Who is Candace Owens? All about the US political commentator sued by French President Emmanuel Macron (Net worth, personal life, career highlights inside)
Emmanuel Macron
and First Lady Brigitte Macron.
Best known for her sharp critiques of liberalism and her pro-Trump activism, Owens now faces accusations of spreading a sensational conspiracy claiming that Brigitte Macron was born male.
What happened?
French President Emmanuel Macron and his wife, Brigitte Macron, have filed a defamation case against American hard-right podcaster Candace Owens. As reported by Politico, the first couple of France, as per a filing in the Delaware state court, alleged that Owens had profited off spreading rumors that the French First Lady was born a biological male.
The suit also claimed that Candace Owens had used the rumor to 'promote her independent platform, gain notoriety, and make money,' adding that she also launched an eight-part podcast, Becoming Brigitte, focusing on various conspiracy theories about the Macrons and their relationship.
Who is Candace Owens
?
Candace Owens Farmer is an American political commentator and author. Her political positions have mostly been described as far-right or conservative.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Top Public Speaking Course for Children
Planet Spark
Book Now
Undo
Born in 1989 in White Plains, New York, and raised primarily in Stamford, Connecticut, Owens gained recognition for her conservative activism, despite being initially critical of President Donald Trump and the Republican Party, as well as her criticism of the Black Lives Matter movement.
Following her parents' divorce, Owens was brought up by her mother and grandparents and attended Stamford High School, where she endured and successfully litigated racist threats, resulting in a $37,500 settlement.
She briefly studied journalism at the University of Rhode Island but left before graduating to pursue work in marketing.
Career highlights
Degree180 and SocialAutopsy: In 2015, Owens founded Degree180, a boutique marketing agency, and launched SocialAutopsy.com in 2016, a controversial platform aimed at exposing online bullies.
Turning Point USA (2017–2019): Owens gained prominence as communications director at Turning Point USA, aligning with conservative activism and becoming a notable voice in pro-Trump circles.
Media ventures: Owens has hosted shows on PragerU and The Daily Wire ('Candace'), authored books including Blackout, and released the documentary The Greatest Lie Ever Sold (2022).
Products and partnerships: Her entrepreneurial endeavors include promoting the controversial 'Freedom Phone' and co-founding the now-defunct anti-woke bank, GloriFi.
As The Hills reported, Owens has taken a critical tone over the past few months, particularly on matters like the president's links with deceased sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
She has worked for conservative organizations such as media outlet Daily Wire and the student group Turning Point. As per the BBC, Owens launched her own podcast in 2024.
Net worth:
Candace Owens' net worth is estimated at around $5 million, derived from multiple revenue streams like book sales, speaking fees, online media, sponsorships, and brand deals. Although not much information on the breakdown of her wealth is available, as of now, her diversified ventures indicate that Owens is a media mogul on the rise.
Personal life:
In 2019, Owens married British-American entrepreneur George Farmer, who is the son of Baron Michael Farmer. The duo met while Owens was serving as the communications director of Turning Point in the US, while Faermer was working for the group's UK branch. The couple resides in Tennessee and has four children: a boy born in January 2021, Louise Marie Farmer born in July 2022, Max born in late 2023, and Roman born in May 2025.
In April 2024, Owens publicly converted to Catholicism, describing it as 'a homecoming.' She identifies with the Republican Party, vocally opposes Black Lives Matter, COVID‑19 lockdowns, vaccine policies, and supports strong border enforcement. Her advocacy spans aligned far-right talking points and occasional conspiracy theories (flat Earth skepticism, globalist narratives).
On July 23, French President Emmanuel Macron and first lady Brigitte Macron filed a 22‑count defamation lawsuit in Delaware Superior Court, accusing Owens of:
Claiming Brigitte Macron was born male, under the name Jean‑Michel Trogneux.
Alleging incest, identity fraud, and CIA mind‑control involvement.
Generating personal distress and global humiliation.
