How has Emmanuel Macron and the Élysée Palace responded to personal attacks or gender-related rumors about Brigitte Macron?
Executive summary
Emmanuel Macron and the Élysée have responded to personal and gender-related attacks on Brigitte Macron primarily through legal action — both criminal complaints in France that led to arrests and trials and a high-profile defamation suit in the United States — while publicly framing the campaigns as malicious, transphobic cyberbullying that has harmed the first lady’s health [1] [2] [3]. French prosecutors pursued criminal charges against individuals accused of spreading false claims, and the Élysée has contested and sought to correct false reports attributed to the president’s office [4] [5].
1. Legal counterpunch: criminal complaints and trials
When online rumours and targeted campaigns asserted that Brigitte Macron was born male, the Élysée and the Macrons turned first to criminal procedures in France. Brigitte Macron filed a criminal complaint alleging sexist cyberbullying and defamation that precipitated police investigations and the arrest of suspects, and a trial in Paris of ten people accused of propagating gender-based falsehoods opened in October 2025 [1] [4]. French prosecutors described the posts as “malicious comments” that amounted to online harassment; defendants have in some cases invoked freedom of expression [1] [4].
2. Transatlantic defamation suit against high-profile amplifiers
Beyond French criminal courts, the Macrons brought a 219‑page defamation lawsuit in Delaware against U.S. commentator Candace Owens over her amplification of the conspiracy theory that Brigitte Macron was born male; U.S. litigation was presented as necessary to confront the global reach and commercial amplification of the false narrative [6] [1]. The New York Times and Fortune describe the Delaware suit as an effort to hold an influential amplifier accountable for what the Macrons call a global campaign of humiliation [1] [6].
3. Élysée public posture and disputing false attributions
The Élysée Palace has not only supported legal action but has contested specific attributions and sought to correct public record. For example, when reporting on other subjects quoted the president, the Élysée contested certain quotes attributed to Macron — showing the palace will publicly dispute reporting it finds inaccurate [5]. The palace also filed complaints in earlier episodes — in 2018 for identity theft using Brigitte Macron’s name — signaling an institutional pattern of treating personal-targeting as official business [7].
4. Emphasis on harm to Brigitte Macron and domestic testimony
In court and the media, the Macrons have emphasized the personal toll. Brigitte’s daughter testified that the rumours caused “deep anxiety” and that her mother’s health deteriorated; lawyers for the family described the allegations as “incredibly upsetting” and a distraction for the president [3] [4]. Prosecutors have characterized certain social-media posts as describing the age gap as “state-sanctioned paedophilia,” illustrating how gender-related rumours dovetailed with other vitriolic attacks [3] [8].
5. Prosecution’s framing: cyberbullying, defamation and harassment
French prosecutors pursued the matter under laws tackling online harassment and defamation. In Paris hearings, prosecutors requested suspended sentences for defendants accused of sexist cyberbullying and described the online campaign as group harassment that intentionally spread baseless rumours [9] [1]. Defense arguments in court have included appeals to freedom of speech; prosecutors and the Macrons’ lawyers countered that the posts crossed into criminal conduct [9] [4].
6. Media distrust and misinformation ecosystem
Reporting by outlets such as RFI, France24 and The Guardian traces the origin and amplification of the Jean‑Michel/“Trogneux” conspiracy to fringe outlets and far‑right actors; specialists describe the pattern as “transvestigation,” a tactic targeting prominent women with transphobic hoaxes [10] [11] [2]. The Élysée’s legal responses must be read against this ecosystem where foreign broadcasters, social platforms and U.S. influencers all contributed to virality [11] [6].
7. Limitations and open questions in reporting
Available sources document the legal steps taken and courtroom testimony about harm, but they do not provide a comprehensive catalogue of every Élysée public statement or internal deliberation on strategy; available sources do not mention internal Élysée communications beyond contesting quoted attributions and filing complaints [5] [7]. The balance between pursuing criminal prosecutions in France and civil suits in the U.S. reflects both tactical and jurisdictional choices reported by news outlets [6] [1].
8. Competing narratives and political context
The Élysée frames responses as defense of an individual against malicious, politically‑motivated disinformation; critics and some defendants frame prosecutions as limits on free expression [9] [4]. Reporting also links the smear campaigns to political moments — for example, spikes in activity after controversial statements — suggesting political actors exploited gendered attacks to undermine the presidency [10] [11].
Summary takeaway: The Macron administration has met gendered rumour‑mongering with coordinated legal action, public rebuttals and courtroom testimony about personal harm — a strategy framed by the Élysée as necessary to combat organized, transphobic misinformation while raising debates about free speech limits and the transnational reach of online harassment [1] [6] [10].