting [7] [3]. The compiled sources do not contain a cited, formal statement from the French presidency or the French Embassy directly addressing the assassination allegation (not found in current reporting).
4. How news organisations and commentators treated the claim
Mainstream outlets tend to present Owens’s allegations with caveats about evidence and verification: BBC and TIME emphasize the defamation lawsuit and describe the broader saga of Owens’s earlier claims about Brigitte Macron [1] [2]. Conservative and niche outlets often report Owens’s assertions more straightforwardly or with sympathetic framing [5] [6]. Some commentators and figures — for example Telegram founder Pavel Durov — are reported as saying parts of the narrative are “entirely plausible,” which has amplified online attention despite a lack of proof in the sources provided [8].
5. What independent verification exists in the available reporting
The sources supplied do not present corroborating evidence for Owens’s allegations — neither documents proving a $1.5 million transfer nor independent confirmation that Macron or the Élysée directed any assassination effort are included (not found in current reporting). Several outlets explicitly note the extraordinary nature of the claim and the absence of immediate verification by official agencies in their reporting [7] [3].
6. Potential motives, agendas, and why the story spreads
Owens’s claims come amid an ongoing, heated legal dispute that already centers on sensational allegations about the first lady; the lawsuit itself alleges Owens monetized and amplified false claims for notoriety and profit [2] [3]. Media outlets’ choices — from amplifying unverified assertions to emphasizing legal context and skepticism — reflect differing editorial priorities: traffic and audience engagement on some sites, legal‑news framing on others [5] [2] [3].
7. What to watch next
Look for an explicit statement from the Élysée or the French Embassy in Washington, or confirmation from U.S. counterterrorism or State Department spokespeople; none appears in the provided reporting so far (not found in current reporting). Follow-up reporting should ideally include named sources, documentation of any purported transfers, or formal responses from the named governments or agencies to move this beyond allegation [7] [3].
Limitations: this analysis uses only the collected set of reports supplied by your search results; those sources do not include any documented denial or admission by the French presidency or embassy regarding the assassination allegation (not found in current reporting).