Candace Owens bets $300,000 Brigitte Macron is male — even lawsuit can't stop her claim
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
$300,000 Charity Bet on Brigitte Macron's Gender
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
Legal Threats Fail to Silence Candace Owens
Donald Trump Warned Candace Owens, But She Ignored
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
FAQs
Candace Owens is doubling down on her controversial and widely debunked claim that French First Lady Brigitte Macron was 'born a man,' even as a defamation lawsuit looms over her, as per a report.On Tuesday's episode of '', the far-right podcaster agreed to awith host Piers Morgan on the matter, as reported by The Independent.Morgan, who has repeatedly called Owens' claims 'utter nonsense,' offered Owens the wager, saying, 'Last time we discussed this on Uncensored, I bet you $150,000 that you were wrong and that she's a woman. On X, when we discussed this further, I doubled it, this is for charity, to $300,000,' as quoted in the report.The host added, 'You haven't accepted that yet. So right now, $300,000 to charity, I say she's a woman. Are you prepared to take that bet?' as quoted by the Independent.Owens, unfazed, replied, saying, 'I am 1,000 percent prepared to take that bet,' as quoted in the report. The far-right provocateur pointed out that she had missed Morgan's social media X post and, if she did spot it, she would have accepted the wager 'live,' as reported by the Independent.She insisted that 'So we can totally accept that bet, I believe [Brigette] Macron is a male and they will not be presenting any evidence on the contrary because they would have done it already,' as quoted in the report.While the podcaster even asked whether she would accept that her 'cruel, vindictive' campaign was akin to 'bullying against women' if proved wrong, as reported by the Independent.ALSO READ: New driving rule could cost you big — what every American motorist must know before September 1 This comes shortly after French President Emmanuel Macron and Brigitte Macron filed a 219-page defamation complaint in Delaware, accusing Owens of orchestrating a 'relentless and unjustified smear campaign' and profiting from her 'trinvestigation' podcast series, according to the report. The lawsuit claims Owens' false statements have caused 'tremendous damage' to the Macrons, as per the Independent.Owens has shrugged off the legal threat, framing her actions as a pursuit of the 'truth' rather than a personal attack. She told Morgan she only wanted answers, and said she would have avoided running the series if the Macrons responded, according to the rpeort.She said, 'I was not interested in being a crusader against this,' adding, 'I went to them and said, 'If yoy answer these questions, we will not run the series.' I am only interested in the truth,' as quoted in the Independent report.ALSO READ: These oddly named vampire hacks could save you serious cash on power bills Even a direct warning from US president Donald Trump hasn't stopped her, as per the report. Owens revealed in an interview with Tucker Carlson that Trump personally told her to stop discussing Brigitte Macron's gender, shortly after French President Emmanuel Macron visited the White House in February, as reported by the Independent. He noted that the First Lady 'looks like a woman to me,' but Owens reportedly replied, saying, 'Respectfully, Mr. President, it's not my fault that he married somebody with a penis,' as quoted in the report.Owens claimed, without evidence, that the French First Lady was 'born a man.'Piers Morgan challenged Owens to a $300,000 charity bet to prove Brigitte Macron is a woman. Owens accepted.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
31 minutes ago
- Time of India
Putin's Power Play Stuns Trump, Hugs Doval Amid U.S.-India Tariff War
Ajit Doval landed in Moscow for a closed-door Kremlin meeting with Vladimir Putin. The timing is explosive - just hours after Trump slapped India with new tariffs over Russian oil trade. Sources say Delhi and Moscow are crafting a coordinated response to U.S. economic pressure. Doval's visit signals India won't abandon Russia under American threats. The strategic handshake in Kremlin could realign power balances across Asia. Read More
NDTV
an hour ago
- NDTV
The Case That Protects The Press, And Why Trump Hates It
