How have French officials and Macron's office responded to Owens' allegation?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
French officials and the Macron office have publicly denied Candace Owens’s assassination allegation and, in related earlier actions, pursued legal remedies against Owens for spreading a false conspiracy about Brigitte Macron; the Macrons filed a 219‑page defamation complaint in Delaware alleging a “campaign of global humiliation” [1] [2] [3]. French security and government spokespeople have characterized Owens’s claims as false or “fake news,” and French authorities (including GIGN) have been cited denying involvement or the allegations’ veracity in media reporting [4] [5] [6].
1. Macron’s legal offensive: from retraction demands to a U.S. lawsuit
Emmanuel and Brigitte Macron moved beyond public rebuttals and retraction requests by filing a detailed 219‑page defamation suit in Delaware, arguing Owens ran a “smear campaign” that she monetized and that court action was the only remaining avenue after repeated requests for retraction [1] [2] [3]. The complaint catalogues multiple allegations Owens promoted — including that Brigitte Macron was born male — and accuses Owens of amplifying falsehoods for attention and profit [1] [7].
2. Direct denials from French security bodies and officials
French entities most directly implicated by Owens’s later assassination allegations have publicly refuted any connection: reporting notes that the National Gendarmerie Intervention Group (GIGN) has told French media the assassination claim is “fake news,” stressing its mission covers counter‑terrorism, crime fighting and hostage rescue — not clandestine political hits [4]. Multiple French spokespeople and media accounts described the broader allegation as unsubstantiated and swiftly rejected it [5] [4].
3. The Macron office’s broader stance: defend dignity, pursue legal remedy
The Macrons’ response strategy — as presented in court filings and their public messaging — frames the matter as an attack on personal dignity and a harmful campaign of conspiracy that required legal redress; their lawyers emphasized Owens “systematically reaffirmed these falsehoods” despite retraction demands, prompting a lawsuit in the U.S. [2] [3]. The complaint was prepared by high‑profile counsel experienced in media defamation cases, underscoring the couple’s intent to litigate rather than merely refute [1].
4. French media and fact‑checkers: rapid rebuttal and context
French and international outlets and fact‑checking organizations quickly placed Owens’s claims in context, reminding audiences that the false story about Brigitte Macron’s sex or identity predates Owens and that other French legal actions have already addressed similar conspiracies — for example, earlier French defamation cases against domestic purveyors of the theory [8] [9]. Reporters also noted that Owens provided no public evidence for the assassination claim while French authorities denied the allegations [5] [4].
5. Competing narratives and political framing
Owens framed her allegation as coming from a “high‑ranking employee of the French government” and suggested U.S. agencies had received the report; some sympathetic outlets relayed her assertions without corroboration [10] [6]. French officials and independent analysts pushed back, characterizing the charges as baseless and politically motivated — part of a pattern in which conspiracy content yields attention and revenue for its distributor [3] [5]. Sources disagree on motive (free speech vs. profit‑driven sensationalism) and on how the dispute should be resolved —courtroom accountability or public rebuttal [3] [7].
6. What reporting does not say (limits of available sources)
Available sources do not mention any published, verifiable evidence that connects the Macrons or French state actors to an assassination plot against Owens; they also do not report any French criminal investigation opened into Owens’s allegation [5] [4]. Sources do not provide confirmation of Owens’s claimed “high‑ranking” informant beyond her public statements, nor do they document any corroborating intelligence release from U.S. counterterrorism agencies in the cited coverage [10] [6].
7. Why the Macron response matters beyond this feud
The Macrons’ dual approach — legal action against what they describe as defamatory conspiracies and explicit denials from security services — signals a broader attempt to blunt transnational misinformation that can affect public figures and diplomatic relations. Their choice to sue in the U.S. and to involve specialist defamation counsel is intended to impose legal costs on repeat offenders and deter viral disinformation, an objective emphasized by reporting on the complaint [1] [3].
Limitations: reporting in the available set focuses on public statements, the Delaware complaint, and media denials; it does not include any classified or investigative files, nor independent verification of Owens’s claimed informant. All factual assertions above are drawn from the cited reporting [1] [9] [2] [7] [5] [10] [6] [4] [8] [3].