French president Macron sues Candace Owens over claim France's first lady was born male
The Macrons said in a lawsuit filed in Delaware Superior Court that Owens has waged a lie-filled 'campaign of global humiliation' and ' relentless bullying ' to promote her podcast and expand her 'frenzied' fan base.
The Macrons said the lies included that Brigitte Macron, 72, was born under the name Jean-Michel Trogneux, the actual name of her older brother.
'Every time the Macrons leave their home, they do so knowing that countless people have heard, and many believe, these vile fabrications,' the complaint said. 'It is invasive, dehumanizing, and deeply unjust.'
Owens did not immediately respond to emailed requests for comment. Macron's office declined comment.
The 22-count complaint seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory and punitive damages.
Wednesday's lawsuit is a rare case of a world leader suing for defamation. U.S. President Donald Trump has filed multiple defamation lawsuits, including against the publisher of The Wall Street Journal last week.
To prevail in U.S. defamation cases, public figures like the Macrons and Trump must show defendants engaged in 'actual malice,' meaning they knew what they published was false or had reckless disregard for its truth.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mirror
10 hours ago
- Daily Mirror
Half of Brits want another EU referendum in five years - as Brexit support slumps
A new poll of more than 2,000 people found 29% of Brits would vote to leave the EU if the Brexit vote was repeated, compared to 52% in the referendum in June 2016 Nearly half of voters want another EU referendum in the next five years, while less than a third would back Brexit in a new vote. Research by More in Common for the Sunday Times reveals public attitudes towards Europe have shifted over the past decade. The poll of more than 2,000 people found 29% would vote to leave the EU if the Brexit vote was repeated, compared to 52% in the referendum in June 2016. Now, 52% would say they would back being in the EU, with 8% unsure and 11% saying they would not vote. Nearly half (49%) thought there should be a referendum on rejoining the bloc in the next five years, with more than a third, (37%) opposed. It comes as Nigel Farage appearances on Sky News sparked thousands of complaints Keir Starmer has pursued a closer relationship with Brussels since entering Government, which includes a EU-UK deal to ease barriers to trade since Brexit. The PM has also struck up relationships with a number of European leaders, including French President Emmanuel Macron, following years of hostility from Tory PMs towards European leaders. But there is no appetite in Government for another referendum on EU membership after the last vote took years of Commons battles to enact. The poll also found a majority (58%) think the UK should remain in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), compared to 28% who think quit its membership. Nigel Farage said leaving the ECHR would be the first thing he did if he won the next election, while Kemi Badenoch has said the Tories will review it. The pact, which Winston Churchill helped to draw up after the Second World War, has been blamed by critics for making it harder to deport migrants who have come to Britain by protecting their human rights. Luke Tryl, director of More in Common, said: 'With fewer than three in ten saying they would vote to leave the EU in a referendum today and almost six in ten saying the UK should remain in the ECHR, the days of Europe as a political bogeyman may be on the wane and politicians might find themselves pushed on how they'll build a more constructive relationship with Europe. "That's especially true in the face of an erratic Trump presidency, with Brits split as to whether Starmer is being too friendly to the US president or not."
New Statesman
2 days ago
- New Statesman
How Britain lost the status game
Photo by Stefan Rousseau/AFP I've always been a bit puzzled by the 1956 Suez Crisis. The idea of Britain, France and Israel plotting together but being defeated by the honest, righteous Americans does feel, nearly a lifetime later, a little strange. But the most baffling thing about the Suez Crisis is the idea that it was a crisis. It's always described as this a great national humiliation which ruined a prime minister, the sort of watershed to inspire national soul-searching, state-of-the-nation plays and a whole library of books. And yet, compared to the sort of thing which literally every other European country had to deal with at some point in the 20th century, it's nothing. Britain was not invaded or occupied; Britain did not see its population starve. Britain simply learned that it was no longer top dog. That's all. The event and the reaction don't seem to go together. But this, of course, is to see the world from the perspective of today. Now, we all know that Britain cannot just do what it wants – that the US is the far more powerful player. At the start of 1956, though, large chunks of the map were still coloured British pink (or, come to that, French bleu), and the median opinion at home was that this was broadly a good thing. Suez was the moment when the loss of status we now date to 1945 came home. I wonder, in my darker moments, if we're going through something similar now – a less dramatic decline, perhaps, but a potentially more ruinous one. The loss of empire, after all, was mainly an issue for the pride of the political classes. Today's decline in status affects everyone. Consider the number of areas in which the current British government seems utterly helpless before the might of much bigger forces. It's not quite true to say that Rachel Reeves has no room for manoeuvre – breaking a manifesto pledge and raising one of the core taxes remains an option, albeit one that would be painful for government and taxpayer alike. But her borrowing and spending options are constrained by the sense of a bond market both far flightier than it once was, thanks to an increase in short term investors, and less willing, post-Truss, to give Britain the benefit of the doubt. The thing that much of the public would like Reeves to do – spend more, without raising taxes – is a thing it is by no means clear she has the power to do. Over in foreign policy, Keir Starmer has offended sensibilities by making nice with someone entirely unfit to be president of the United States, and whose actions place him a lot closer to the dictators of the 20th century than to Eisenhower or JFK. The problem for Starmer is that saying this out loud would likely result in ruinous tariffs, or the collapse of NATO before an alternative system for the defence of Europe can be prepared, or both. Again, he has no space to do what his voters want him to do. In the same vein, consider the anger about Britain's failure to act to prevent the horrors still unfolding in Gaza. It is not to imply the government has handled things well to suggest that at least part of the problem is that – 69 years on from Suez – the government of Israel doesn't give a fig about what the government of Britain thinks. The things the public wants may be outside the realm of things the government can actually deliver. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Even in less overtly political realms, the British state feels helplessly at the mercy of global forces beyond its control. The domestic TV industry, a huge British export, is in crisis thanks to the streamers. AI will change the world, we're told, and it's very possible that isn't a good thing: and what is Westminster supposed to do about that? And with which faculties? In all these areas and a thousand more, people want their government to do something to change the direction of events, and it is not at all obvious it can. Ever since 2016, British politics has been plagued by a faintly Australian assumption that, if a prime minister is not delivering, you should kick them out and bring in the next one. That is not the worst impulse in a democracy. But what if Britain is so changed that delivery is not possible? Researchers have found that social status affects the immune system of certain types of monkey – that the stress of lower status can, quite literally, kill. It already looks plausible the electorate might roll the dice on Nigel Farage. This is terrifying enough. But when it turns out he can't take back control either, but only trash what's there – what then? [See more: Trump in the wilderness] Related
Spectator
2 days ago
- Spectator
Why can't we agree on data?
John O'Neill and Sam McPhail, the Spectator's research and data team, join economics editor Michael Simmons to re-introduce listeners to the Spectator's data hub. They take us through the process between the data hub and how their work feeds into the weekly magazine. From crime to migration, which statistics are the most controversial? Why can't we agree on data? Plus – whose data is presented better, the Americans or the French? For more from the Spectator's data hub – which may, or may not look like the thumbnail photo – go to: Produced by Patrick Gibbons and Megan McElroy.
