Archive photo of Brigitte and Emmanuel Macron, November 2018, not from the court case. Credit: President of Ukraine, CC BY 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons.

Macrons Sue Candace Owens Again in Tennessee Over False Claims About Brigitte

November 11, 2026 Faizan Altaf

France’s president and first lady have taken their fight against American podcaster Candace Owens to a new courtroom. Emmanuel Macron and his wife, Brigitte Macron, have filed a fresh defamation lawsuit against Owens in Tennessee, accusing her of spreading false claims about the French first lady’s identity – and of making money from them.

The new case, filed on 4 November 2026 in the US District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, runs to 409 pages and lists 88 counts, including defamation, false light and defamation by implication. It is the second time the Macrons have sued Owens in the United States. The first case, filed in Delaware in July 2025, stalled last month when a judge ruled that the Delaware court could not hear the case against Owens personally.

Owens confirmed the new lawsuit herself. Writing on X on Monday 9 November, she said: “The Macrons have indeed filed a NEW set of claims against me. 88 in total.”

The case is unusual in many ways. It is rare for a sitting head of state and his wife to sue a foreign commentator in an American court. It is also a test of how far US free-speech law protects online claims that a court in France has already dealt with – and of whether a president’s wife is willing to put her private life before a jury to stop a rumour.

What the new lawsuit says

At the heart of the case is a claim Owens has repeated for more than two years: that Brigitte Macron, 73, was born a man and is secretly transgender. The claim is false. The name at the centre of the rumour, Jean-Michel Trogneux, is the name of Brigitte Macron’s brother.

Owens first made the claim publicly in March 2024, telling her audience she would “stake [her] entire professional reputation on the fact that Brigitte Macron [the First Lady of France] is in fact a man.” She then built an eight-part podcast series around the allegation, called “Becoming Brigitte”, and kept returning to the subject in later episodes and social media posts – even after the Macrons sued her for the first time.

The Tennessee complaint says Owens used the false claim “to promote her independent platform, gain notoriety, and make money.” It accuses her of continuing to spread the allegation through a new season of “Becoming Brigitte” that began in September 2025, after the first lawsuit had already been filed.

The Macrons are asking the court for damages – actual, presumed and punitive – plus their legal costs. They are also asking for a narrowly tailored court order that would bar Owens from repeating any statement a court finds to be defamatory. The case is listed as Macron v. Owens, No. 3:26-cv-01765.

They are represented by Clare Locke, a law firm based in Alexandria, Virginia, that specialises in high-profile defamation cases. A team of six lawyers from the firm is handling the case.

Why Tennessee, and why now

The choice of Tennessee is deliberate – and, in a strange twist, it follows Owens’ own argument.

The Macrons first sued Owens and two of her companies, Candace Owens LLC and GeorgeTom Inc., in Delaware on 23 July 2025. But on 27 October 2026, Delaware Superior Court Judge Sheldon K. Rennie ruled that the Delaware court did not have personal jurisdiction over Owens herself, because she lives in Tennessee. The judge dismissed Owens from the Delaware case without prejudice, meaning the Macrons were free to sue her again elsewhere. The claims against her two companies remain pending in Delaware.

Owens had argued that Tennessee was the right place for the case, because she lives and works there. The Macrons’ lawyers confirmed the new complaint was filed in Tennessee for exactly that reason. The lawsuit was filed in the federal court in Nashville, in the Middle District of Tennessee, on 4 November.

In other words, the Macrons took Owens at her word – and sued her where she lives.

The doll in the complaint

One of the more unusual details in the new filing involves a doll made to look like Brigitte Macron. According to reports of the complaint, the 409-page document describes the doll as a grotesque, alien-like figure resembling the film character E.T.

The complaint refers to an episode on 5 January 2026 in which Owens held up the doll on her show, and to an incident on 19 October 2026 in which Owens claimed someone had broken into her podcast studio and poured bleach on the doll. Owens herself drew attention to this part of the case in her post on X, writing that “this time, they want justice over my Brigitte-Doll.”

