Macrons offer ‘scientific evidence’ to US court as part of a significant case of defamation. This involves French President Emmanuel Macron and his wife Brigitte. They are suing a right-wing American influencer, Candace Owens, because she made untrue claims about Brigitte’s birth gender.
Their lawyer confirmed that they would be providing medical evidence, photographs and expert testimony. The case has received international attention not only because of the defamation aspect but other issues including the dignity of individuals involved and politics.
Macrons offer ‘scientific evidence’ to US court: The core issue:
At the heart of this dispute are alleged damaging claims that Brigitte Macron is not a woman. The right-wing Owens allegedly perpetrated her claims on the internet to her millions of followers, recently responding affirmatively to a question if she would “stake her entire professional reputation” on it.
The Macrons assert that the comments are defamatory because they have gone beyond mere opinion. Their attorney, Tom Clare, stated, “Brigitte has found the claims incredibly upsetting,” adding, “it’s potentially been a distraction from his duties as the French president.”
He says that while the French president is focused on his duties, it “weighs heavily” on him to know there are outside attacks on their family.
The Evidence Plan
The Macrons are preparing to submit a large volume of documents. Their lawyer told Clare that the evidence will include scientific experts. He did not provide any more details, but there will be general evidence and there will be extensive evidence to support the specifics. Photographs of Brigitte’s pregnancies and family life will also be included.
Clare admitted that it will not be easy for Brigitte, but she will fight to reclaim her reputation in the most public way. He said she is “100% ready” to challenge the scrutiny because she needs to combat the untruths.
Macrons offer ‘scientific evidence’ to US court: the legal context
Defamation cases in the United States are particularly difficult for public figures. In a defamation case, a plaintiff must show that the defendant acted with “actual malice,” which means that a defendant knew they were lying or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.
The Macrons claim that Owens acted with reckless disregard for the various credible sources and evidence and relied only upon some of the more absurd claims made by conspiracy sources. This is not the first time the allegation has circulated.
In France, the theory first made the rounds through bloggers Amandine Roy and Natacha Rey managed to disseminate. The Macrons successfully sued them in 2024. In 2025, the appellate court reversed the ruling on the bases of freedom of expression, not that the claims were true. That reversal prompted the couple seek action in the US.
Candace Owens’ Response
Owens and her lawyers have motioned to dismiss the case. The basis of their contentions is that the lawsuit should not be filed in Delaware, because Owens has no direct business to Delaware. Her team claims to defend the case in the state would cause financial hardship.
Owens is adamant stating the believe her comments in the publication are true. Owens also sets it up to be a free speech issue with it being “as American as it gets.” Critics claim she has platformed conspiracy theorists and not cared about the truth.
Macron’s Personal Stance
Emmanuel Macron, the President of France, has publicly said why he and his wife are bringing forth a case. In an interview with Paris Match, he said that this battle is about “defending my honour”.
Macron has alleged that Candace Owens, “false biography” was attempting to ruin his French character and had an ideological motivation of trying to cause harm against him. Additionally, he shared that his wife’s dignity “will never be weaponized in politics”.
Macrons Offer ‘Scientific Evidence’ to US Court: Global Attention
Macrons offer ‘scientific evidence’ to US court. This case is not limited to French politics. It addresses matters of misinformation, gender identity, and free speech. It also indicates how online conspiracy theories move from fringe to mainstream.
With a sitting president and his wife appearing in their own fight against rumors about them there are heightened stakes. The final ruling could create a precedent for how a public figure can fight defamation stemming from news coverage in US media. It could also impact limits of free speech on damaging personal claims.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Macron’s offer ‘scientific evidence’ to US court to stop damaging claims. Brigitte Macron will willingly offer evidence of her life and identity, even at personal expense. Emmanuel Macron will frame the fight as on fighting for honor and truth.
The litigation and foreseeable verdict now become a contest between free speech and accountability of personal claims about a public figure, viewed both globally and in the US.
About the Author
