Macrons to present scientific evidence in US court to prove Brigitte is a woman, lawyer says

Emmanuel Macron and his wife Brigitte are preparing to present photographic and scientific evidence in a United States court to prove Brigitte Macron is a woman, their lawyer said. The move is part of a defamation suit the Macron spouses filed against right-wing influencer Candace Owens after she promoted the belief that Brigitte Macron was born male. Owens’ lawyers have responded with a motion to dismiss the case, arguing in part that it should not proceed in Delaware, where the complaint was filed.

Tom Clare, the Macrons’ attorney in the U.S. action, told the BBC’s Fame Under Fire podcast that the couple would offer expert testimony that is “scientific in nature” and designed to demonstrate, both generically and specifically, that the allegations against Brigitte Macron are false. He said the material would include documentation that could be presented in court in accordance with applicable rules and standards, including photographs when appropriate. “It is incredibly upsetting to think that you have to go and subject yourself to put this type of proof forward,” Clare said, adding that Brigitte Macron was willing to undertake the process publicly to set the record straight.

The July filing in Delaware federal court accuses Owens of disregarding credible evidence disproving her claim and of platforming conspiracy theories and known defamers. In turn, Owens’ legal team has moved to dismiss, arguing that the case is not properly centered in Delaware and would impose substantial financial and operational hardship on a defendant whose businesses are based in the state. BBC colleagues reached out to Owens’ team for comment on the motion.

Images related to the case have been provided for context.

Owens, a former commentator for the conservative U.S. outlet The Daily Wire with millions of followers, has repeatedly asserted that Brigitte Macron is a man. In March 2024 she said she would “stake [her] entire professional reputation” on the allegation. The claim traces back to fringe online circles years earlier, including a 2021 YouTube video by French bloggers Amandine Roy and Natacha Rey. The Macrons initially won a defamation suit in France against Roy and Rey in 2024, but that ruling was overturned on appeal in 2025 on grounds related to freedom of expression rather than truth. The Macron camp is appealing that decision.

In July, the Macrons filed a separate suit in the United States against Owens, alleging she “disregarded all credible evidence disproving her claim in favour of platforming known conspiracy theorists and proven defamers.” In American defamation cases involving public figures, plaintiffs must prove “actual malice” — that the defendant knew the information was false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. Owens’ lawyers have argued the Delaware forum is inappropriate and would cause substantial hardship if she were forced to defend the claim there.

The legal dispute has drawn broader attention to questions of free speech, defamation, and transnational response to online advocacy. In August, Emmanuel Macron explained in Paris Match why his government pursued the action, saying the case was about defending his honor and standing up to what he called “nonsense” conducted with intentional harm, “in the service of an ideology and with established connections to far-right leaders.” The Paris Match interview underscored the Macron camp’s view that the case is not merely about a personal dispute but a broader assertion of accountability for misinformation that crosses borders.

A second image included in the coverage shows a public-facing moment that the Macrons’ representatives reference as part of the evidentiary record they intend to introduce in court.

Details of the French side’s broader litigation show a complex arc. The Macrons’ French defamation case against Roy and Rey began with a win in 2024 but was overturned on appeal in 2025 on freedom of expression grounds, not on the truth of the allegations. The development prompted the couple to pursue parallel action in the United States, where the legal framework for defamation differs and where plaintiffs must contend with questions of venue and jurisdiction. The Macrons’ Delaware filing, and Owens’ motion to dismiss, place the dispute at the center of ongoing debates about cross-border defamation cases in the digital age.

A subsequent image in the collection offers a glimpse of the broader context of the case.

The parties’ legal trajectories illuminate contrasting approaches to truth, proof, and accountability. While Owens has framed her position as a defense of free speech and widely held beliefs online, the Macrons frame their action as an effort to counter what they call a sustained, calculated campaign that harms a public figure and risks normalizing misinformation. The case’s Delaware posture adds another layer to the evolving legal landscape surrounding defamation in the internet era, including the challenges of proving actual malice and aligning cross-border claims with domestic statutory protections.

Overall, the developing dispute underscores how cases involving public figures and misinformation can unfold across multiple jurisdictions and different legal standards. For observers, the turning points lie in whether the Macrons can substantiate their claims through scientific and photographic evidence in a U.S. court, how Owens’ team argues the relevance and reach of her statements, and how the courts apply the actual malice standard in a transatlantic defamation case. As the litigation progresses, the world will watch how these proceedings influence public discourse about gender, identity, and the boundaries of online expression.