Macron-Owens, Defamation and ‘Transvestigation’
Imagine a sitting president and his wife suing a far-right influencer in Delaware over a conspiracy theory claiming France’s First Lady was secretly born male, because that is exactly what is happening in the Macron-Owens defamation case.
Emmanuel and Brigitte Macron, the President and First Lady of France, have recently filed a defamation lawsuit against the infamous far-right social media influencer known publicly as Candace Owens. Filed in Delaware, this case consists of 22 legal claims including defamation, false light (a similar charge to defamation), and monetization through merchandise and a podcast series according to them.us. The Macrons allege a “relentless and unjustified smear campaign” resulting in emotional and reputational harm to the couple.
Owens has become widely known for controversial content often criticized as harmful, inflammatory, or conspiratorial. While her platform was started around 2017, she rose to her own infamy by defaming movements such as Black Lives Matter. Owens has been promoting an entirely debunked “transvestigation claim” through her podcast “Becoming Brigitte.” She has since doubled down, calling the case a PR stunt and invoking First Amendment protections.
This is not the first time this has happened. Previously, in France, two women were fined over spreading similar claims, but an appeals court later overturned those convictions on the basis of “good faith,” not factual accuracy. This situation has led the Macrons to appeal up to France’s highest court.
“Transvestigation” is unfortunately not a new tactic among many far-right politicians or influencers. It involves the study of features to decide someone’s sex and “expose” them for covering it up. This phenomenon of conspiracy-targeting powerful women, such as Michelle Obama or Kamala Harris, by falsely claiming these people are secretly transgender has become well -known over the last several years. This hateful rhetoric only causes damage in people’s personal lives. Often, it is fueled by a racist perception of features.
This case represents more than a personal grievance; it is a public stand against the regularity of the harmful, conspiratorial rhetoric that has become common in mainstream media today. The outcome of this case could set legal precedent, especially regarding defamation across international borders. It also questions the limits of free speech when it involves monetized misinformation. This also highlights how transphobia, misogyny, and racism intersect in online conspiracy culture, where powerful women, especially women of color, are repeatedly targeted with the intention of being torn down.
Regardless of the verdict, this case puts a spotlight on the real-world consequences of digital disinformation and the emotional toll it can take on those accused. In conclusion, it raises a very big question: What counts as free speech? Who is accountable for online misinformation? And how do we protect public figures, private citizens, or even ourselves from viral defamation?
