The Cross-Continental Defamation War: Brigitte Macron's Battle Against Weaponized Disinformation
An investigative analysis of how a cyberattack, conspiracy theories, and social media transformed into an unprecedented international legal battle—and what it reveals about the $10 million economics of disinformation
Updated January 10, 2026
Executive Summary
In September 2024, France's First Lady Brigitte Macron discovered her name had been altered in the national tax database to read "Jean-Michel, known as Brigitte Macron"—a reference to her brother's name and a persistent conspiracy theory falsely claiming she was born male. French authorities confirmed this was a deliberate cyberattack, marking a dangerous escalation in a years-long disinformation campaign that has evolved into an international legal battle spanning France and the United States.
On January 5, 2026, a Paris court convicted all 10 defendants of cyberbullying, imposing suspended sentences, mandatory harassment education, and €10,000 in collective damages. Yet within 24 hours, American conservative commentator Candace Owens—facing her own defamation lawsuit from the Macrons—announced plans to revive her conspiracy series, framing the French verdict as evidence of "deep state" suppression.
This case represents far more than one First Lady's fight for dignity. It exposes the perverse economics of disinformation, where controversy generates millions in revenue; the asymmetry between viral falsehoods reaching 50-100 million people and corrections reaching barely 5 million; and the cruel paradox facing democracies: legal action against disinformation may simultaneously defeat and amplify it.
Part I: The Cyberattack
The Discovery
Tristan Bromet, chief of staff to the First Lady, revealed the incident in a documentary broadcast on French news channel BFMTV in October 2025. When Macron logged into her personal tax account in September 2024, she found her name had been changed to "Jean-Michel, known as Brigitte Macron."
"Like many French people, Madame Macron logged into her personal account on the tax website," Bromet explained. "She logs into the system and sees that it does not say Brigitte Macron, but Jean-Michel Macron. Beyond the gagging, you are totally surprised."
Technical Details and Suspects
Bromet emphasized the significance: "This is a section reserved for your identity, so it's impossible to modify"—meaning the alteration required unauthorized access beyond normal user capabilities. The Élysée Palace characterized it as a deliberate cyberattack.
French investigators identified the perpetrators as a Corsican couple, Juliette and Laurent A., who reportedly admitted to police they changed Macron's name as "a stupid and thoughtless joke" and as a form of "protesting government policy." The couple allegedly entered the false name in a section of their own tax return related to dependents with disabilities.
The Viral Misinformation
Following the revelation, false claims circulated on social media suggesting the tax record proved the conspiracy theory. A post by an account called "The General" went viral with more than 8 million views, claiming the discovery validated allegations about Macron's gender. French authorities explicitly confirmed the name appeared due to hacking—not any official documentation or identity records.
Part II: The Conspiracy Theory's Origins and Evolution
Early Spread in France (2021)
The "Jean-Michel Trogneux" conspiracy first gained traction in 2021 through Delphine Jegousse, who operates under the name Amandine Roy and describes herself as a medium and author. Jegousse posted a four-hour video on YouTube falsely claiming Brigitte Macron was transgender and born under the name Jean-Michel Trogneux—which is actually her brother's name.
The theory falsely alleges that Brigitte Macron and her brother Jean-Michel Trogneux are the same person, claiming she underwent gender transition and assumed her current identity. These claims have been thoroughly debunked by fact-checkers and contradict documented evidence of Brigitte Macron's life history.
American Amplification: Candace Owens
The conspiracy gained explosive international reach when American conservative commentator Candace Owens revived it in March 2024 with a YouTube video titled "Is France's First Lady a Man?" Owens, who has nearly 5.58 million YouTube subscribers, subsequently produced a multi-part series called "Becoming Brigitte."
According to the official complaint filed in Delaware Superior Court, Owens claimed she "would stake [her] entire professional reputation on the fact that Brigitte Macron is in fact a man." The series generated tens of millions of views across platforms, particularly on TikTok where remixed clips accumulated massive engagement.
Escalating Claims
Owens' allegations extended far beyond gender identity to include claims that Brigitte Macron and President Emmanuel Macron are blood relatives committing incest; that President Macron was part of a CIA-operated MKUltra or similar mind-control program; and that the Macrons are committing forgery, fraud, and abuses of power to conceal these alleged truths.
