Candace Owens and the Macrons: a timeline from a 2021 French video to a Delaware lawsuit

For more than two years, the American commentator Candace Owens has said publicly that Brigitte Macron, the wife of French President Emmanuel Macron, was born male. The Macrons deny it, say it is untrue, and in July 2025 sued Owens and two companies tied to her in Delaware. On Oct. 27, 2026, a Delaware judge dismissed Owens personally from that suit for lack of jurisdiction but let it continue against her two companies. He did not decide whether anything she said was true or defamatory.

The dispute now runs through three separate sets of proceedings: a French defamation case against two women who spread the claim in 2021, a French criminal harassment case that ended in convictions in January 2026, and the Delaware civil suit. This article puts them in order, quotes Owens and the Macrons in their own words, and separates what courts have decided from what the parties say. The claim about Brigitte Macron is reported here as Owens's allegation, not as fact. No court has found it to be true.

1. 2021-12Two French YouTubers publish a four-hour video repeating the claim
2. 2024-03-12Owens says she would "stake my entire professional reputation" on the claim
3. 2024-09A Paris court convicts the two YouTubers of defamation
4. 2025-01-31Owens launches her eight-part "Becoming Brigitte" series
5. 2025-07-10A Paris appeals court acquits the two women
6. 2025-07-23The Macrons sue Owens and two companies in Delaware
7. 2026-01-05A Paris court convicts ten people of cyberharassment
8. 2026-07-27Delaware judge hears Owens's motion to dismiss
9. 2026-10-27Delaware judge dismisses Owens personally; the case against her companies continues
10. 2026-11-10France's Cour de cassation is due to hear Brigitte Macron's appeal

Source: Ouest-France, Delaware Superior Court opinion

Where the claim came from

The rumor that Brigitte Macron was not who she says she is predates the Delaware case by years. Ouest-France reports that a version of it has resurfaced regularly on social media since Emmanuel Macron was first elected in 2017. In its usual form, it holds that Brigitte Macron, born Brigitte Trogneux, never existed and that her brother, Jean-Michel Trogneux, took her identity after changing sex.

It spread widely in December 2021, when a self-described "medium," Amandine Roy, interviewed Natacha Rey, who called herself an independent journalist, for more than four hours on Roy's YouTube channel. According to Ouest-France, the two women showed photographs of Brigitte Macron and her family, talked about surgeries she had supposedly had, said she was not the mother of her three children and gave personal details about her brother. RFI reports that the video went viral weeks before the 2022 French presidential election and reached the United States, where Owens "derided the first lady" in a YouTube video that has since been deleted. 567 Politics did not find a copy of that video and cannot say what it contained.

Brigitte Macron and her brother filed a defamation complaint in France. In September 2024 a Paris criminal court convicted Roy and Rey, giving each a suspended fine of €500 and ordering them to pay Brigitte Macron €8,000 and Trogneux €5,000 in damages, according to RFI and Ouest-France.

The French appeal: an acquittal that did not decide the question

On July 10, 2025, the Paris Court of Appeal acquitted both women. That ruling is often cited online as proof the claim is true. French legal fact-checkers say it is not. Les Surligneurs, a French legal-news outlet, explains that the court did not rule on Brigitte Macron's sex at all.

Two separate reasons drove the outcome. First, the court held that most of what the women said did not amount to defamation under the 1881 press law, because, in the court's reasoning as Les Surligneurs quotes it, accusing someone of hiding a gender transition does not accuse them of an unlawful or dishonorable act: "it cannot be held against a transgender person that they wish to protect their privacy and keep a gender transition secret." That reasoning treats the question of whether the claim is accurate as irrelevant to the legal test. It is not a finding that the claim is accurate. Second, for the one passage that did fall within the press law, which referred to the abuse of a minor, the court acquitted on the basis of good faith. It found the women had relied on press articles as a factual basis and that the subject was of public interest. Les Surligneurs notes the court did not decide whether any such abuse occurred.