The Macrons’ lawyers treat the doll as part of what they describe as a campaign of mockery and false claims. For the Macrons, it is evidence that Owens has turned the allegation into entertainment – and profit. For Owens, it appears to be part of the joke. A court will now have to decide what it really is.

A rumour that started in France

The claim about Brigitte Macron did not begin with Candace Owens. It began in France, years earlier, and the Macrons have already fought it in the French courts.

The rumour took off after a four-hour YouTube video posted in December 2021, in which a self-described spiritual medium, Amandine Roy – real name Delphine Jegousse – interviewed a blogger, Natacha Rey. In the video, they claimed Brigitte Macron had been born a baby boy called Jean-Michel Trogneux in 1953, and had later assumed another identity. Jean-Michel Trogneux is in fact the name of Brigitte Macron’s older brother.

Brigitte Macron sued Roy and Rey for defamation in January 2022. In September 2024, a Paris court found the two women guilty and ordered them to pay 8,000 euros in damages to Brigitte Macron and 5,000 euros to her brother. But in July 2025, the Paris appeals court overturned the convictions, ruling that the claims had been made in “good faith” and did not amount to defamation. The court did not rule on whether the claims about Brigitte Macron were true. Brigitte Macron and her brother have taken the case to France’s highest appeals court, the Court of Cassation.

The French courts have also dealt with the online harassment that followed the rumour. In a separate case, a Paris court found 10 people guilty of cyberbullying Brigitte Macron for spreading the false claims about her gender and sexuality, including comments likening the couple’s 24-year age gap to paedophilia. One defendant was sentenced to six months in prison, and eight others received suspended sentences of between four and eight months. Brigitte Macron told French television channel TF1 that she had launched the legal proceedings to “set an example” in the fight against harassment.

Owens picked up the rumour in 2024 and gave it a far bigger audience than it had ever had in France. Her “Becoming Brigitte” series carried the claim to millions of viewers in the United States and around the world. That is why the Macrons decided to sue her in the United States, rather than leaving the fight to the French courts alone.

Why winning in America is harder than in France

The Macrons face a much tougher legal battle in the United States than they did in France, because American defamation law is very different from French law.

In the United States, a public figure who sues for defamation must prove “actual malice” – that the person making the claim either knew it was false, or acted with reckless disregard for whether it was true or not. That standard comes from a famous 1964 Supreme Court case, New York Times v. Sullivan, and it makes defamation cases very hard for public figures to win. The rule exists to protect free speech and open debate, even when the speech is wrong or offensive.

The Macrons are both public figures, so they will have to clear that high bar. Their complaint appears designed to do exactly that: it argues that Owens was told the claims were false, was shown evidence, and carried on anyway – including launching a new season of her series after the first lawsuit was filed. If the court accepts that argument, it could amount to reckless disregard for the truth.

Owens, for her part, has shown no sign of backing down. She has presented her reporting as an investigation, and she has treated the lawsuits as proof that she is asking questions powerful people do not want asked. Her supporters see the case as a free-speech fight. The Macrons see it as a smear campaign built on a lie.

There is another reason the case matters. The Macrons’ lawyer, Tom Clare, told the BBC in September 2025 that Brigitte Macron was prepared to present scientific evidence to a court to prove she is a biological woman. That is an extraordinary step for a first lady to offer – and a sign of how seriously the couple takes the case. It also shows the personal cost of the rumour: to stop it, Brigitte Macron may have to prove the most private facts about herself in open court.

What happens next

The Tennessee case is only just beginning. Owens will now have to file a formal response to the complaint, and the court will set a timetable for the case. Defamation cases in the United States can take years, and many are settled before they ever reach a jury.