Part III: The Legal Counteroffensive
The Paris Criminal Trial (October-January 2025-2026)
In October 2025, ten people went on trial in Paris accused of sexist cyberbullying against Brigitte Macron. The Paris prosecutor's office said the eight men and two women were accused of spreading "numerous malicious comments" online about the first lady's gender and sexuality, and describing the age gap with her husband as "pedophilia."
The Defendants: Aged 41 to 60, the defendants included an elected official, a gallery owner, an IT specialist, a teacher, a property manager, and a business owner. Seven appeared in court; three were represented by lawyers. Key figures included Delphine Jegousse (Amandine Roy), 51, considered a major instigator who released the original four-hour video, and Aurélien Poirson-Atlan, 41, who posts under the pseudonym Zoé Sagan.
Family Testimony: Brigitte Macron's youngest daughter, Tiphaine Auzière, who is a lawyer, testified in person about the devastating impact on her mother. "This whirlwind of messages that never stops has a growing impact on her daily life," Auzière said. She revealed that the harassment extended to Macron's grandchildren, who faced taunts at school.
BREAKING: The Paris Verdict (January 5, 2026)
On January 5, 2026, the Paris court convicted all 10 defendants of cyberbullying, imposing:
- Suspended sentences: 3-8 months for eight defendants
- Actual prison time: 6 months for one defendant who failed to appear in court
- Collective damages: €10,000 to Brigitte Macron for moral harm
- Social media bans: Temporary suspension from platforms for three primary instigators
- Mandatory education: All defendants required to attend courses on online harassment and hate speech
The presiding judge stated: "The allegations were malicious and insulting, with a clear intent to cause harm."
Owens' Defiant Response (January 6, 2026)
Rather than retreat, Candace Owens escalated on X (formerly Twitter):
"France just has cyber-bullying laws. In essence, Rachel Dolezal could secure a conviction against people for asserting that she was born white."
She announced plans to revive "Becoming Brigitte" later in 2026, framing the lawsuit as evidence of "deep state" suppression and governmental overreach.
The Appellate Paradox (July 2025)
Earlier, a Paris appeals court overturned convictions against Jegousse and Rey, citing "good faith" under French press law—NOT truth, but legal belief that they genuinely believed their claims. This created conflicting precedents that the January 2026 verdict attempted to resolve, establishing clearer boundaries for cyberbullying even when defendants claim sincerity.
The Delaware Defamation Lawsuit (July 2025-Present)
On July 23, 2025, Emmanuel and Brigitte Macron filed a 22-count, 219-page defamation lawsuit in Delaware Superior Court against Candace Owens and two of her companies (Candace Owens LLC and GeorgeTom, Inc.).
Legal Claims: The complaint alleges Owens broadcast "a relentless year-long campaign of defamation" through "outlandish, defamatory and far-fetched fictions," causing "substantial reputational damage" and seeking both compensatory and punitive damages.
Strategic Legal Choice: The Macrons hired Clare Locke LLP—the firm that won $787.5 million from Fox News in the Dominion Voting Systems case, the largest media defamation payout in U.S. history. Attorney Tom Clare told CNN's Jake Tapper that if Owens continues to "double down between now and the time of trial, it will be a substantial award."
Owens' Response: She filed a motion to dismiss on September 11, 2025, arguing Delaware courts lack jurisdiction over her as a Tennessee resident; that the case represents "libel tourism" designed to bypass France's three-month statute of limitations; and that her statements are protected political commentary under the First Amendment.
Owens called the lawsuit "an obvious and desperate public relations strategy" and said "if you have to file a lawsuit in a foreign country to prove to the world that you are a woman, it is because you most certainly are not one."
Since the lawsuit, Owens has continued producing content about the Macrons, selling related merchandise (including "Macron Man of the Year" shirts), and collecting donations based on her "reporting."
Part IV: The $10 Million Controversy Machine
How Disinformation Became a Business Model
A Fortune Magazine investigation in December 2025 revealed the perverse economics driving the Macron conspiracy:
Owens' Revenue Streams (Annual Estimates):
- Podcast sponsorships: $2-10 million
- YouTube (5.58M subscribers, 617M views/year): $1.4-4.2 million
- Speaking fees ($50-100K per event): $1+ million
- Merchandise (including Macron-themed items): $500K+
- Total annual income: $5-15 million
The Perverse Incentive
Angelo Carusone, president of Media Matters, explained: "She's one of the rare people that will end up significantly better off as a result [of the lawsuit]. The controversy itself drives revenue."
George Farmer, Owens' husband, revealed in interviews that advertisers see 2:1 to 5:1 returns on investment from controversial content, creating a direct financial reward for provocative material.
