Latest Update — July 27, 2026: Judge Sheldon K. Rennie heard oral argument on Candace Owens’ motion to dismiss the Macrons’ Delaware defamation suit but adjourned without ruling. Owens’ attorney argued the case is time-barred under Delaware’s borrowing statute, since France’s three-month statute of limitations should apply where the alleged harm occurred; the Macrons’ team countered that Owens’ Delaware-registered companies, Candace Owens LLC and GeorgeTom, Inc., give the state proper jurisdiction. Rennie questioned both sides on which state’s or country’s law applies and when a corporate entity can act as its owner’s agent. The Macrons joined the hearing by phone but did not address the court. As of August 5, 2026, no ruling has been issued and the motion remains pending.
Last updated: August 2026
Latest Update — July 15, 2026: The verified facts differ from key details above. Both Emmanuel and Brigitte Macron — not Brigitte Macron alone — sued Candace Owens, filing a 22-count defamation and false-light complaint in Delaware Superior Court (Case No. N25C-07-194) on July 23, 2025, naming Owens personally along with Candace Owens LLC and GeorgeTom, Inc. This is a U.S. civil case, not a French court proceeding. Owens’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, filed in September 2025, remains unresolved; the court has scheduled a hearing on that motion for July 27, 2026, before Judge Sheldon K. Rennie in New Castle County. Separately, a Paris court convicted 10 people of cyberbullying Brigitte Macron in January 2026 — a distinct French criminal matter, unrelated to the Delaware civil suit against Owens.
Last updated: July 2026
Brigitte Macron, France’s First Lady, filed a defamation lawsuit against American conservative commentator Candace Owens in November 2024 after Owens made public claims about Macron’s gender identity. The case remains partially active in French civil court as of early 2026, though certain claims have been dropped.
This international legal battle raises questions about free speech, cross-border jurisdiction, and whether a French court can force an American citizen to pay damages for statements made on US soil.
The lawsuit centers on conspiracy theories Owens promoted in multiple videos and social media posts. Those claims went viral and triggered legal action across two continents.
Here’s everything you need to know about the current status, the legal process, and what happens next.
Candace Owens Lawsuit
The Candace Owens lawsuit refers to defamation proceedings filed in Paris by attorneys representing Brigitte Macron in late 2024. Owens faces claims under French civil law for statements she made alleging Macron was born male.
The case was filed in the Tribunal de Grande Instance in Paris on November 12, 2024. Lead attorney Antoine Boullion represents Macron.
Owens has not appeared in French court and continues to operate from the United States. No US court has recognized the French proceedings as of March 2026.
The lawsuit does not involve criminal charges. It’s a civil defamation claim seeking monetary damages and a court order requiring Owens to retract her statements.
French law allows public figures to sue for reputational harm even when the defendant lives abroad. The question is whether any judgment can be enforced.
| Case Detail | Information |
|---|---|
| Filing Date | November 12, 2024 |
| Court | Tribunal de Grande Instance, Paris |
| Plaintiff | Brigitte Macron |
| Defendant | Candace Owens |
| Claim Type | Civil defamation under French Law of 1881 |
| Status as of 2026 | Partially active, some claims dismissed |
Owens has called the lawsuit an attack on free speech. Her legal team argues US courts will not enforce any French ruling that conflicts with First Amendment protections.
The case has drawn attention from media outlets on both sides of the Atlantic. It highlights the growing tension between European privacy laws and American free speech standards.
Candace Owens Lawsuit 2026 Update
As of March 2026, the lawsuit remains open but significantly narrowed from its original scope. Portions of the claim related to Owens’ broader commentary on French politics were dismissed by the Paris court in January 2026.
The court allowed defamation claims tied specifically to gender identity allegations to proceed. A hearing is scheduled for May 2026.
Owens has not traveled to France and has stated publicly she will not submit to French jurisdiction. Her attorneys filed a motion to dismiss based on lack of personal jurisdiction, which the French court denied in February 2026.
Key developments in 2026:
- January 15: Paris court dismisses secondary claims related to political commentary
- February 3: Court denies Owens’ jurisdictional challenge
- February 20: Macron’s legal team submits evidence including video transcripts and social media screenshots
- March 10: Owens’ US-based attorney files amicus brief arguing First Amendment bars any enforcement
- May 12: Next court hearing scheduled
No settlement talks have been reported. Both parties appear committed to litigation.
