Staff Reports
French President Emmanuel Macron and his wife have taken the unusual step of suing American commentator Candace Owens in a Delaware court, accusing her of a years-long campaign of defamatory lies that claim Brigitte Macron was born a man. Their legal team says they will introduce photographic and scientific evidence — even images of Brigitte pregnant and raising her children — to quash the conspiracy once and for all. This escalates a simmering international spat into a full-blown courtroom spectacle that will test how far reputational lawsuits can reach across borders.
Candace Owens has answered with defiance, refusing to back down and doubling down on her “Becoming Brigitte” series that pushed the theory further into the public eye. She insists this is free speech and has framed the lawsuit as an attack on American journalists and commentators, even as the Macrons accuse her of willful lies for profit. That posture will play well on the right — boots-on-the-ground skepticism of elites — but it also sets up a messy legal fight over jurisdiction and what constitutes protected commentary versus malicious falsehood.
The Macrons’ complaint is comprehensive and blunt: a 218-page filing with multiple counts alleging a “global humiliation” campaign that caused real harm to their family and reputation. They argue Owens relied on discredited sources and repeated demonstrable falsehoods, while her defenders say courts should not be a battleground for partisan speech. Conservatives who care about free speech should watch closely; defending robust debate does not mean celebrating reckless, personal smears that cross into defamation.
This dispute didn’t spring up in a vacuum — similar rumors circulated in France in 2021 and even prompted prior legal action that ran into the thorny tension between libel law and expression. The Macrons won an initial defamation ruling in France, only to have an appeals court overturn it on freedom-of-expression grounds, a development that frustrates anyone who wants clear accountability for targeted lies. If Western democracies value both speech and reputation, this case will be a crucial test of which principle gets priority when the two collide.
What the Macrons say they will present in court — photos, birth announcements, and expert testimony — is meant to be granular and incontrovertible, the kind of evidence that silences gossip and forces a reckoning. But Americans watching should be wary of theatrics; a stack of pictures will look powerful on paper, yet the bigger issue is whether wealthy, connected figures use the courts to chill dissent and punish political enemies. Conservatives who value due process should want the facts aired in public, not hidden behind legal maneuvers that reward the powerful and browbeat smaller voices.
At its core this is a story about media, power, and accountability. Candace Owens has built a brand on fearlessly confronting elites, and many of her supporters see this as the latest example of the global establishment trying to silence an inconvenient voice. That instinct to resist overreach is healthy in a republic, but it must be balanced with a commitment to truth — spreading lurid, personal allegations without solid proof damages real people and degrades public discourse.
For hardworking Americans watching from a distance, the lesson is clear: defend free speech fiercely, but demand responsibility from those who command large platforms. We should cheer the First Amendment’s protection of bold commentary while also insisting that speech does not become a license for personal destruction. The coming hearings will be messy, and yes, there are days when you feel sorry for the judge stuck trying to untangle politics, provocation, and the law — but republics survive by trusting citizens and courts to sort the truth from the noise.
