Candace Owens responds to defamation lawsuit filed by French president, first lady
The Macrons said in a lawsuit filed in Delaware Superior Court on July 23 that Owens has waged a "campaign of global humiliation" and engaged in "relentless bullying" against the 72-year-old Brigitte to "promote her independent platform, gain notoriety, and make money." The 219-page lawsuit details dozens of the podcaster's claims made over several months, and includes corresponding photographs, screenshots and archived newspaper clippings.
Owens responded to the lawsuit in her July 24 episode of her eponymous podcast "Candace," spending more than 30 minutes criticizing the legal action, the Macrons and doubling down on her claims.
"I think you're sick," Owens said, addressing France's first couple. "I think you're disgusting, and I am fully prepared to take on this battle."
The Macrons are suing Owens, her media company and the company that runs her website for 22 counts of defamation and defamation-related claims, seeking an unspecified amount of compensatory and punitive damages. They are represented by Clare Locke and Farnan LLP, well-known firms specializing in high-profile defamation cases, who helped win a $790 million defamation lawsuit against Fox News brought by Dominion Voting Systems in 2023.
Owens has been repeating false claims over the first lady's identity for more than a year, the lawsuit alleges, starting in March 2024 when the podcaster stated she stakes her "entire professional reputation" that Brigitte Macron "is in fact a man.' In January, Owens released the first episode in an eight-part podcast series entitled, "Becoming Brigitte," in which the lawsuit says she presented various "outlandish, defamatory, and far-fetched fictions." The filing says they include allegations by Owens that Brigitte was born a man and stole someone's identity, that Brigitte and Emmanuel Macron are blood relatives and that they have committed "forgery, fraud and abuses of power to conceal these secrets."
More: French president sues Candace Owens over claim about wife Brigitte
The filing alleges that Owens ignored the Macrons' requests to retract the allegations.
"Owens has dissected their appearance, their marriage, their friends, their family, and their personal history — twisting it all into a grotesque narrative designed to inflame and degrade," the complaint said.
In a statement, a spokesperson for Owens said the filing represented a "foreign government attacking the First Amendment rights of an American independent journalist."
Owens has attracted criticism for years over her commentaries on a range of topics, with a history of spreading antisemitic rhetoric, including Holocaust denial and revisionism. She was suspended from YouTube for a week in September after videos of several of her interviews were deemed as hate speech by the Google subsidiary. In the following two months, authorities in New Zealand and Australia rejected her visas to visit the countries ahead of her speaking tour in February and March 2025. Local media reported Australian Immigration Minister Tony Burke mentioned her rhetoric "downplaying the impact of the Holocaust with comments about (German SS officer Josef) Mengele through to claims that Muslims started slavery," as reasons for her visa denial.
Wednesday's lawsuit is a rare case of a world leader suing for defamation. To prevail in U.S. defamation cases, public figures like the Macrons must show defendants engaged in "actual malice," meaning they knew what they published was false or had reckless disregard for its truth.
Kathryn Palmer is a national trending news reporter for USA TODAY. You can reach her at kapalmer@usatoday.com and on X @KathrynPlmr.
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Candace Owens responds to French president's lawsuit
Solve the daily Crossword
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
a few seconds ago
- The Hill
Senate Democrats call for probe into DOJ settlement over Hewlett Packard-Juniper merger
Several Senate Democrats are calling for an investigation into the Department of Justice's (DOJ) decision to settle a lawsuit blocking Hewlett Packard Enterprise's (HPE) $14 billion acquisition of Juniper Networks. Democratic Sens. Richard Blumenthal (Conn.), Cory Booker (N.J.), Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) and Amy Klobuchar (Minn.) raised concerns to the DOJ inspector general Friday about the circumstances surrounding the proposed settlement. Two top officials in the agency's antitrust division — Roger Alford, principal deputy assistant attorney general, and Bill Rinner, deputy assistant attorney general and head of merger enforcement — were recently fired for insubordination. The firings reportedly followed internal disagreements over merger policy, in which Attorney General Pam Bondi's chief of staff overruled the antitrust division's head, Gail Slater, to approve the HPE-Juniper settlement. 'In all, these events reflect a concerning pattern of behavior within the DOJ and point to possible politicization of the process by which the DOJ analyzes proposed mergers and acquisitions, as well as undertakes and resolves enforcement actions,' the senators wrote in a letter to acting DOJ Inspector General William Blier. 'We are concerned that, in addition to improper interference in the enforcement of our laws, the full extent and parties involved in this coercive campaign are not known and that other improper conduct could have occurred,' they continued. The Justice Department sued to block the merger between the nation's second- and third-largest wireless network providers in January, shortly after President Trump took office. The lawsuit marked a key point of continuity with the Biden administration, which had been preparing to challenge the merger. HPE and Juniper pushed back on the lawsuit at the time, arguing the DOJ's analysis was 'fundamentally flawed' and the merger would allow the companies to 'more effectively compete with global incumbents.' In late June, the agency announced a settlement, allowing the acquisition to go forward as long as HPE divests its division for small and medium businesses and licenses Juniper's software to independent competitors. Axios reported Wednesday that the U.S. intelligence community weighed in on the lawsuit, urging the DOJ to allow the merger to proceed to boost American companies competing with China's Huawei. The senators argued the settlement fails to address the issues raised in the DOJ's initial lawsuit, which suggested the merger would essentially result in a duopoly in the market between HPE-Juniper and Cisco. They also underscored HPE's reported decision to hire lobbyists with close ties to the Trump administration, as well as the subsequent firings of antitrust officials. The same four senators raised concerns to Hewlett Packard president and CEO Enrique Lores in a separate letter Friday about what they described as the company's 'hiring of political consultants in an apparent attempt to assert undue influence, if not coercion' to settle the DOJ lawsuit. 