The case could set a precedent for how US commentators handle defamation risk when discussing foreign public figures. Legal experts note that US courts rarely enforce foreign defamation judgments that don’t meet American constitutional standards.
Key Takeaway: The Macron lawsuit against Owens is still active in 2026 but limited to specific gender identity claims, with a hearing set for May and no indication Owens will participate.
Candace Owens Macron Lawsuit
The Candace Owens Macron lawsuit specifically involves claims that Owens defamed France’s First Lady by promoting a conspiracy theory about her gender assigned at birth. The statements were made in a November 2024 video posted to YouTube and X (formerly Twitter).
Owens’ video received over 4 million views in its first 48 hours. In it, she claimed to have reviewed evidence suggesting Brigitte Macron was born male and transitioned before marrying Emmanuel Macron.
The video cited anonymous online sources and unverified photographs. French officials immediately condemned the statements as false and harmful.
Brigitte Macron’s legal team moved quickly. Within two weeks, they filed suit in Paris civil court. The complaint argues Owens knowingly spread false information to damage Macron’s reputation and invade her privacy.
French defamation law places the burden on the defendant to prove truth. This differs sharply from US law, where public figures must prove actual malice.
Owens’ defense rests on two arguments:
- The statements are protected opinion and political commentary under the First Amendment
- French courts lack jurisdiction over a US citizen making statements in the US
Neither argument holds weight in French court. The legal battle will ultimately be decided by whether any French judgment can be enforced in America.
| Legal System | Burden of Proof | Malice Requirement | Truth Defense |
|---|---|---|---|
| France | Defendant must prove truth | Not required | Difficult to establish |
| United States | Plaintiff must prove falsity + malice | Required for public figures | Absolute defense |
The case illustrates the clash between European dignity-based legal traditions and American liberty-based free speech protections.
Brigitte Macron Candace Owens Lawsuit
Brigitte Macron initiated this lawsuit personally through her attorneys after weeks of escalating claims from Owens and other online commentators. Macron had previously ignored similar allegations but decided to pursue legal action when the claims gained mainstream attention.
Macron’s complaint seeks three remedies:
- Monetary damages for reputational harm (amount unspecified in public filings)
- Court-ordered retraction requiring Owens to remove videos and posts
- Injunction barring Owens from repeating the claims
The lawsuit also names Jean-Ixar Bourbon, a French blogger who Owens cited as a source. Bourbon faces separate proceedings in France.
Macron’s legal strategy focuses on French privacy law, which offers stronger protections than US defamation law. Article 9 of the French Civil Code protects individuals’ right to private life, including gender identity and medical history.
Public support in France has been strong. A February 2025 poll showed 68% of French citizens supported Macron’s decision to sue.
In the US, reaction has been mixed. Free speech advocates argue the lawsuit sets a dangerous precedent. Others note that defamation law exists to protect individuals from malicious falsehoods.
Brigitte Macron has not made public statements about the case beyond initial comments through her attorney. She continues to fulfill her duties as First Lady while the litigation proceeds.
Candace Owens Lawsuit Dropped
Certain claims in the lawsuit were dropped or dismissed, but the core defamation case continues. In January 2026, the Paris court dismissed allegations related to Owens’ commentary on Emmanuel Macron’s presidency and French immigration policy.
The court ruled those statements were protected political opinion. French defamation law, despite being stricter than US law, still allows robust criticism of government officials and policy.
Claims related to Brigitte Macron’s gender identity were not dismissed. The court found those allegations were statements of fact, not opinion, and therefore subject to defamation analysis.
Additionally, Erika Kirk, initially named as a co-defendant, was removed from the case in December 2024 after reaching a private settlement with Macron’s attorneys. Terms were not disclosed.
No other parties have been added to the lawsuit. The case now focuses solely on Owens and specific statements made between November 2024 and January 2025.
What was dismissed:
- Claims about Emmanuel Macron’s political positions
- Commentary on French government policy
- Opinions about the Macron presidency
- Erika Kirk’s involvement (settled privately)
What remains:
- Gender identity allegations against Brigitte Macron
- Claims Macron was assigned male at birth
- Statements about Macron’s medical history
- Demands for retraction and damages
Owens celebrated the partial dismissal on social media, calling it a victory for free speech. Macron’s attorneys said the ruling was expected and doesn’t affect the main defamation claim.
