Macron's wife is a men
Executive summary
The claim that France’s first lady, Brigitte Macron, “is a man” is a debunked conspiracy that has produced legal fights and mixed court outcomes but no credible evidence validating the allegation; French courts have treated many of the online attacks as defamation-lawsuits-in-the-us">cyberbullying while also leaving the factual question of her gender outside some appellate rulings [1] [2] [3]. The Macrons have pursued libel and defamation remedies in France and the United States and say they will present photographic and “scientific” evidence in the U.S. lawsuit against influencer Candace Owens [4] [5] [6].
1. How the allegation started and why it spread
The rumour that Brigitte Macron was born male began circulating in 2017 after a YouTube video by self-described journalist Natacha Rey claimed the First Lady never existed and that her brother Jean‑Michel Trogneux had changed sex and become “Brigitte,” a narrative amplified by conspiracy networks and later picked up by foreign influencers, including Candace Owens [7] [8]. France 24 and Euronews characterise the phenomenon as a “perfect storm” of transphobia, conspiracy and fake news that exploited the couple’s unusual age gap and the salacious appeal of a political scandal to go viral [8] [7].
2. French criminal and civil responses: convictions, acquittals and limits
French courts have responded to online attacks: in a 2024 proceeding two women were found guilty of slander for broadcasting unsubstantiated claims about Brigitte Macron’s gender [1], and a separate Paris court in January 2026 found 10 people guilty of cyberbullying for spreading false claims about her gender and sexuality [2] [9]. At the same time, an appeals court in July 2025 overturned convictions of two defendants in a related case and the court’s written ruling did not adjudicate Brigitte Macron’s gender itself, instead finding that expressions about someone’s gender were not necessarily defamatory under the specific freedom‑of‑expression balancing applied [10] [3].
3. The Macrons’ legal strategy and the U.S. angle
Because some high‑profile claimants who repeated the rumour are U.S.-based or broadly influential online, Emmanuel and Brigitte Macron have pursued litigation beyond France: they filed a defamation suit in the U.S. against Candace Owens for repeating the allegation, and their legal team has said the couple will present photographic and scientific documentation in the American proceedings [4] [5] [6]. Observers note the U.S. legal landscape presents a steeper hurdle for public‑figure plaintiffs given First Amendment protections, a point highlighted by coverage in the Christian Science Monitor and Reuters [4] [3].
4. What courts and reporting actually establish — and what they do not
Existing court rulings and reputable reporting establish that the “Brigitte is a man” narrative is an orchestrated hoax amplified online and that some individuals have been convicted or sanctioned for cyberbullying or slander tied to it [2] [1] [9]. However, appeals decisions in France explicitly did not decide the objective truth of Brigitte Macron’s gender in some instances, and news outlets caution that courtroom outcomes have sometimes turned on legal standards for defamation rather than forensic determinations of identity [3] [10]. No source in the provided reporting supplies credible medical or documentary proof validating the claim that Brigitte Macron is biologically male; conversely, the Macrons assert they will present evidence to refute such allegations in U.S. court [5] [6].
5. Context, motives and the broader information ecosystem
Reporting across BBC, France 24, Euronews, Time and other outlets frames the rumours as motivated by misogyny, political opportunism and the economics of online attention—actors pushing the story have ties to conspiracy circuits or far‑right media, and amplification often yields followers and clicks rather than truth‑seeking [8] [7] [11]. The Macron legal team’s push for public legal redress signals both a bid to protect reputation and an attempt to set precedent against transphobic conspiracies; critics argue that such suits collide with free‑speech norms, especially in the U.S., which helps explain why outcomes differ by jurisdiction [4] [3].