Candace Owens’ Defamation Lawsuit: A Transatlantic Clash Over Free Speech and Sensationalism

In a bizarre twist of modern media, Candace Owens, once a respected conservative commentator, has found herself at the center of a defamation lawsuit filed by Brigitte Macron, wife of French President Emmanuel Macron. The suit, lodged in Delaware Superior Court on July 23, 2025, accuses Owens of spreading baseless claims that Macron is transgender, born male—a conspiracy theory that has festered in fringe online circles since 2021. Through her YouTube series Becoming Brigitte and social media posts, Owens has leaned into these allegations, ignoring documented evidence like birth records and family photos that affirm Macron’s identity as a woman. The Macrons argue this is not just gossip but a calculated move to boost Owens’ platform, causing personal harm through “relentless bullying.”

This legal battle highlights a stark divide. In the U.S., Owens frames the lawsuit as an assault on her First Amendment rights, rallying supporters who see her as a provocateur challenging establishment narratives. But in France, where free speech lacks the same constitutional protections, defamation laws are stricter, and public figures like the Macrons can pursue legal recourse more readily. The case raises a thorny question: where does free expression end and harmful misinformation begin?

More troubling is Owens’ trajectory. Once known for sharp investigative work, she now seems to channel the spirit of tabloid sensationalism, trading credibility for clicks. Her focus on Brigitte Macron’s private life—irrelevant to any substantive policy debate—mirrors the tactics of over-the-counter gossip rags, not the rigorous journalism she once aspired to. This shift reflects a broader trend in digital media, where outrage and conspiracy often trump facts to drive engagement.

Public reaction on X and social media is predictably split. Some dismiss Owens’ claims as absurd and invasive, while others defend her right to speculate, though no credible evidence supports her allegations. The lawsuit itself may set a precedent for how far public figures can go in combating misinformation, especially when it crosses borders. For now, Owens’ pivot to sensationalism risks alienating those who once saw her as a serious voice, while the Macrons’ legal push underscores the real-world harm of reckless rhetoric. In a world drowning in noise, this case is a stark reminder: not every story deserves a megaphone.