WILMINGTON, Del. — France’s presidential couple is pursuing legal remedies in the United States. President Emmanuel Macron and his wife, Brigitte Macron, have initiated a defamation lawsuit against American podcaster Candace Owens, alleging that she made baseless claims about them, including the assertion that Brigitte is a man.
The legal action, filed in Delaware, accuses Owens of tarnishing the couple’s reputation with her controversial statements. According to the lawsuit, Owens purportedly stated she would “stake [her] entire professional reputation” on this allegation, which the Macrons call false and damaging.
The lawsuit claims that Owens has taken to promoting her platform by leveraging falsehoods that not only discredit the couple but also allow her to gain fame and profitability. It points out that she ignored credible evidence that contradicts her assertions, favoring conspiracy theories and known defamers instead.
Central to this dispute is a series of podcast episodes titled Becoming Brigitte, where Owens alleges that the First Lady was born male and that she appropriated another person’s identity during her transition to become Brigitte. This series, consisting of eight parts, dives into a variety of unfounded claims that the couple maintains are not only false but harmful.
Among the additional allegations made by Owens, according to the lawsuit, are bizarre assertions that Brigitte and Emmanuel Macron are "blood relatives" involved in incestuous behavior. She further claims that Macron was selected as France’s president under a CIA-operated mind control program, often referred to as MKUltra. Furthermore, the suit highlights accusations of forgery, fraud, and abuses of power as part of an effort to conceal these supposed secrets.
The Macrons’ legal action emphasizes the severe impact such allegations can have on public figures’ lives and reputations, particularly when circulating in widely accessible media. The couple’s decision to file in Delaware underscores their commitment to combating falsehoods while seeking accountability for harmful rhetoric.
Ultimately, the outcome of this lawsuit could hold significant implications not only for the involved parties but also for how public discourse operates in the digital age, especially on social media platforms where misinformation can spread rapidly.
This article was automatically written by Open AI and the people, facts, circumstances, and story may be inaccurate. Any article can be requested to be removed, retracted, or corrected by emailing contact@publiclawlibrary.org.