Macron Family Sues American Influencer for Libel: A Landmark Case in Defending Public Figures’ Reputation
The Macron couple, current leaders of France, have recently initiated legal action in the United States to counteract a barrage of falsehoods and libelous claims disseminated by American right-wing influencer and podcaster Candace Owens. This high-profile case marked a notable precedent as it is the first time a sitting head of state has filed a libel suit in the U.S. against an online personality with political and personal motives. The 218-page lawsuit details the defamatory statements made by Owens, including bizarre assertions that Brigitte Macron is a transgender woman born as Jean-Michel Tronier, and bizarre conspiracy theories about the Macron family's origins and alleged secret government experiments. Owens, in her podcast series, especially in the eight-part series titled “Becoming Brigitte,” persistently promoted these false claims. The lawsuit also targets Owens’ allegations that the Macron couple is related by blood and that Emmanuel Macron is a product of CIA experiments or similar mind-control programs. These unfounded theories gained traction among American far-right circles, with commentators like Tucker Carlson and Joe Rogan promoting them. Under American law, public figures must prove “actual malice,” meaning the accused knowingly spread falsehoods or ignored obvious truths. The Macrons seek a jury trial and punitive damages. They have expressed willingness to appear personally in Delaware for the court proceedings, represented by the influential law firm Clare Locke, known for successful libel cases such as Dominion vs. Fox News. The influencer Owens stated she will not stay silent, asserting that this legal action is a politically motivated attack on free speech. She claimed that instead of responding to interview requests, Brigitte Macron resorted to using the courts to intimidate her. The case echoes earlier incidents where rumors about Brigitte Macron surfaced in France in 2021 and later spread to the U.S. some years later. This case could establish a significant legal precedent in the realm of online defamation and free speech rights, testing the high evidentiary standards in the U.S. legal system. Supporters of the Macrons argue that the attempt to suppress truthful journalistic investigation is unacceptable, and the case reflects ongoing debates about the boundaries of free expression and responsibility in the digital age.