Brigitte Macron appealed to the Cour de cassation, France's highest court for criminal law, in July 2025. Her appeal is scheduled for a hearing on Nov. 10, 2026. Ouest-France reports, citing a judicial source, that the prosecutor general's office has recommended partial annulment of the appeals court's ruling. The Cour de cassation reviews whether the law was applied correctly, not the underlying facts. For how that court's timing works in another high-profile case, see 567 Politics' report on Marine Le Pen's eligibility appeal.

Natacha Rey died on Sept. 13, 2026, of cancer, according to 20 Minutes. The paper reports that Owens paid tribute to her.

Owens takes up the claim

Owens, then a host at the Daily Wire, devoted a March 11, 2024 episode to the claim. The Delaware complaint, as summarized in the court's opinion, identifies that episode as the start of the conduct the Macrons challenge. The next day she posted on X:

"After looking into this, I would stake my entire professional reputation on the fact that Brigitte Macron is in fact a man."

The post also said: "I do not intend to let up on this story." X's public metrics show it drew more than 7.7 million views. It stated the claim as her own conclusion and linked to her episode.

Ten days later, on March 22, 2024, Owens and the Daily Wire parted ways. The company gave no reason. 567 Politics has covered the company's broader dispute with Owens and other commentators in a report on the Daily Wire's subscriber losses. According to the Delaware opinion's account of the complaint, she launched her own podcast, "Candace," on June 10, 2024.

Demand letters and "Becoming Brigitte"

The complaint, as the Delaware opinion and Recording Law's summary of it describe, alleges the Macrons sent Owens a retraction demand by email on Dec. 3, 2024. Her side responded formally on Jan. 16, 2025. On Jan. 31, 2025 she began an eight-part series called "Becoming Brigitte," which ran until Feb. 20, 2025. Her post that day said:

View this post on X

That post, from Owens's account, announced the series as "Becoming Brigitte: an introduction to our series on the Macrons" and said it had gone ahead "despite legal threats from sitting Presidents." France 24 reports that the series drew on a book of the same name by Xavier Poussard, whom 20 Minutes describes as an "independent journalist" from far-right circles.

The complaint says a final retraction demand followed on July 1, 2025. Owens has not retracted her statements.

The Macrons sue in Delaware

On July 23, 2025, the Macrons filed suit in the Delaware Superior Court (case number N25C-07-194). The defendants are Owens, Candace Owens LLC and Georgetom, Inc. Both companies are Delaware entities headquartered in Nashville. Their lawyers include Tom Clare of the firm Clare Locke, which the Guardian says has won several high-profile defamation cases. The Macrons filed an amended complaint on Sept. 26, 2025; the court describes it as 248 pages and 690 paragraphs.

According to the court's opinion, the Macrons allege a global defamation campaign concerning the First Lady's identity, the nature of the couple's marriage and a purported criminal cover-up. The suit says Owens spread the claims "to promote her independent platform, gain notoriety, and make money," in the words RFI quotes from the complaint. It also says she "disregarded all credible evidence disproving her claim in favor of platforming known conspiracy theorists and proven defamers," in the Guardian's quotation.

Owens responded on X within hours. She said her show that day would cover the filing, and that night she posted that "the Macrons aren't suing journalists halfway around the world because we lied." A spokesperson for Owens called the suit a "foreign government attacking the First Amendment rights of an American independent journalist," Politico reported.

What Emmanuel Macron said

In an interview with Paris Match published Aug. 19, 2025, his first public comment on the case, Macron said: "This has become such a big issue in the United States that we had to respond. It's a question of having the truth respected." Politico reports that he said the couple had first been advised not to sue, to avoid drawing more attention to the claim, and that he described Owens as someone who "knew very well that she was spreading false information and did so with the aim of causing harm." He also said that "those talking about so-called freedom of speech are the same ones banning reporters from the Oval Office," which Politico links to the Trump White House's decision to bar Associated Press reporters. 567 Politics has the interview only through Politico's report and has not read the Paris Match text.