Key Takeaway: Some political commentary claims were dismissed in early 2026, and co-defendant Erika Kirk settled separately, but the primary defamation case about Brigitte Macron’s gender identity remains active.
What Did Candace Owens Say About Macron
Candace Owens alleged in a November 2024 video that Brigitte Macron was born male and transitioned genders before marrying Emmanuel Macron. She presented no verified evidence to support this claim.
Owens based her statements on anonymous online posts, manipulated photographs, and a French blog run by Jean-Ixar Bourbon. Bourbon has been investigated in France for spreading the same conspiracy theory.
In the video, Owens said:
“There is credible evidence that Brigitte Macron, France’s First Lady, was born a man named Jean-Michel Trogneux and transitioned in adulthood. The French media refuses to investigate this, but independent researchers have compiled documentation that raises serious questions.”
She followed up with multiple social media posts repeating the claim. She encouraged her followers to “do their own research” and linked to Bourbon’s blog.
French fact-checkers immediately debunked the claims. Birth records, school photographs, and testimony from childhood friends confirm Brigitte Macron was assigned female at birth.
The conspiracy theory originated in far-right French online communities in 2021. It gained limited traction until Owens, with her large American audience, amplified it in 2024.
Timeline of Owens’ statements:
- November 11, 2024: Initial video posted to YouTube
- November 12, 2024: Shared to X with added commentary
- November 13-15, 2024: Follow-up posts referencing “censorship” after backlash
- November 18, 2024: Video removed from YouTube for violating harassment policy
- November 20, 2024: Owens posts video to Rumble, calls removal “proof” of conspiracy
Owens has not retracted the statements. She continues to defend them as legitimate questions about a public figure.
Candace Owens Defamation Lawsuit
The defamation lawsuit against Candace Owens is based on Article 29 of the French Law of 1881, which governs press freedom and defamation. The law defines defamation as any allegation of fact that harms a person’s honor or reputation.
To win, Macron’s attorneys must prove three elements:
- Owens made a factual allegation (not opinion)
- The allegation was false
- The allegation caused reputational harm
Unlike US law, Macron does not need to prove Owens acted with actual malice or knew the statements were false. The burden is on Owens to prove her statements were true.
Truth is a complete defense under French law, but the defendant must provide clear evidence. Owens has provided none that meets legal standards.
The lawsuit also invokes Article 9 of the French Civil Code, which protects the right to privacy. Medical history and gender identity fall under this protection.
Damages in French defamation cases vary widely. Recent high-profile cases have resulted in awards ranging from €1,000 to €100,000 (approximately $1,100 to $110,000 USD).
Punitive damages are rare in French civil law. Awards are designed to compensate for actual harm, not punish the defendant.
| Defamation Element | French Standard | US Standard (Public Figure) |
|---|---|---|
| False statement of fact | Must be proven false by plaintiff | Must be proven false by plaintiff |
| Harm to reputation | Presumed if statement is defamatory | Must be proven |
| Fault/intent | Not required | Actual malice required |
| Burden of proof (truth defense) | Defendant must prove truth | Plaintiff must prove falsity |
Owens’ attorneys argue the case should be dismissed because French law conflicts with US constitutional protections. No French court is bound by that argument.
The real battle will happen if Macron wins a judgment and tries to enforce it in the United States.
Erika Kirk Candace Owens Lawsuit
Erika Kirk was originally named as a co-defendant in the Macron lawsuit. Kirk is an independent journalist who collaborated with Owens on content related to the Macron conspiracy theory.
Kirk appeared in one of Owens’ videos and shared similar claims on her own social media platforms. Macron’s legal team argued Kirk was jointly liable for defamation.
In December 2024, Kirk reached a confidential settlement with Macron’s attorneys. She agreed to remove all posts related to the claims and issue a retraction.
Kirk posted a statement on X saying:
“After reviewing the facts, I have concluded the allegations about Brigitte Macron’s gender identity are unfounded. I retract my prior statements and apologize for any harm caused.”
The settlement reportedly did not include a monetary payment. Kirk was allowed to exit the lawsuit in exchange for the public retraction.
Owens did not comment on Kirk’s settlement. The two have not publicly collaborated since.
Kirk’s removal from the case simplified the legal proceedings. It also created a template for what Macron’s attorneys likely hoped to achieve with Owens: a public apology and retraction.
