French President Emmanuel Macron and his wife will present photos and expert evidence in a U.S. court to fight false claims spreading across Europe.
French President Emmanuel Macron and his wife, Brigitte, have decided to take an unusual but decisive step in their legal battle against misinformation.
According to their attorney, Tom Clare, the couple plans to present both photographic and scientific evidence in a U.S. court to definitively prove that Brigitte is a woman, aiming to put an end to persistent rumors about her gender identity.
The move is part of the defamation lawsuit the Macrons filed against American influencer Candace Owens, known for her ties to Donald Trump and her outspoken transphobic rhetoric.
Owens has repeatedly promoted the theory that Brigitte Macron was born male under the name Jean-Michel Trogneux, the first lady’s brother. These claims have been amplified through the eight-part web series Becoming Brigitte, widely shared on social media and among far-right circles in the United States and across Europe.
Speaking to the BBC, Clare confirmed that Brigitte is willing to undergo the discomfort of making private details public, including photographs of her pregnancies and family life.
“She is firmly committed to doing whatever is necessary to set the record straight,” he said. He added that expert testimony of a scientific nature will also be introduced to reinforce the authenticity of the evidence.
The origins of the rumor trace back to 2021, when a French YouTube channel devoted to clairvoyance released an interview with Natasha Rey, who claimed to be a journalist.
Rey alleged that Brigitte was actually her brother Jean-Michel, who had assumed her identity after her supposed death. The story, promoted by Amandine Roy, the channel’s host, quickly went viral on social networks, gaining traction especially among far-right groups in France and elsewhere in Europe.
In France, Brigitte Macron filed a lawsuit against Roy and Rey, initially winning the case in a lower court. However, a Paris appellate court overturned the ruling, acquitting the defendants on most counts by arguing that they had acted in good faith. The case is now pending before France’s Supreme Court.
The U.S. legal battle poses additional challenges, as American defamation law sets a high bar for public figures. To succeed, the Macrons must prove “actual malice,” meaning that Owens either knew her statements were false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.
Clare stressed in an interview with the Financial Times that “the principle here is the truth,” adding that the couple views the lawsuit as essential. He also pointed out that Owens “has had multiple opportunities to do the right thing and, instead, has mocked them.”
Owens’s defense team has filed a motion to dismiss the case, arguing that it was improperly filed in Delaware—where her companies are registered—instead of Tennessee, her state of residence.
Her lawyers maintain that being forced to defend herself in Delaware would create a “substantial financial and operational burden,” a procedural dispute that could complicate the proceedings.
Beyond the courtroom, the case has sparked broader debate in Europe over the limits of free expression when it collides with viral misinformation, and about the impact conspiracy theories can have on public figures. For Emmanuel and Brigitte Macron, the trial is not only about defending their privacy but also about sending a wider message against the spread of false narratives that undermine public trust and political stability.