Monetizing falsehoods via her podcast 'Becoming Brigitte' and related merch, without valid evidence. This one's a defamation suit, meaning it aims to obtain compensatory and punitive damages, claiming 'actual malice,' proof that Owens knowingly promoted false statements.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
20 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Love in the time of partisan politics: No, opposites don't attract
Whoever came up with the adage that 'opposites attract' clearly wasn't trying to date in a democracy. It's a theory best confined to magnets, where it's at least literally true. Sorry about the outburst. Perhaps it stems from my spectacular failure to match with someone who has actually read all 1,000 pages of Das Kapital — never mind that I barely made it through the first seven minutes of Karl Marx's ENTIRE Theory Explained in 48 Minutes on YouTube. Or maybe I'm still reeling from this weekend, when my mum insisted during lunch that she set me up with the daughter of someone from her power-walking gang. When I asked, 'Does she follow the news?' she snapped, 'That shouldn't matter.' I nearly let a fish bone take me out, just to end the conversation. The obsession with finding someone who thinks like me isn't about romanticising some grand union of love and politics — at this point, I might even settle for someone who thinks voting is hot. And I'm not disputing the fact that people tend to seek partners with similar political views — that's well documented across numerous studies and surveys; for example, as recently as April, an NBC News poll in the United States found that the partisan divide between Gen Z women (largely pro-Democrat) and Gen Z men (leaning Republican) is the widest of all generations. The real question, then, is: Why, in the pursuit of love, does this factor appear to be non-negotiable today, rather than just a bonus point? The truth is, if there's any life advice worth heeding over 'opposites attract,' it's the far less glamorous, but infinitely more reliable 'Be practical'. After all, socialism, liberalism, conservatism — these aren't just political theories taught in textbooks; they're perspectives (except apoliticism, which is supposedly a lack of interest in politics or political neutrality, but really, it's just what LinkedIn bros call a personality). Politics isn't just how I vote. It's how I interpret my world, and how I make sense of the people I let into it. Having a friend who disagrees with me on secularism in Political Philosophy class is one thing, but spending the rest of my life with someone who doesn't share a basic vision of the country we want our children to grow up in? That's not so simple. Can you imagine the endless squabbling? I'm just trying to eat rice and dal. She's mid-rant: 'You Leftists and your reservations ruined Saxena ji's son's medical dreams!' I chew, nod, and go, 'Yes, because god forbid we ask why 'merit' always looks like Saxena ji's son.' She can't resist: 'One Marxist book and now you think you're Che Guevara?' Even if we somehow managed to follow a strict 'no-politics' rule — no debates, no shouting matches, no Rumble in the Jungle — how comfortable would we really be knowing that our partner, the so-called love of our life, holds diametrically opposite ideas about society, justice, government, and humanity? About how people should be treated by the State? About whose lives matter, and whose don't? How do I look someone in the eye and say 'I love you' with full sincerity, knowing that they genuinely believe in a socialist world, the poor would be handed free iPhones? Can I really love someone who thinks like that? Isn't it more likely for those much-talked-about sparks to fly with someone who, too, has lost sleep over Donald Trump's return to power and teared up during Zohran Mamdani's celebratory speech? I'm not saying the world should be free of Conservatives and Liberals, and I hope they don't wish the same fate on us Leftists. As Hegel argued with his Dialectics, contradiction is essential; without it, there's no movement, no progress. Society needs an ideological back-and-forth to evolve. But in dating or marriage? That kind of contradiction isn't evolutionary, it's exhausting. Love is hard enough without having to argue the basics, like whether billionaires should exist or not (they shouldn't).
Indian Express
20 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Sanctions, exemptions and assurances: A cautionary note on India's trade deal strategy
Casinos and betting companies around the world might as well start offering odds on US tariff rates across goods for different countries and for how long the rates will stick. If one were lulled into complacency about understanding the current state of affairs, the Trump administration is sure to throw a few wildcards into the mix to keep everyone on their toes – and this includes analysts as well as trade negotiators. A few other countries, including Europe, have agreed on a trade deal with the US, and analysing its structure and form can give a strong indication of how the Indian deal might play out. Finally, a free trade agreement with the UK that was recently signed and one with Australia that was signed a few months ago give India a minor edge in the proceedings. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte recently threatened India, along with China, Brazil and others with 100 per cent secondary sanctions if they continue doing business with Russia, including buying Russian oil. Simultaneously, US Senator Lindsey Graham is pushing for the Sanctioning Russia Act of 2025, a bipartisan legislative proposal. The bill, backed by Trump and 170 other lawmakers, threatens an unprecedented 500 per cent tariff on all goods exported to the US by countries that buy Russian oil, gas, petrochemicals or uranium. This is part of an overall strategy to choke the Kremlin's war bank and economic lifelines. Trump has warned that if Russia does not stop its military offensive within 50 days, nations trading with Russia will receive trade penalties. India imports 90 per cent of its crude oil needs, of which 35-40 per cent comes from Russia. Recall that in 2020, the share of Russia in India's crude oil imports was less than 1 per cent. The response by the Indian administration has been mixed. India's foreign secretary hit back at NATO's double standards for both buying Russian gas and for buying refined oil from India, which uses Russian crude as inputs. He has also indicated that India might not readily fall in line, as securing India's energy needs is the top priority for this government. Elsewhere, there's a tacit acknowledgement of the cost-benefit analysis. India's Petroleum Minister Hardeep Singh Puri has implicitly acknowledged