Key Takeaway: Erika Kirk settled with Macron’s legal team in December 2024, issued a retraction, and was removed from the lawsuit, leaving Owens as the sole remaining defendant.
French Defamation Law Candace Owens
French defamation law differs significantly from American law in ways that matter for the Owens case. The Law of July 29, 1881 governs defamation and press offenses in France.
Key features of French defamation law:
Strict liability: You can be found liable even without intent to harm. Publishing a false statement is enough.
Burden of proof: The defendant must prove the statement is true. In the US, the plaintiff must prove it’s false.
No actual malice requirement: Public figures in France don’t need to prove the defendant knew the statement was false or acted with reckless disregard.
Short statute of limitations: Defamation claims must be filed within three months of publication. Macron’s team filed within two weeks.
Criminal vs civil: Defamation can be prosecuted as a crime or pursued as a civil matter. Macron chose the civil route.
French courts take a protective view of personal dignity and privacy. Allegations about gender identity are treated as invasions of privacy and defamatory per se.
The law allows defendants to prove truth as a complete defense. But the standard is high. Rumor, speculation, and unverified sources don’t qualify.
Owens would need official government documents, medical records, or testimony from credible witnesses. She has none.
| Legal Concept | French Approach | US Approach |
|---|---|---|
| Public figure standard | Same as private figure | Must prove actual malice |
| Truth defense | Defendant must prove | Absolute defense if proven |
| Privacy protection | Very strong | Weaker for public figures |
| Damages | Compensatory only | Can include punitive |
| Statute of limitations | 3 months | 1 to 3 years (varies by state) |
French defamation law prioritizes reputation and dignity over free expression. US law does the opposite.
This creates a fundamental conflict when a French court tries to regulate speech by an American in America.
Candace Owens Court Case France
The court case is proceeding in the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris, the main civil court for Paris. The case number is not publicly available due to French privacy rules.
Hearings have been conducted in French with no participation from Owens. Her US attorneys have filed documents through international legal channels, but Owens has not appeared in person or via video.
The court scheduled a May 12, 2026 hearing to consider evidence and hear arguments. Macron’s attorneys will present video clips, transcripts, and expert testimony about reputational harm.
Owens’ attorneys are expected to file a motion for summary judgment arguing the court lacks jurisdiction. French courts rarely grant such motions when the defendant is accused of harming a French citizen.
If the court rules in Macron’s favor, it will issue a judgment specifying damages and ordering Owens to retract her statements and remove content.
Enforcement is a separate question. French judgments are not automatically recognized in the US.
Under the SPEECH Act of 2010, US courts can refuse to enforce foreign defamation judgments that don’t meet First Amendment standards. The law was passed specifically to protect American authors and journalists from foreign libel lawsuits.
Owens would need to be sued again in US court for Macron to collect. That lawsuit would be evaluated under American constitutional law, not French law.
Court case timeline:
- November 12, 2024: Lawsuit filed
- December 10, 2024: Owens served via international legal process
- January 15, 2026: Partial dismissal of political commentary claims
- February 3, 2026: Jurisdictional motion denied
- May 12, 2026: Evidentiary hearing scheduled
- Estimated ruling: Summer 2026
Even if Macron wins, collecting damages could take years and require additional litigation in US courts.
Will Candace Owens Pay Brigitte Macron
Candace Owens is unlikely to pay any judgment voluntarily. Whether she can be forced to pay depends on US courts, not French courts.
If the Paris court orders Owens to pay damages, Macron’s attorneys would need to bring an enforcement action in a US court, likely in Tennessee where Owens resides.
The SPEECH Act creates a high bar for enforcement. A US court can only recognize a foreign defamation judgment if:
- The foreign court provided due process
- The foreign law protections are at least as strong as the First Amendment
- The judgment does not violate US public policy
French defamation law fails the second test. It does not require proof of actual malice for public figures.
Multiple legal experts have stated that no US court would enforce a French judgment against Owens under these facts.
What this means:
- Owens won’t pay unless a US court orders her to pay
- No US court is likely to enforce a French defamation ruling in this case
- Macron could win in France and still collect nothing
There is one exception: if Owens has assets in France or travels to France, those assets could be seized or she could be detained.
Owens has stated she will never travel to France. She has no known French bank accounts or property.