'HPE's hiring of these consultant close to the Trump family and White House creates the appearance that it sought to use outside political pressure and retaliation against the Antitrust Division to end its lawsuit and reporting suggests that the full scope of HPE's consultants or influence campaign has not been disclosed,' they wrote. They pressed the company for information about the consultants, the nature of their work and any discussions they had with the DOJ's antitrust division or members of the Trump family. HPE spokesperson Adam Bauer said in a statement that the company is confident the Juniper acquisition is 'in the public interest and will promote further competition' in the market. 'The transaction was appropriately approved with certain remedies by the U.S. Department of Justice, and it was unconditionally approved by 13 other antitrust regulators around the world,' Bauer added. 'We respect the role our regulators play in maintaining competitive markets and appreciate the professional and constructive way in which the DOJ engaged with us in approving the deal.'
San Francisco Chronicle
a few seconds ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Lawyer says he's not been allowed to see 5 immigrants deported by the US to a prison in Eswatini
MANZINI, Eswatini (AP) — Five immigrants deported by the United States to Eswatini in a secret deal last month had served their criminal sentences before they were sent to be held in a prison in the African country, a lawyer working on their cases said Friday. The Eswatini lawyer also said the men from Cuba, Jamaica, Laos, Yemen and Vietnam sent to southern Africa under President Donald Trump's third-country deportation program have been denied access to legal representation while being held in Eswatini's main maximum-security prison. The lawyer, Sibusiso Nhlabatsi, said he hasn't been allowed to see the men and that he filed court papers Thursday against the head of Eswatini's correctional services department and the country's attorney general, demanding access to them. He said he is representing them on behalf of lawyers in the U.S. and was prevented from seeing them by Eswatini prison officials on July 25. It's unlawful for the men, who have been in Eswatini for around two weeks, to be denied access to a lawyer, he added. The Eswatini government has said the men will be held in solitary confinement until they can be deported to their home countries, which could take up to a year. 'They have served their sentences,' Nhlabatsi told The Associated Press. 'If a person has committed a crime and they have served a sentence, why are you then keeping them in a prison?' Nhlabatsi said the men have not been able to communicate with their families or receive visitors since arriving in Eswatini, although prison officials said they were in the process of setting up devices to allow them to speak with their families. He alleged their ongoing detention could have legal implications for Eswatini, a small country bordering South Africa and one of the world's last absolute monarchies, ruled by a king accused of cracking down on dissent. The Trump administration has come under scrutiny for its choice of African countries to strike deportation deals with. It deported eight immigrants described as violent criminals to South Sudan in early July in an operation that was halted by a legal challenge in the U.S. The eight were held for weeks in a converted shipping container at an American military base in nearby Djibouti while the case was decided. A Supreme Court ruling eventually cleared the way for them to be sent to South Sudan. Both South Sudan, which is in danger of tipping into civil war, and Eswatini have poor rights records and governments accused of being repressive. Critics say the deportees, who the administration says were in the U.S. illegally, will likely be denied due process in those countries. The five sent to Eswatini were also described by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security as serious criminals. Their convictions included murder and child rape, the department said in social media posts, calling them 'uniquely barbaric." The department, which did not say if they had completed their sentences, did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Friday. An Eswatini government spokesman also declined to comment on Nhlabatsi's allegations, saying it was now a matter for the courts. Nhlabatsi said the deportees are being held at the Matsapha Correctional Complex near the administrative capital, Mbabane, the same prison said to hold pro-democracy activists on trumped up charges. The government has declined to say where the five men are being held, citing security concerns. Eswatini's statement about the five men ultimately being deported to their home countries appears to contradict claims by the U.S. that their home countries refused to take the men back. ___
Los Angeles Times
30 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Trump's EPA puts California in its crosshairs with its proposed car rules