that India is prepared to 'deal with these sanctions' when they are passed. What helps is that India now has diversified its import sources to 40 countries, as opposed to 27 in the past, which means that India can reduce its imports from Russia, should the sanctions be passed. While diversifying imports to other countries can turn out to be slightly more expensive, a 500 per cent (or even 100 per cent) tariff rate would kill India's competitiveness with the only major trading partner with which India has a trade surplus. India will have to assess the probability of Trump keeping his word on the secondary tariffs. The oil spot markets called his bluff, as the price for Brent crude barely moved from $69 per barrel. If the secondary sanctions stick and Russian oil (which accounts for 10 per cent of the total global oil supply) is shut out of the global markets, the price could shoot up to $120 per barrel. This would derail Trump's domestic low-energy prices agenda. Moreover, if secondary tariffs on Chinese (mainly) and Indian goods stick, it would result in a significant increase in prices of imported goods and cause runaway inflation in the US. Will the acronym TACO (Trump Always Chickens Out) be validated again? Along with the threat of secondary tariffs, Trump has also separately imposed tariffs on auto and auto parts. He is also threatening tariffs on pharmaceutical imports and a 10 per cent additional tariff on all products from BRICS countries for attempting to 'destroy' the US Dollar. These additional tariffs would make the Indian side wary of signing a deal with the US, given that it may be superseded at any time by such ad hoc measures. A trade deal would mean very little if there's a new threat of tariffs every other day. To mitigate this, the Indian side would want explicit assurances that no new tariffs will be imposed once a Bilateral Trade Agreement is finalised. India should now insist on the agreement including renegotiation clauses, or compensation from its trading partner in case of a tariff increase. It could even insist on a clawback clause, which allows India to withdraw benefits if the US reneges on the deal. Though it would be rather foolhardy to speculate, it can be instructive to look at some of the other trade deals that the US has recently signed to get an idea of what may lie in store for India. Though some of these details are yet to be publicly confirmed, what we know so far is that trade deals with the UK, Vietnam, Indonesia, the Philippines, Japan and the EU have been finalised. The big takeaway is that a 10 per cent tariff rate is the new zero or the base rate. In addition, each country faces different additional tariffs. The UK pays no extra charges, while Vietnam faces an additional 10 per cent (bringing their total to 20 per cent, down from the originally threatened 46 per cent). Indonesia and the Philippines each pay an additional 9 per cent, resulting in total rates of 19 per cent (compared to threatened rates of 32 per cent and 20 per cent, respectively). Japan and the EU receive the most favourable treatment with only an additional 5 per cent, for a total rate of 15 per cent. In exchange for these negotiated rates, most of these countries have eliminated all tariffs on US products and opened their markets to American companies. Note that sectoral tariffs are exempted from the reciprocal tariffs. Thus, auto and auto parts tariffs of 25 per cent will apply on top of the base 10 per cent, but these countries have negotiated on some of these sectoral tariffs. Japan was able to reduce auto tariffs to 15 per cent, reduced from the threatened 25 per cent, and the UK got it reduced to 10 per cent. India should pay attention to this and negotiate on pharma and auto products to get exemptions. The writer is an Economics Professor at the Takshashila Institution, an independent and non-partisan think tank and school of public policy
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
20 minutes ago
- Business Standard
US DOJ files misconduct complaint against judge handling deportation case
The Justice Department on Monday filed a misconduct complaint against the federal judge who has clashed with President Donald Trump 's administration over deportations to a notorious prison in El Salvador. Escalating the administration's conflict with US District Judge James E Boasberg, Attorney General Pam Bondi said on social media that she directed the filing of the complaint against Boasberg for making improper public comments about President Trump and his administration. The complaint stems from remarks Boasberg allegedly made in March to Chief Justice John Roberts and other federal judges saying the administration would trigger a constitutional crisis by disregarding federal court rulings, according to a copy of the complaint obtained by The Associated Press. The comments have undermined the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary, the complaint says, adding that the administration has always complied with all court orders. Boasberg is among several judges who have questioned whether the administration has complied with their orders. The meeting took place days before Boasberg issued an order blocking deportation flights that Trump was carrying out by invoking wartime authorities from an 18th century law. The judge's verbal order to turn around planes that were on the way to El Salvador was ignored. Boasberg has since found probable cause that the administration committed contempt of court. The comments were supposedly made during a meeting of the Judicial Conference, the federal judiciary's governing body. The remarks were first reported by the conservative website The Federalist, which said it obtained a memo summarizing the meeting. Boasberg, the chief judge in the district court in the nation's capital, is a member of the Judicial Conference. Its meetings are not public. The complaint calls for an investigation, the reassignment of the deportations case to another judge while the inquiry is ongoing and sanctions, including the possible recommendation of impeachment, if the investigation substantiates the allegations. Trump himself already has called for Boasberg's impeachment, which in turn prompted a rare response from Roberts rejecting the call. The complaint was filed with Judge Sri Srinivasan, chief judge of the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. More than 250 Venezuelans who were deported to a Salvadoran mega-prison known as the Terrorism Confinement Center, or CECOT, were sent home to Venezuela earlier this month in a deal that also free 10 US citizens and permanent residents who had been held by Venezuela. But the lawsuit over the deportations and the administration's response to Boasberg's order remains in his court.