What the Macrons said they would show

Clare told the BBC's "Fame Under Fire" podcast in September 2025 that expert testimony "of a scientific nature" would be presented, that the couple would show "both generically and specifically" that the claims were untrue, and that photographs of Brigitte Macron pregnant and raising her children would be offered, according to the Guardian. The suit also pleads that Jean-Michel Trogneux is Brigitte Macron's older brother, lives in Amiens and attended Emmanuel Macron's inaugurations in 2017 and 2022.

567 Politics has found no public filing so far that contains this evidence. The case has not reached discovery or a trial, and the court has not examined it.

Owens's account of what the suit is about

Owens says the suit is not about Brigitte Macron's sex. Her post after the Oct. 27, 2026 ruling said she had "NEVER" been sued "for stating that Brigitte Macron was born a male," and that she was instead sued "for discussing MK Ultra and for allegedly accusing the 'First Lady' of theft from her sister." Her post on Oct. 28 repeated the point, adding that the couple was "NOT and has never sued anyone for matters pertaining to sex, sexual orientation, or gender."

View this post on X

That post announced her dismissal in her own words, called the suit "one of the grossest, legal overreaches by a foreign government leader in human history" and thanked "the Delaware courts and … the presiding Judge."

Other sources describe the suit differently, though none of them settles what each count alleges. The court's opinion describes the suit as concerning "the First Lady's identity," and Recording Law's summary adds the nature of the marriage and a purported cover-up. The Macrons' lawyer told the BBC the couple would offer scientific evidence that Brigitte Macron was not born male. And according to the opinion, the Macrons raised at oral argument that French press law has a longer deadline for statements aimed at a person's sex, sexual orientation or gender identity. 567 Politics did not reproduce the full 690-paragraph amended complaint for this article and cannot say what every count alleges. Readers can find the complaint and the opinion on the court's website.

The Delaware motion to dismiss

Owens's lawyers, among them Marc Kasowitz of Kasowitz LLP and local counsel at Richards, Layton & Finger, moved on Sept. 11, 2025 to dismiss the original complaint. The brief makes four arguments. It says the court has no personal jurisdiction over Owens, a Tennessee resident, and that the Macrons did not serve her under the Delaware statute that governs managers of Delaware limited liability companies. It says the suit is "quintessential libel tourism" because the Macrons chose Delaware to avoid France's three-month limitation period for defamation. It argues that Delaware's borrowing statute, which applies the shorter of Delaware's deadline and the deadline where the claim arose, makes the French limit control. And it asks for dismissal on forum non conveniens grounds. The brief also frames the series as "an opinion-based series" protected by the First Amendment but says the court "need not reach those issues."

After the Macrons amended their complaint, the defendants filed a renewed motion on Oct. 30, 2025, according to Recording Law. It was argued on July 27, 2026. The judge, Sheldon K. Rennie, ruled on Oct. 27, 2026. His 56-page opinion did four things, according to Recording Law's summary and the opinion itself:

• Dismissed Owens personally for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Macrons never tried to serve her under the Delaware limited liability company consent statute, and the court held that being the manager of a Delaware company is not enough, under the Constitution's due-process requirement, to be sued in Delaware over out-of-state statements. The opinion says the defendants "have not targeted Delaware with their posts, but rather they directed them to a worldwide audience." It also denied the Macrons' request for jurisdictional discovery.
• Kept the case alive against the two companies. The opinion describes Candace Owens LLC and Georgetom, Inc. as the publishing arms of her podcast and website. The court denied their request to move the case to Tennessee, partly because Tennessee's one-year limit has already run on the January and February 2025 broadcasts.
• Held that French law supplies the time limit. Applying the borrowing statute and the presumption that a defamation injury occurs where the plaintiff lives, the court concluded France has the most significant relationship to the claims. It rejected the argument that this violated the First Amendment, calling the choice of a limitation period procedural, and found a federal law on foreign libel judgments, the SPEECH Act, did not apply.
• Left open which French deadline applies. The court noted that French press law sets a three-month period for ordinary defamation, but apparently allows one year where the attack targets a person for sex, sexual orientation or gender identity. Owens's French-law expert, Emmanuel Dreyer, said the Macrons had sued in France under the ordinary provision. The Macrons raised the one-year argument for the first time at oral argument and filed no expert evidence of their own, the opinion says. The judge ordered supplemental briefs on that single question and told Delaware counsel to agree a schedule.