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's recent proposal to repeal its own 2009 finding that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health marks a major U-turn for the nation's climate progress. While it's impact will be felt nationwide, the plan takes direct aim at California. In supporting documents released in the wake of Tuesday's proposal, the nation's top environmental agency outlined the justifications for its plan to rescind the so-called endangerment finding and roll back its longstanding regulations for planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions from all motor vehicles, including cars and trucks. 'As a result of these proposed changes, engine and vehicle manufacturers would no longer have any future obligations for the measurement, control, and reporting of [greenhouse gas] emissions for any highway engine and vehicle,' the agency wrote in its rule summary. But the documents, including an 80-page notice of proposed rulemaking and 60-page draft regulatory impact analysis, also contain several nods to California policies, referencing the state by name 27 times — by far more than any other state. That's largely because for more than 50 years, California has been granted unique authority from the EPA to set stricter tailpipe emissions than those mandated by the federal government. This authority, obtained through waivers issued by the EPA, has been critical to the state's efforts to address its notorious smog and air quality issues, which are driven partly by transportation emissions and by California's unique topography that traps pollutants in its interior basins. The waivers were also the basis for California's nation-leading plan to ban the sale of new gasoline-powered cars by 2035 and transition to electric vehicles. The EPA's documents repeatedly state that California's waivers have officially been repealed. As of publication, however, the Trump administration's unprecedented effort to do so in June is still winding its way through the court system following a lawsuit from the state. Notably, the EPA's own analysis of the possible outcomes of its proposal indicate that without California's leadership — and without the tax credits created under President Biden's Inflation Reduction Act — national adoption of electric vehicles will decline. At the same time, gasoline prices will increase because of the higher demand from more gas-powered vehicles on the road. 'They don't seem to have put together that strong of a case,' said Chris Busch, director of transportation and a senior economist with Energy Innovation Policy & Technology, a nonpartisan think tank, who reviewed the analysis. 'What this shows is that the net impact is less favorable when you reduce the California [Advanced Clean Trucks rule], when you take away the California waivers and remove the IRA credits.' In a statement this week, EPA administrator Lee Zeldin said repealing the endangerment finding would have economic benefits for the American people. 'If finalized, rescinding the Endangerment Finding and resulting regulations would end $1 trillion or more in hidden taxes on American businesses and families,' Zeldin said. According to the EPA, that $1-trillion savings would come from rescinding vehicle regulations built upon the endangerment finding. That includes the Biden administration's electric vehicles sales target, which the agency refers to as an 'EV mandate.' The EPA also said removing the endangerment finding would save Americans $54 billion in costs annually through the repeal of greenhouse gas standards. Busch said he could not readily see how the agency arrived at that figure based on the analysis provided. With California's rules repealed, 'you end up with fewer EVs, more gasoline cars, more demand for gas and higher gas prices,' he said. The EPA also argues that electric vehicles are sucking up energy that could be better used elsewhere — 'from factories to data-center servers to air-conditioning.' It uses California as an example of this perceived misappropriation of electricity, pointing to a 2022 memo from the California Independent System operator that urged people to reduce energy use, including EV charging, during a record-breaking heat wave. The EPA's announcement stunned many members of the environmental community who condemned it as a dangerous abdication of the agency's mission to protect human health and the environment. Among the agency's many claims are that no technology currently exists to reduce greenhouse gases enough to measurably affect global climate change concerns without risking greater harm to public health and welfare, such as increased vehicle prices. But major U.S. automakers such as GM and Ford have already committed to an electric future — as have international competitors such as China, which is investing heavily in electric vehicles. According to the California Energy Commission, about 22% of new vehicles sales in the state in the second quarter of this year were zero-emission vehicles. 'Despite Trump's full-on attack, Californians are choosing the clean simplicity of ZEVs,' read a statement from CEC Commissioner Nancy Skinner. 'Make no mistake: California is not backing down from its ZEV goals. We will continue to heavily invest in accessible and reliable ZEV infrastructure, making the ZEV driving experience better each day.' Busch said California has several tools at its disposal to defend itself and preserve its clean vehicle progress. In the heavy-duty space, the California Air Resources Board already has the Clean Truck Partnership — an agreement with nearly all truck manufacturers in the state to meet advanced emissions reduction targets. The state's heavy vehicle incentive program also provides funding opportunities for fleet owners to replace older heavy-duty diesel vehicles with zero-emission ones. There are also legislative possibilities, such as Assembly Bill 914, which would give CARB more authority to regulate indirect sources of pollution such as warehouses. One way those warehouses could meet those rules would be by increasing their electric truck fleets, Busch said. CARB also employs a clean-mile standard for transportation companies such as Uber and Lyft, which will see them gradually increase their zero-emission miles, and a similar tactic could be employed for the freight sector, he said. 'States have a lot of options still,' Busch said. 'There is a lot of momentum.' In a statement this week, CARB chair Liane Randolph described the EPA's proposals as 'the latest moves from this feckless federal government that choose polluter fantasyland over proven science.' 'Meanwhile, back on Earth, the planet continues to suffer from the consequences of unchecked carbon pollution as heatwaves, floods and wildfires threaten increasingly uninsurable communities everywhere,' Randolph said. 'Unlike this negligent administration, California won't turn our backs on what is happening right before our eyes. We choose reality, science and innovation — and we know we are not the only ones.'