Possible outcomes:
| Outcome | Likelihood | Impact on Owens |
|---|---|---|
| French court rules for Macron | High | Symbolic only |
| US court enforces judgment | Very low | No payment required |
| Owens voluntarily pays | Extremely low | Would set bad precedent |
| Owens settles to avoid further litigation | Low | Possible if US case filed |
| No enforcement, case ends | Most likely | Owens faces no consequences |
The lawsuit may be more about public vindication for Macron than actual financial recovery.
Key Takeaway: Even if Brigitte Macron wins in French court, Candace Owens is unlikely to pay damages because US courts will probably refuse to enforce a judgment under the SPEECH Act.
Candace Owens Lawsuit Settlement
No settlement has been reached as of March 2026. Neither party has publicly expressed interest in settlement negotiations.
Macron’s legal team has insisted on a full public retraction and apology. Owens has refused.
Owens views any settlement as an admission of wrongdoing and a surrender of free speech principles. Her public statements suggest she’s prepared to fight indefinitely.
Settlements in international defamation cases are rare. The parties often have incompatible goals.
For Macron, the lawsuit is about clearing her name and deterring future false claims. A settlement without a retraction achieves neither.
For Owens, settling would damage her brand as a fearless truth-teller. Her audience supports her stance.
Typical settlement terms in defamation cases:
- Monetary payment to plaintiff
- Public retraction and apology
- Removal of defamatory content
- Agreement not to repeat the claims
- Confidentiality clause
Owens has rejected all of these. She’s actually doubled down, claiming the lawsuit proves French elites have something to hide.
Legal observers note that the lack of settlement talks is unusual. Most defamation cases settle before trial to avoid the cost and publicity of litigation.
The absence of talks suggests both parties are willing to see this through to a final ruling.
If a settlement were to happen, it would likely occur after a French court ruling but before any US enforcement action. Owens might settle to avoid the hassle of defending a US lawsuit, even if she’s likely to win.
That scenario remains hypothetical. As of now, both sides are dug in.
How Much Is Candace Owens Lawsuit
The lawsuit does not specify a damages amount. Under French procedure, the plaintiff requests damages but the court determines the final award based on evidence of harm.
Macron’s attorneys will present evidence of reputational damage, emotional distress, and the cost of addressing the false claims. They may also seek reimbursement for legal fees.
French defamation awards are typically modest by US standards. Recent comparable cases suggest a range of €10,000 to €50,000 (approximately $11,000 to $55,000 USD).
High-profile cases can exceed that range. In 2019, a French court awarded €60,000 to a politician who was falsely accused of criminal activity.
Macron’s status as First Lady could justify a higher award. The court may also consider the international reach of Owens’ statements and the millions of people who viewed them.
Estimated damages breakdown:
| Damage Type | Estimated Amount (EUR) | Estimated Amount (USD) |
|---|---|---|
| Reputational harm | €20,000 to €40,000 | $22,000 to $44,000 |
| Emotional distress | €5,000 to €10,000 | $5,500 to $11,000 |
| Legal fees | €10,000 to €20,000 | $11,000 to $22,000 |
| Total potential award | €35,000 to €70,000 | $38,500 to $77,000 |
These are rough estimates. The actual award could be higher or lower depending on the evidence presented.
French courts do not award punitive damages. All awards are compensatory, meant to make the plaintiff whole.
Even a €100,000 award would be considered extraordinary under French law. US-style multi-million-dollar defamation awards don’t exist in France.
The relatively modest damages may be one reason Macron pursued the lawsuit. It’s not about money. It’s about accountability and public vindication.
Candace Owens Brigitte Macron Claims
The specific claims Owens made about Brigitte Macron fall into three categories: identity allegations, evidence claims, and conspiracy theories.
Identity allegations:
- Brigitte Macron was assigned male at birth
- She was born as “Jean-Michel Trogneux”
- She transitioned genders in adulthood before marrying Emmanuel Macron
Evidence claims:
- Childhood photos show a male child, not female
- Official records have been altered or hidden
- The French government is covering up the truth
- Journalists who investigate face retaliation
Conspiracy theories:
- Emmanuel Macron married Brigitte knowing she was transgender
- The marriage was arranged for political purposes
- French media is complicit in hiding the truth
- Anyone questioning the narrative is silenced
All of these claims have been debunked by French and international fact-checkers. Verified childhood photographs, school records, and testimony from dozens of people who knew Brigitte as a child confirm she was assigned female at birth.