President Donald Trump is again attacking the American press - this time not with fiery rally speeches or by calling the media "the enemy of the people," but through the courts. Since the heat of the November 2024 election, and continuing into July, Trump has filed defamation lawsuits against "60 Minutes" broadcaster CBS News and The Wall Street Journal. He has also sued the Des Moines Register for publishing a poll just before the 2024 election that Trump alleges exaggerated support for Democratic candidate Kamala Harris and thus constituted election interference and fraud. These are in addition to other lawsuits Trump filed against the news media during his first term and his years out of office between 2021 and 2025. At the heart of Trump's complaints is a familiar refrain: The media is not only biased, but dishonest, corrupt and dangerous. The president isn't just upset about reporting on him that he thinks is unfair. He wants to redefine what counts as libel and make it easier for public officials to sue for damages. A libel suit is a civil tort claim seeking damages when a person believes something false has been printed or broadcast about them and so harmed their reputation. Redefining libel in this way would require overturning the Supreme Court's 1964 ruling in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, one of the most important First Amendment legal rulings in American constitutional history. Trump made overturning Sullivan a talking point during his first campaign for president; his lawsuits now put that threat into action. And they raise the question: What happened in Sullivan, and why does it still matter? What Sullivan was about As chair of a public policy institute devoted to strengthening deliberative democracy, I have written two books about the media and the presidency, and another about media ethics. My research traces how news institutions shape civic life and why healthy democracies rely on free expression. In 1960, The New York Times published a full-page advertisement titled "Heed Their Rising Voices". The ad, which included an appeal for readers to send money in support of Martin Luther King Jr. and the movement against Jim Crow, described brutal and unjust treatment of Black students and protesters in Montgomery, Alabama. It also emphasised episodes of police violence against peaceful demonstrations. The ad was not entirely accurate in its description of the behaviour of either protesters or the police. It claimed, for instance, that activists had sung "My Country 'Tis of Thee" on the steps of the state capitol during a rally, when they had sung the national anthem. It said that "truckloads of police armed with shotguns and tear-gas" had "ringed" a college campus, when the police had only been deployed nearby. And it asserted that King had been arrested seven times in Alabama, when the real number was four. Though the ad did not identify any individual public officials by name, it disparaged the behaviour of the Montgomery police. That's where L.B. Sullivan came in. As Montgomery's police commissioner, he oversaw the police department. Sullivan claimed that because the ad maligned the conduct of law enforcement, it had implicitly defamed him. In 1960 in Alabama, a primary defence against libel was truth. But since there were mistakes in the ad, a truth defence could not be raised. Sullivan sued for damages, and an Alabama jury awarded him US$500,000, equivalent to $5,450,000 in 2025. The message to the press was clear: criticise Southern officials and risk being sued out of existence. The Sullivan lawsuit was not an isolated incident, but part of a broader strategy. In addition to Sullivan, four other Montgomery officials filed suits against the Times. In Birmingham, public officials filed seven libel lawsuits over Times reporter Harrison Salisbury's trenchant reporting about racism in that city. The lawsuits helped push the Times to the edge of bankruptcy. Salisbury was even indicted for seditious libel and faced up to 21 years in prison. Alabama officials also sued CBS, The Associated Press, the Saturday Evening Post and Ladies' Home Journal - all for reporting on civil rights and the South's brutal response. The Supreme Court decision The jury's verdict in favour of Sullivan was unanimously overturned by the Supreme Court in 1964. Writing for the court, Justice William Brennan held that public officials cannot prevail in defamation lawsuits merely by showing that statements are false. Instead, they must prove such statements are made with "actual malice". Actual malice means a reporter or press outlet knew their story was false or else acted with reckless disregard for the truth. The decision set a high bar. Before the ruling, the First Amendment's protections for speech and the press didn't offer much help to the press in libel cases. After it, public officials who wanted to sue the press would have to prove "actual malice" - real, purposeful untruths that caused harm. Honest mistakes weren't enough to prevail in such lawsuits. The court held that errors are inevitable in public debate and that protecting those mistakes is essential to keeping debate open and free. Nonviolent protest and the press In essence, the court ruling blocked government officials from suing for libel with ulterior motives. King and other civil rights leaders relied on a strategy of nonviolent protest to expose injustice through public, visible actions. When protesters were arrested, beaten or hosed in the streets, their goal was not chaos - it was clarity. They wanted the nation to see what Southern oppression looked like. For that, they needed press coverage. If Sullivan's lawsuit had succeeded, it could have bullied the press away from covering civil rights altogether. The Supreme