Macrons to Present Scientific Evidence in U.S. Court as Defamation Battle with Candace Owens Escalates

The Macrons Prepare to Present “Scientific Evidence” in U.S. Court

The defamation lawsuit between French President Emmanuel Macron, his wife Brigitte Macron, and American right-wing commentator Candace Owens has taken a dramatic new turn. What began as a viral conspiracy theory has escalated into an international legal showdown, one that may soon involve scientific proof, personal photographs, and deeply intimate testimony.

According to their attorney, Tom Clare, the Macrons are prepared to go to extraordinary lengths to disprove Owens’ claims that Brigitte Macron is “in fact, a man.” The couple, Clare revealed, intends to present photographic and scientific evidence before a U.S. court, demonstrating once and for all that Brigitte Macron is a woman. It’s a surreal reality in 2025: the First Lady of France a 71-year-old grandmother, teacher, and mother of three being forced to defend her very identity against accusations born in fringe corners of the internet, amplified by a high-profile American influencer, and now tested in a U.S. courtroom.

So how did we get here, and what happens next?

The allegations against Brigitte Macron aren’t new. They trace back to a 2021 YouTube video by French bloggers Amandine Roy and Natacha Rey, who claimed, without evidence, that Brigitte was born male. French fact-checkers debunked the claims, and in 2024, the Macrons successfully sued the bloggers for defamation in France. But the victory didn’t last. In 2025, the ruling was overturned on appeal, not because the claim was proven true, but because French courts ruled in favor of freedom of expression. The Macrons are appealing that reversal, but in the meantime, Candace Owens took the conspiracy global.

ALSO READ: The Macrons vs Owens: Battle Shaking Two Nations

In March 2024, Owens announced to her audience that she would “stake her entire professional reputation” on the belief that Brigitte Macron is a man. She repeated the claim on her podcast, formerly carried by The Daily Wire, and on her X account, reaching millions. Even after being dropped by The Daily Wire (over antisemitic rhetoric), Owens continued to promote the claim independently.

By July, the Macrons had filed a lawsuit against her in Delaware Superior Court, seeking damages and legal costs. The 200-page complaint accuses Owens of 22 counts of defamation and related claims, arguing that she deliberately ignored facts and instead platformed “known conspiracy theorists and proven defamers” to profit from lies.

The Burden of Proof: Why the Macrons Are Turning to Science

In American defamation law, especially when public figures are involved, the burden of proof is heavy. Plaintiffs must show not only that the claim was false but that it was spread with “actual malice”, that is, with knowledge of its falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. For the Macrons, that means evidence isn’t optional. It’s essential. Their lawyer, Tom Clare, explained in an interview with the BBC’s Fame Under Fire podcast that the First Lady is ready to provide documentation, photographs, and expert testimony. “There will be expert testimony that will come out that will be scientific in nature,” Clare said. “Both generically and specifically, it will demonstrate that the allegations are false.”

While he declined to detail the exact nature of the evidence, Clare suggested it could include medical documentation and pregnancy records. When pressed on whether photos of Brigitte Macron pregnant and raising her children existed, he confirmed they did and would be presented in court under strict evidentiary standards. Clare acknowledged the ordeal was “incredibly upsetting” for Brigitte Macron, describing it as a humiliating invasion of privacy. “It is incredibly upsetting to think that you have to go and subject yourself, to put this type of proof forward,” he said. But he added that Brigitte Macron was “100% ready to meet that burden” to “set the record straight.”

It’s easy to get lost in the legal jargon, but at its core, this case is deeply personal. For Emmanuel and Brigitte Macron, the rumors aren’t just offensive, they are exhausting distractions that weigh heavily on their public and private lives. Clare noted that Emmanuel Macron, though a seasoned political leader, isn’t immune to the emotional toll. “Just like anybody who is juggling a career and a family life as well, when your family is under attack, it wears on you. And he’s not immune from that because he’s the president of a country,” Clare said.

In August, Emmanuel Macron himself addressed the issue in an interview with Paris Match. His words carried both frustration and resolve: “This is about defending my honour! Because this is nonsense. This is someone who knew full well that she had false information and did so with the aim of causing harm, in the service of an ideology and with established connections to far-right leaders.” For Brigitte Macron, the humiliation cuts even deeper. To be forced, in her seventies, to publicly prove her womanhood, something that should never be up for debate — is both degrading and surreal. Yet, her willingness to endure the process underscores her determination to end the falsehood once and for all.

Owens’ Defense: Free Speech and Jurisdiction

Candace Owens’ legal team has wasted no time pushing back. They have filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that the case shouldn’t be heard in Delaware. Since Owens’ businesses are not incorporated in the state, they argue, forcing her to defend the case there would cause “substantial financial and operational hardship.” Beyond jurisdiction, Owens has leaned on a familiar defense: free speech. She has publicly stated that she believes what she said is true and that there is “nothing more American than free speech and the ability to criticise.”

This defense taps into a broader cultural debate in the U.S., where the line between free expression and defamation lies. While the First Amendment protects opinions, it does not shield knowingly false statements that cause real harm. The Macrons’ challenge will be to prove that Owens acted with malice, intentionally spreading lies despite clear evidence to the contrary.

A Clash of Cultures: France vs. America on Defamation

This case also highlights the stark differences between French and American defamation laws. In France, defamation is taken far more seriously, with stricter penalties and fewer protections for speech that damages reputations. In the U.S., the balance tilts heavily toward protecting free expression, even when it veers into damaging territory.

That’s why this lawsuit is so significant: it’s not just about Brigitte Macron’s dignity, but about testing how American courts handle international defamation claims in the era of viral disinformation. If the Macrons succeed, it could set a precedent for other world leaders, and perhaps even private citizens, to challenge U.S.-based influencers who spread harmful lies. If Owens prevails, it may embolden conspiracy theorists worldwide, who can point to the First Amendment as a shield for reckless claims.

As the case moves forward, several key questions remain:

• What exactly will the Macrons present as “scientific evidence”? Will it include medical records, testimonies from doctors, or DNA evidence?
• Will the court accept photographs as proof? Or will Owens’ team argue they are insufficient?
• Can the Macrons meet the high bar of proving “actual malice”? That Owens not only spread falsehoods but did so knowingly?
• How will public opinion react? In an era where even the clearest facts are doubted, will scientific evidence be enough to silence conspiracy theorists?

One thing is certain: the trial promises to be both explosive and precedent-setting.

What started as a fringe conspiracy has grown into a full-blown courtroom spectacle with global implications. The Macrons are not just defending Brigitte’s identity, they are taking a stand against the weaponization of lies in the digital era. The decision to present scientific and photographic evidence is both a personal sacrifice and a public statement. It says: the truth matters, and dignity is worth defending, even in the harshest spotlight.

Candace Owens, meanwhile, has framed herself as a martyr for free speech, a stance that resonates with her millions of followers but risks collapse if the court finds she acted with reckless disregard for the truth. At the end of the day, this case is about more than one woman, one podcaster, or even one lawsuit. It’s about whether the law can hold back the flood of disinformation in an age where lies spread faster than facts, and whether truth still has a place in the court of public opinion.

The world is watching. And the verdict, whenever it comes, will echo far beyond the walls of any courtroom.French President Emmanuel Macron and his wife Brigitte prepare to present scientific and photographic evidence in a U.S. court to prove Brigitte is a woman, as their defamation lawsuit against Candace Owens intensifies. A global showdown over truth, free speech, and conspiracy theories unfolds.