On the dates in the complaint, a three-month deadline would have ended long before the July 23, 2025 filing, because the last challenged broadcast aired Feb. 20, 2025. A one-year period would not have. That is why the question matters, and why Owens calls the ruling a victory. The court was explicit that it decided nothing about truth, falsity or actual malice, the standard public figures must meet to win a US defamation case.

Owens's reading and the Macrons' reply

Owens wrote on X that she was "in the absolute best mood over this Macron dismissal," and said the court "decided in favor of our argument that France's defamation law should apply." That is accurate as far as it goes: the court held French law sets the deadline, though it has not yet said which French deadline. She also said the Macrons told the court at the hearing that they were unsure which of her two companies housed the podcast and one of them "has absolutely nothing to do with the podcast." 567 Politics could not verify either point against the transcript. The court's opinion, as summarized by Recording Law, treats both companies as publishing arms.

Lawyers for the Macrons responded in a statement sent to RFI: "We are pleased that the Court rejected Mrs. Owens' attempt to remove the case from Delaware, where her companies continue to publish and monetize her defamatory falsehoods. As for Mrs. Owens personally, we are keeping all options open to ensure that, in addition to the liability she still faces through her companies, she is held accountable personally."

One practical consequence follows from the ruling, as RFI notes: if the Macrons eventually win against the companies, Owens's personal assets would be shielded.

The other French case: harassment convictions

A second French case also bears on the story. In Paris, ten people stood trial on Oct. 27 and 28, 2025, for cyberharassment of Brigitte Macron. On Jan. 5, 2026, the court convicted all ten, according to France 24 and Time. Eight men and two women, aged 41 to 65, were accused of repeating the claim about her sex and linking the age gap with her husband to alleged pedophilia, Time reports. Eight received suspended sentences of four to eight months; a ninth got six months in prison for not attending; three described as key instigators had their social media accounts suspended for six months; all had to take an online hate-speech course and to pay Brigitte Macron €10,000 collectively. Presiding Judge Thierry Donard described the claims on alleged pedophilia as "malicious, degrading and insulting," according to Le Monde as relayed by Time.

This was a harassment case, not a ruling on whether anyone's statements were accurate. Time reports that some of the defendants had shared posts by Owens, though Owens was not a party. Brigitte Macron told TF1 on Jan. 4, 2026, the day before the verdict, that she wanted to help teenagers fight bullying and "if I do not set an example, it will be difficult," Time reports.

Owens reacted on X. According to Time, she wrote that headlines were written to make the public believe Brigitte Macron "proved she was a woman," adding "France just has cyber-bullying laws," and said that by that logic Rachel Dolezal could secure a conviction against people who asserted she was born white. Responding to a user who feared a similar crackdown in the United States, she wrote: "This is the entire purpose of the lawsuit against me." She said she would bring "Becoming Brigitte" back later in 2026. 567 Politics has not confirmed that a new series has aired.

What Owens says now

Owens has kept up the posts since the dismissal. On Oct. 24, 2026, three days before the ruling, she wrote that she had "told the sitting President of the United States no when he wanted me to stop speaking about Brigitte." 567 Politics found no independent confirmation of that account, and it is reported here only as her statement. President Donald Trump criticized Owens by name in an April post on Truth Social over her opposition to his Iran policy, as the Daily Wire report above notes.

On Oct. 28 she predicted that the case against her companies would shrink further. She said one of the two companies "has absolutely nothing to do with the podcast in any way, shape, or form, so it will be a legal exercise in futility for the couple." That is her own prediction and her own account of the companies' roles.