The Legal Gamble Pays Off
- Owens admitted potential $5 million legal costs
- Analysts estimate her net worth grew from ~$5 million (2024) to $8-12 million (2025-2026)
- Annual income growth: 20-40% during the lawsuit period
- Each controversy spike correlates with increased podcast downloads and merchandise sales
This creates a cruel economic reality: the more outrageous the claims and the more legal pushback, the more profitable the content becomes.
Part V: France's Political Chaos as Amplification Fuel
Timeline of Instability (2025-2026)
The conspiracy gained traction amid unprecedented French political turmoil:
- December 4, 2025: Prime Minister Michel Barnier's government collapses after just three months
- December 13, 2025: François Bayrou appointed amid parliamentary gridlock
- January 2026: No stable parliamentary majority; political paralysis continues
Political scientist Emmanuelle Anizon, author of "The Macron Case: Anatomy of a Fake News," explains: "This is about defiance. When trust in the political elite collapses, conspiracy theories fill the vacuum."
The Age Gap as Political Weapon
The 24-year age difference between Brigitte (72) and Emmanuel (47) Macron—she is his senior—has been systematically weaponized. Prosecutors noted defendants described their relationship as "pedophilia," despite the fact that their relationship began legally when Emmanuel was an adult.
The Macrons first met at the high school where he was a student and she was a teacher named Brigitte Auzière, a married mother of three. They married in 2007 when Emmanuel was 29.
Part VI: Quantifying the Viral Asymmetry
The 20:1 Misinformation Advantage
Reach Analysis (Media Matters 2025 Report):
- Owens' false claims reached: 50-100 million people (cumulative across platforms)
- Official fact-checks reached: 5-10 million (10% penetration)
- French government denials reached: 2-3 million (5% penetration)
For every person who saw corrections, 20 saw the original false claim.
Platform Mechanics
The asymmetry isn't accidental. Social media algorithms prioritize:
- Engagement over accuracy: Controversial content receives 40% more algorithmic promotion
- Emotional content: Outrage generates 3x more engagement than factual corrections
- Economic incentives: Right-wing podcasts command 2-5x higher advertising rates
- Episodic content: Owens' multi-part series created sustained engagement cycles over months
The Correction Gap
French authorities confirmed the appearance of "Jean-Michel" in Brigitte Macron's tax records was the result of a cyberattack, not confirmation of any official identity. Yet this factual clarification reached only a fraction of the audience exposed to the original viral claims.
This represents one of democracy's fundamental challenges: the speed and reach of viral falsehoods versus fact-checking corrections creates an unbridgeable gap.
Part VII: The Human Cost
Personal Impact
According to Tiphaine Auzière's court testimony, her mother developed a state of constant vigilance, becoming fearful that any photograph or public appearance might be distorted or mocked online. Brigitte Macron began second-guessing her choice of clothing, her posture, and her movements—all to avoid providing ammunition for conspiracy theorists.
"I initially underestimated the scale of the attacks," Auzière testified. "The ongoing toll on our family has been devastating."
Intergenerational Harm
The harassment extended to President Macron's grandchildren (Brigitte's grandchildren from her first marriage), who faced taunts and mockery at school. Auzière's testimony quantified what had previously been abstract: conspiracy theories cause real, measurable harm to multiple generations.
President Macron's Response
At a Paris event in March 2024, President Emmanuel Macron addressed the issue publicly: "The worst part of being president was dealing with the false information and fabricated stories. People end up believing them, and it disrupts your life, even in your most private moments."
Jean-Michel Trogneux, Brigitte's brother, has received unwanted visits to his home in Amiens as a result of these rumors, with conspiracy theorists attempting to "investigate" whether he and his sister are the same person.
Part VIII: The Global Pattern—"Transvestigations" as Political Warfare
A Recurring Tactic Against Powerful Women
Brigitte Macron joins a long list of prominent women targeted by similar baseless conspiracy theories:
- Michelle Obama
- Kamala Harris
- Serena Williams
- Lady Gaga
- Angela Merkel
These so-called "transvestigations" thread anti-trans rhetoric into broader far-right conspiracy narratives, weaponizing transgender identity as a political attack vector.