Court recognised this danger. Public officials are treated differently Another key element of the court's reasoning was its distinction between public officials and private citizens. Elected leaders, the court said, can use mass media to defend themselves in ways ordinary people cannot. "The public official certainly has equal if not greater access than most private citizens to media of communication," Justice Brennan wrote in the Sullivan ruling. Trump is a perfect example of this dynamic. He masterfully uses social media, rallies, televised interviews and impromptu remarks to push back. He doesn't need the courts. Giving public officials the power to sue over news stories they dislike could well create a chilling effect on the media that undermines government accountability and distorts public discourse. "The theory of our Constitution is that every citizen may speak his mind and every newspaper express its view on matters of public concern and may not be barred from speaking or publishing because those in control of government think that what is said or written is unwise," Brennan wrote. "In a democratic society, one who assumes to act for the citizens in an executive, legislative, or judicial capacity must expect that his official acts will be commented upon and criticised." Why Sullivan still matters The Sullivan ruling is more than a legal doctrine. It is a shared agreement about the kind of democracy Americans aspire to. It affirms a press duty to hold power to account, and a public right to hear facts and information that those in power want to suppress. The ruling protects the right to criticise those in power and affirms that the press is not a nuisance, but an essential part of a functioning democracy. It ensures that political leaders cannot insulate themselves from scrutiny by silencing their critics through intimidation or litigation. Trump's lawsuits seek to undo these press protections. He presents himself as the victim of a dishonest press and hopes to use the legal system to punish those he perceives to be his detractors. The decision in the Sullivan case reminds Americans that democracy doesn't depend on leaders who feel comfortable. It depends on a public that is free to speak.
India Today
an hour ago
- India Today
What if Indians boycott American firms? AAP MP writes to Trump over tariffs
AAP MP Ashok Kumar Mittal has addressed an open letter to US President Donald Trump, sharply criticising the recent imposition of steep tariffs on Indian goods and questioning Washington's own trade practices. He urged Trump to choose dialogue over coercion and took a dig at him, questioning what if New Delhi boycotted American companies operating in India. Mittal shared the letter on X and wrote, "What if 146 crore Indians boycott American companies operating in India? My open letter to Donald Trump on US's 50 per cent tariffs for India, in which I urge him to choose dialogue over discord, coordination over coercion." AAP MP Ashok Mittal's open letter to US President Donald Trump. advertisementMittal didn't shy away from calling out what he described as hypocrisy in the US stance on oil imports. He pointed to the European Union's Euro 67.5 billion trade with Russia last year — including record LNG imports — and alleged that the US itself continues to import critical materials like uranium and palladium from Russia. The letter comes a day after President Trump's administration announced an additional 25 per cent tariff on Indian imports, citing India's continued purchase of Russian oil. The new tariffs bring the total import duty to 50 per cent, sparking strong responses across the Indian political and economic described the move as "deeply disappointing," pointing to the longstanding strategic and values-based partnership between the two democracies.'India is a 'dead economy,' you said,' Mittal wrote, directly addressing Trump's recent remarks. 'Yet this 'dead' economy is the 4th largest in the world, soon to be third, and remains the fastest growing among major nations,' the letter MP highlighted the deep interdependence of the US and Indian economies, noting that American firms generate over USD 80 billion annually from Indian markets across sectors such as technology, finance, and education. He also cited India's position as the third-largest air transport market and a vital partner in the global digital ecosystem.'Should a nation pressurise India against trade with Russia when it itself relies on the Kremlin for its domestic interests?' he a historical chord, Mittal drew attention to the Swadeshi Movement — launched on August 7, 1905 — as a symbol of India's potential to assert economic independence. He warned of the consequences if India were to channel that spirit and strategically restrict US businesses in response.'The impact would be far more severe for the United States than for India,' he asserted.'Let us choose dialogue over discord, coordination over coercion,' he urged. 'Let us shape the future through respect, resolve, and renewed commitment to a rules-based global order.'- EndsMust Watch