How this fits a wider pattern

Ouest-France notes that transphobic claims of this kind have also followed other prominent women, naming Michelle Obama, Kamala Harris and Jacinda Ardern.

The Macrons' suit is one of several recent defamation cases involving heads of state or government. Trump's suit against the Wall Street Journal ended in a dismissal. 567 Politics applies the same approach to other claims that circulate widely on X, as in its report on claims about FBI Director Kash Patel: it separates what is alleged from what records show.

Macron's term ends in 2027, and the contest to succeed him has already begun, including a dispute over the date of the May 2 runoff. The lawsuit is not part of that campaign, and 567 Politics found no reporting that ties the two together.

The proceedings at a glance

Sources: RFI, Ouest-France, Time and the Delaware opinion.

What is and is not established

Established by court records or direct statements:

• Paris courts convicted Roy and Rey of defamation at first instance in September 2024. The appeals court acquitted them on July 10, 2025, without ruling on Brigitte Macron's sex.
• A Paris court convicted ten people of cyberharassment of Brigitte Macron on Jan. 5, 2026.
• The Macrons sued Owens and two companies in Delaware on July 23, 2025. On Oct. 27, 2026, the court dismissed Owens personally for lack of jurisdiction and said French law sets the time limit.
• The Macrons deny the claim and have said they will offer scientific and documentary evidence.
• Owens says she stands by the claim and that the suit threatens press freedom.

Not decided by any court:

• Whether any statement in "Becoming Brigitte" was false or defamatory, and whether Owens acted with actual malice.
• Which French deadline applies, and therefore whether the Delaware suit against the companies is on time.
• Whether the Cour de cassation will overturn the July 2025 acquittals.

Unverified in this article:

• Owens's account of what the Macrons said at the hearing and of which company runs the podcast.
• Her account of a conversation with President Trump.
• Whether a new "Becoming Brigitte" series has been released.
• Macron's quotes from Paris Match, which are reported here through Politico.

What to watch

The Cour de cassation hears Brigitte Macron's appeal on Nov. 10, 2026; 567 Politics did not find a date for the ruling. In Delaware, counsel are to propose a schedule for briefs on whether three months or one year applies. The judge's ruling on that point will decide whether the case against Candace Owens LLC and Georgetom, Inc. proceeds to discovery. The Macrons' lawyers have said they are weighing options against Owens personally.

Sources: the Delaware Superior Court's Oct. 27, 2026 memorandum opinion in Macron v. Owens; Owens's Sept. 11, 2025 opening brief; Owens's posts on X; reporting by RFI, Politico, the Guardian, Time, France 24, Ouest-France, 20 Minutes and Recording Law; and Les Surligneurs' analysis of the July 2025 appeal ruling. Where 567 Politics did not open the original document, the text says so.

Differing perspectives

Should the Macrons' defamation suit against Candace Owens's two companies go forward in a Delaware court?

Each position is summarized as its supporters make it, with equal weight and in alphabetical order. A summary is not an endorsement; the evidence for each is weighed in the story above.

• Dismiss it as filed too late

  Who holds it: Candace Owens and her legal team

  Owens and her lawyers argue that the Macrons chose Delaware to avoid France's three-month limitation period for defamation claims, which would have expired before they sued. They point to the court's ruling that French law supplies the deadline and to its dismissal of Owens personally. They say the Macrons filed no French-law expert briefing, that their one-year argument surfaced only at oral argument, and that one of the two companies has nothing to do with the podcast.

  In their words: Candace Owens on X ↗

• Let the Delaware suit go forward

  Who holds it: Emmanuel and Brigitte Macron and their lawyers

  The Macrons and their lawyers argue that the case belongs in Delaware, where Owens's two companies are organized and, they say, continue to publish and monetize the statements the suit challenges as defamatory. They say they are pleased the court rejected Owens's attempt to remove the case from Delaware, and that the claims against the companies should proceed. They add that they are keeping all options open so that Owens is held accountable personally as well, in addition to the liability her companies still face.

  In their words: RFI (statement from the Macrons' lawyers) ↗