What evidence do the Macrons plan to present in the U.S. defamation case against Candace Owens?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
The Macrons’ Delaware complaint says they will rely on a large body of documentary and testimonial material—including what their lawyers describe as “photographic” and “scientific” evidence—assembled into a multi‑hundred page filing that accuses Candace Owens of repeating demonstrably false claims about Brigitte Macron’s sex and family ties [1] [2] [3]. Public reports and the complaint itself promise pages of specific allegations and counts but do not fully catalogue, in open reporting, the technical nature of the “scientific” proof the plaintiffs say they will present, so the exact items remain partly unspecified in the sources [4] [3].
1. The complaint: length, counts and the documentary backbone
The Macrons filed a voluminous complaint in Delaware—reported at roughly 218–219 pages with 22 alleged counts of defamation and false light—that frames the plaintiffs’ case around extensive documentary claims and chronological allegations of Owens’ broadcasts and publications repeating the contested narratives [4] [2] [1]. Reporting and the public filing identify the complaint as the plaintiffs’ roadmap: it cites specific episodes, posts and an eight‑part Owens series “Becoming Brigitte,” and asserts that those statements were advanced despite available contradictory evidence [1] [4].
2. Photographs and “scientific” evidence — what the Macrons’ lawyers have said
Several outlets quote the Macrons’ US counsel saying the plaintiffs intend to introduce photographic material and “scientific” evidence intended to show Brigitte Macron was born female and is not the person alleged in the conspiracy [3] [5]. PBS and BBC paraphrase the same claim that the complaint contains “extensive evidence” and that the legal team will present materials designed to verify Mrs Macron’s sex at birth and rebut the Jean‑Michel Trogneux false identity narrative [2] [6]. None of the reports, however, specify in public reporting what tests, certificates, chain‑of‑custody details, medical records or forensic analyses will be submitted, so the technical contours of the promised “scientific” proof remain unclear from the cited sources [3] [5].
3. Genealogy and identity evidence: rebutting the Jean‑Michel claim
The Macrons’ complaint explicitly disputes the long‑circulated claim that Brigitte Macron is the person named Jean‑Michel Trogneux and asserts that Jean‑Michel is in fact her brother—an element the US filing says it will use documentary evidence to prove, tying photographs, family records and prior French rulings into the narrative that the rumours are “verifiably false” [7] [3]. French court activity and a related Paris action against online harassers are cited by the plaintiffs to show that the same falsehoods have generated domestic legal responses and that material exists to contradict the conspiracy [8] [7].
4. Chronology and repetition as evidentiary strategy
The complaint and reporting emphasize pattern and repetition: the Macrons point to Owens’ repeated podcast episodes, social posts and other republications of the claims—arguing that even if initial assertions were made in error, continuing to broadcast them after contrary evidence weakens any good‑faith defense and supports an actual‑malice claim for public‑figure plaintiffs [4] [9]. Media analysis frames this as a deliberate litigation strategy to pair documentary rebuttals with a timeline showing sustained amplification by Owens [9] [1].
5. Pushback, jurisdictional fights and what remains unreported
Owens and her counsel have pushed back—calling the suit “goofy” and arguing forum shopping and other procedural defenses—while the Macrons’ team has expanded the complaint and threatened “substantial” damages, and retained high‑profile libel counsel experienced in large media defamation cases [4] [9]. Crucially, reporting does not lay out exactly which lab reports, medical records, birth certificates or chain‑of‑custody documentation the Macrons will produce in court, nor does it quote the plaintiffs’ lawyers specifying the scientific methodologies they plan to rely on; those evidentiary particulars are therefore not confirmed in the public sources reviewed [3] [5].