The “Jean-Michel Trogneux” name refers to Brigitte’s brother, who died in 2022. Conspiracy theorists falsely claimed Brigitte and Jean-Michel were the same person.
Owens presented no credible evidence for any claim. Her sources consisted of:
- Anonymous blog posts
- Manipulated or misidentified photographs
- Speculation from online forums
- Statements from Jean-Ixar Bourbon, who has no journalistic credentials
Despite comprehensive debunking, Owens has not retracted the claims. She characterizes pushback as censorship and evidence of a coverup.
This pattern is central to Macron’s lawsuit. The complaint argues Owens knew or should have known the claims were false but spread them anyway for attention and profit.
Macron Lawsuit Candace Owens
The Macron lawsuit against Candace Owens represents a broader conflict between European and American legal values. France views defamation law as essential to protecting human dignity. The US views it as a potential threat to free expression.
From Macron’s perspective, the lawsuit is necessary to stop malicious lies that invade her privacy and cause real harm. French public opinion largely supports this view.
From Owens’ perspective, the lawsuit is government overreach designed to silence critics. Many American conservatives share this concern.
The case has political dimensions beyond the legal issues. Emmanuel Macron’s government has clashed with US conservatives on multiple issues, from climate policy to NATO spending.
Some observers see the lawsuit as retaliation for Owens’ criticism of French immigration policy and the Macron presidency. Others view it as a legitimate response to false and harmful speech.
The outcome could influence how other public figures handle similar situations. If Macron succeeds, other European officials may follow suit against American commentators.
If Owens successfully resists enforcement, it will confirm that US speakers have broad immunity from foreign defamation rulings.
The case also highlights the challenge of regulating speech in a globalized media environment. A statement made in Tennessee can reach millions in France within seconds. Traditional concepts of jurisdiction struggle to keep up.
Broader implications:
- Precedent for cross-border defamation enforcement
- Test of SPEECH Act protections
- Example of US-Europe legal conflicts
- Impact on international political commentary
- Questions about platform responsibility for viral falsehoods
Whatever the legal outcome, the case has already achieved one goal: bringing global attention to the false claims and their impact on Brigitte Macron.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is the Candace Owens lawsuit still active in 2026?
Yes, the defamation lawsuit filed by Brigitte Macron is still active as of March 2026.
Some claims were dismissed, but the core allegations about gender identity remain in litigation.
The next court hearing is scheduled for May 12, 2026 in Paris.
Can Brigitte Macron enforce a French court ruling against Candace Owens in the US?
Enforcement in the US is highly unlikely under current law.
The SPEECH Act of 2010 allows US courts to refuse enforcement of foreign defamation judgments that don’t meet First Amendment standards.
French defamation law lacks the actual malice requirement for public figures, so US courts would probably reject any French judgment in this case.
How much could Candace Owens be ordered to pay in the defamation lawsuit?
French defamation awards typically range from €10,000 to €50,000, or about $11,000 to $55,000 USD.
High-profile cases can reach €100,000 or more.
The court has not specified a damages amount, and any award would need to be enforced through a separate US legal action.
What exactly did Candace Owens say that triggered the lawsuit?
Owens claimed in a November 2024 video that Brigitte Macron was assigned male at birth and transitioned genders.
She alleged Macron was born as “Jean-Michel Trogneux” and that French officials covered up the truth.
All claims have been debunked by fact-checkers, but Owens has not retracted them.
Has Candace Owens responded to the Macron lawsuit?
Owens has refused to participate in the French legal proceedings.
She has publicly characterized the lawsuit as an attack on free speech and censorship by French elites.
Her attorneys have filed jurisdictional challenges, but Owens has not appeared in French court and has stated she never will.
The Candace Owens lawsuit continues to move through French courts with limited prospect of enforcement in the United States. The case highlights deep differences between European and American approaches to speech, privacy, and public discourse.
For Brigitte Macron, the lawsuit serves as a public refutation of harmful falsehoods. For Candace Owens, it’s a battle over the limits of free expression.
The May 2026 hearing will likely produce a French court ruling. What happens after that depends on whether Macron’s legal team pursues enforcement in US courts.
Stay informed as this international legal battle develops. The outcome could shape how public figures and commentators navigate cross-border defamation risk for years to come.
