French President, Emmanuel Macron and his wife, Brigitte, are planning to present photographic and scientific evidence to a US court to prove Mrs Macron is a woman.
Their lawyer says the French president and Mrs Macron will present the documentation in a defamation suit they have taken against the right-wing influencer Candace Owens after she promoted her belief that Brigitte Macron was born male.
Ms Owens’ lawyers have responded with a motion to dismiss the claim.
Speaking to the BBC’s Fame Under Fire podcast, the Macrons’ lawyer in the case, Tom Clare, said Mrs Macron had found the claims “incredibly upsetting” and they were a “distraction” to the French president.
“I don’t want to suggest that it somehow has thrown him off his game. But just like anybody who is juggling a career and a family life as well, when your family is under attack, it wears on you. And he’s not immune from that because he’s the president of a country,” he said.
Mr Clare said there would be “expert testimony that will come out that will be scientific in nature” and while he would not reveal, at this stage, its exact nature, he said the couple were prepared to demonstrate fully “both generically and specifically” that the allegations are false.
Also Read: Candace Owens responds to defamation suit from Macrons
“It is incredibly upsetting to think that you have to go and subject yourself, to put this type of proof forward,” he said.
In March 2024, she claimed she would stake her “entire professional reputation” on the allegation.
The allegation originated in fringe online spaces years earlier, notably through a 2021 YouTube video by French bloggers Amandine Roy and Natacha Rey.
The Macrons initially won a defamation case in France against Roy and Rey in 2024, but that ruling was overturned on appeal in 2025 on freedom of expression grounds, not based on truth. The Macrons are appealing the decision.
In July, the Macrons filed a lawsuit against Ms Owens in the US. It alleges she “disregarded all credible evidence disproving her claim in favour of platforming known conspiracy theorists and proven defamers”.
In American defamation cases against public figures, plaintiffs are required to prove “actual malice” – that the defendant knowingly spread false information or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.
In August, Emmanuel Macron explained to French magazine, Paris Match, why they had chosen to pursue legal action.
“This is about defending my honour! Because this is nonsense. This is someone who knew full well that she had false information and did so with the aim of causing harm, in the service of an ideology and with established connections to far-right leaders.”
Ms Owens’ lawyers have responded to the Macrons’ lawsuit with a motion to dismiss, arguing that the case should not have been filed in Delaware, as she says it does not relate to her businesses, which are incorporated in the state. They claim forcing her to defend the case in Delaware would cause “substantial financial and operational hardship”.
The BBC has approached Candace Owens’ legal team for a comment. She has previously said she believes what she is saying is true and there is nothing more American than free speech and the ability to criticise.
BBC
