Candace Owens trades legal blows with Macrons over transgender accusations

WILMINGTON, Del. (CN) — Far-right political commentator Candace Owens on Monday asked a Delaware judge to dismiss defamation claims against her, filed by French Prime Minister Emmanuel Macron and his wife over accusations that France’s first lady is a transgender woman.

Owens first claimed French first lady Brigitte Macron was assigned male at birth and later transitioned to a female identity in March 2024, telling her audience she would “stake [her] entire professional reputation” on it.

Brigitte and Emmanuel Macron demanded Owens retract her claims, offering documents they said would prove Brigitte is a cisgender woman. In response, Owens doubled down, releasing an eight-part series asserting several baseless claims against the couple — including that Brigitte was assigned male at birth, that she stole a woman’s identity to become Brigitte, and that Emmanuel and Brigitte Macron are related to one another and in an incestuous relationship.

The Macrons sued Owens and two affiliated media groups — Candace Owens LLC and GeorgeTom Inc. — in July 2025, claiming Owens lied about them to increase her viewership.

“These claims are demonstrably false, and Owens knew they were false when she published them,” the Macrons wrote in an amended complaint. “Yet, she published them anyway. And the reason is clear: It is not the pursuit of truth, but the pursuit of fame.”

Even still, Owens has continued to add to her story. Since the Macrons filed suit, Owens has additionally asserted that Brigitte Macron participated in the infamous 1971 Stanford prison experiment and that the Macrons were orchestrating an assassination attempt on her. Owens also sells merchandise accusing Emmanuel Macron of being a gay man.

Standing in front of Delaware Judge Sheldon K. Rennie Monday morning, Owens’ attorney Chad M. Shandler ridiculed the lawsuit as “legally meritless” and an “assault on the freedom of speech.”

However, almost none of his arguments for dismissal even mentioned the case’s merits.

Instead, Shandler repeatedly pointed to Delaware’s borrowing statute, which requires state courts to determine the statute of limitations in both Delaware and the state where a claim arises, and apply the shortest time limit of the two.

Arguing the Macrons suffered their harm in their domicile of France — where, he contends, the statute of limitations is limited to three months rather than Delaware’s two years — Shandler asserted the couple’s entire claim is time-barred.

“It’s clear,” Shandler told Rennie. “The domicile is controlling.”

Rennie, however, did not appear to see it as clearly, questioning whether the location in which a party makes its claim could determine jurisdiction.

Still, the judge recognized the implications of Shandler’s claim: “If it’s France, it’s a wrap,” Rennie said.

Also taking the stand for Owens, attorney Katharine L. Mowery argued that even if Delaware does qualify as proper jurisdiction, Owens should be removed for lack of personal jurisdiction, as she lives and works from Tennessee — not Delaware.

While Mowery claimed the Macrons did not sufficiently tie the two entity defendants to Owens as either alter-egos or agents, Rennie noted that greater access to internal documents would likely be necessary to do so in the first place.

“They haven’t alleged that because they don’t know,” Rennie told Mowery. “Does that open the door for jurisdictional discovery?”

“No,” Mowery replied, insisting the Macrons failed to build a prima facie case and noting they can’t “go fishing for evidence.”

Representing the Macrons, attorney Tom Clare sought to refute Mowery’s assertions, claiming Owens’ position as sole controlling owner of Candace Owens LLC does in fact render it an agent of hers.

“She doesn’t just own these entities,” Clare added. “She runs her entire publishing operations through them” — including propagation of the purportedly defamatory claims.

Rennie did not appear immediately convinced, however, questioning whether a Delaware-organized online publication could even be understood as inherently conducting Delaware operations.

“So every time a Delaware business is doing business, it’s doing it in Delaware?” Rennie asked Clare, expressing concern over the implications of creating such a legal precedent.

“Your honor, I don’t think you have to make such a broad ruling,” Clare replied, again attempting to pin Owens to the actions of the entity defendants.

Specifically, Clare noted that in a 2020 defamation suit filed by Owens herself against USA Today, Owens both called Candace Owens LLC a “pass-through entity” and pursued the claims in Delaware court.

“We followed her lead in bringing our claim here,” Clare added, telling Rennie it would be “incongruous” for Owens to refute the case at hand’s jurisdiction.

Also representing the Macrons, attorney Libby Locke claimed Owens’ statute of limitations considerations are moot, as U.S. law precludes even considering French jurisdiction.

Under the 2010 SPEECH Act, it is illegal for U.S. courts to enforce foreign defamation judgments unless that foreign jurisdiction offers at least as much free speech protections as the First Amendment.

Noting that First Amendment-protected speech such as insults can qualify as defamation and that statements similar to Owens’ can result in jail time under French law, Locke argued the foreign defamation regulations are too restrictive to be considered in U.S. courts.

“You cannot enforce that kind of judgment in Delaware, or in Tennessee,” Locke told Rennie. “Tennessee and Delaware have an obligation to apply U.S. law.”

Follow @JacksonHeals