Several things are worth watching:

Whether the case survives its first challenges. Owens’ lawyers are likely to ask the court to dismiss the case, arguing that her statements are protected speech. How the judge rules on that request will shape everything that follows.
What evidence each side produces. The Macrons say they can prove the claims are false. Owens says she has evidence of her own. The discovery process, in which both sides must share documents and give sworn testimony, will test those claims.
Whether the Delaware case matters. The claims against Owens’ two companies are still pending in Delaware. The two cases could run side by side, or one could affect the other.
What the case means for online rumours. If the Macrons win, it could encourage other public figures to sue American commentators who spread conspiracy theories about them. If they lose, it will show just how far US free-speech law protects even false claims about public figures.

For now, the message from the Macrons is clear: they are not going away. They sued in Delaware. When that case was narrowed, they sued again in Tennessee. The rumour has followed Brigitte Macron for five years, across two countries and several courtrooms. This latest lawsuit is their attempt to end it in the country where it found its biggest audience.

Why this case matters beyond France

This is not only a story about one family and one podcaster. It is a story about how rumours now travel.

A false claim that started in a four-hour YouTube video in France in 2021 reached a global audience when an American influencer with millions of followers picked it up three years later. The French courts dealt with the people who started it. The American courts are now being asked to deal with the person who spread it furthest.

It is also a story about the limits of the law. France and the United States both protect free speech, but they draw the line in different places. France was willing to fine the women who started the rumour, then let them off on appeal. The United States sets the bar for punishing speech about public figures far higher. The Macrons are about to find out whether their evidence is strong enough to clear it.

And it is a story about the price of being in public life. Brigitte Macron did not choose to be famous – she married a man who became president. The rumour about her is not about her politics or her work. It is about who she is. That is why the Macrons have spent years and, no doubt, a great deal of money fighting it – and why they have now taken the fight to Nashville.

Frequently asked questions

Who is Candace Owens?

Candace Owens, 37, is an American conservative podcaster and commentator with a large online following. She hosts a podcast and publishes videos on social media, where she discusses politics, culture and current affairs.

What exactly is Owens accused of claiming?

Owens has repeatedly claimed that Brigitte Macron, the wife of the French president, was born a man and is secretly transgender. The claim is false. The name at the centre of the rumour, Jean-Michel Trogneux, belongs to Brigitte Macron’s brother.

When did the Macrons first sue Owens?

They first sued Owens and two of her companies in Delaware on 23 July 2025. In October 2026, a Delaware judge ruled the court could not hear the case against Owens personally because she lives in Tennessee. The Macrons then filed the new case in Tennessee on 4 November 2026.

How many counts are in the new lawsuit?

The Tennessee complaint lists 88 counts, including defamation, false light and defamation by implication. The complaint runs to 409 pages.

What do the Macrons want from the court?

They are seeking actual, presumed and punitive damages, their legal costs, and a narrowly tailored court order barring Owens from repeating any statement a court finds defamatory.

Where did the rumour start?

It started in France, in a four-hour YouTube video posted in December 2021 by Amandine Roy and Natacha Rey. Brigitte Macron sued them for defamation. A Paris court convicted them in September 2024, but the Paris appeals court overturned the convictions in July 2025.

Has anyone been punished over the rumour in France?

Yes. In a separate cyberbullying case, a Paris court found 10 people guilty of harassing Brigitte Macron online over the false claims. One was sentenced to six months in prison, and eight received suspended sentences.

Conclusion

The Macrons’ new lawsuit against Candace Owens is the latest chapter in a five-year fight over a false rumour that began in France and found its biggest audience in America. By suing in Tennessee, the Macrons have followed Owens to her home state and dared her to defend her claims in court.

The case will test the limits of American free-speech law, the power of online influencers to spread conspiracy theories, and the willingness of a president’s wife to put her private life on public trial to clear her name. Whatever the court decides, the Macrons have made one thing clear: they do not intend to let the rumour stand unchallenged.

Sources

This article is for general information and education only. It is not legal or financial advice.

Findivoza