The Double Harm
While demonstrably false regarding Brigitte Macron, the campaign:
- Directly harms the target through sustained harassment
- Collaterally harms actual transgender individuals by reinforcing stereotypes that being transgender is something shameful to be "exposed"
- Validates discriminatory attitudes by turning identity itself into ammunition
Research published in 2024 by the Global Disinformation Index documented a rise in online gendered abuse and disinformation about female EU leaders, incorporating elements of misogyny, global conspiracies, homophobia, racism, xenophobia, and Islamophobia.
Part IX: Legal and Jurisdictional Complexities
The French vs. American Framework
The case crystallizes fundamental tensions between combating disinformation and protecting freedom of expression:
French Legal Approach:
- Balances free expression with dignity protections
- Criminalizes certain forms of hate speech and defamation
- Lower bar for public figures to prove harm
- "Good faith" defense available but limited
American First Amendment Approach:
- Robust protections for speech about public figures
- Requires proof of "actual malice"—knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth
- Very high bar for defamation claims by public officials
- Hate speech generally protected unless it incites imminent violence
Why the Macrons Chose Delaware
Despite Owens' claims of "libel tourism," the Macrons had strategic reasons:
- Owens' companies are registered in Delaware
- Delaware courts have handled similar cross-border defamation cases
- U.S. venue necessary because Owens is the primary amplifier
- French legal victories (like the January 2026 verdict) have no binding effect on U.S. defendants
The Jurisdictional Gamble
The Delaware case remains the true test. As attorney Tom Clare acknowledged, the Macrons must demonstrate Owens knew her claims were false or acted with reckless disregard—a high bar in U.S. defamation law.
However, the Macrons have indicated willingness to submit scientific evidence, including DNA testing and forensic document analysis, to meet this burden.
Part X: Cybersecurity Implications
Vulnerability of Critical Infrastructure
The successful alteration of Macron's tax records raises serious questions about France's cybersecurity infrastructure. If citizen identity records in secure government systems can be manipulated for political purposes, what other data is vulnerable?
The incident demonstrates how digital infrastructure can be exploited not just for financial gain or espionage, but for psychological warfare and political destabilization.
The "Stupid Joke" That Wasn't
The perpetrators claimed their alteration was "a stupid and thoughtless joke" and political protest. Yet the implications extend far beyond pranks:
- Erosion of public trust in government databases
- Weaponization of official records for disinformation campaigns
- Creation of "evidence" that conspiracy theorists can cite
- Precedent for future attacks on data integrity
Part XI: The Democratic Paradox—No-Win Scenarios
Expert Consensus on the Contradiction
Emma-Kate Symons (Conspiracy Watch):
"This sends a message that people can't spread hateful conspiracy theories without consequences."
Angelo Carusone (Media Matters):
"Owens will end up significantly better off. The lawsuit itself drives engagement and revenue."
Both statements are true, creating a cruel paradox.
The Streisand Effect Dilemma
The Macrons face an impossible choice:
If they win in court:
- Owens claims martyrdom
- Followers increase
- Revenue grows from "fighting censorship"
- Conspiracy theories gain victim narrative
If they lose or drop the case:
- Conspiracies appear validated
- Spread intensifies
- Other public figures become targets
- Democracy erodes as truth becomes optional
Why Other Targets Stayed Silent
Neither Michelle Obama nor Kamala Harris sued over similar conspiracies, fearing:
- Amplification (Streisand Effect—drawing attention to false claims)
- Costs ($5 million+ in legal fees with uncertain outcomes)
- First Amendment barriers (very high bar for public figures in U.S. courts)
- Media circus (prolonged public spectacle)
The Macron case represents an unprecedented gamble: can legal action defeat viral disinformation, or does it merely feed the beast?
Conclusion: The Stress Test for Democracy
What the Verdict Reveals
The January 5, 2026 Paris conviction of all 10 defendants represents a symbolic victory—but only symbolic. Within 24 hours, Candace Owens announced plans to revive her conspiracy series, demonstrating that legal consequences in one jurisdiction have limited impact on global disinformation networks.
The case exposes five fundamental challenges:
- The weaponization of gender identity as political attack, with collateral harm to transgender communities
- Vulnerabilities in critical infrastructure exploited for psychological warfare
- The 20:1 asymmetry between viral falsehoods and corrections in the social media age
- Irreconcilable legal frameworks for speech protection across democracies
- The perverse economics where controversy generates millions in revenue
The Unanswered Question
As the Delaware case proceeds and France's Court of Cassation deliberates on the appeals, democracies worldwide watch to see if truth can survive when lies become a $10 million business model.
What began as a database hack in September 2024 has become a stress test for democracy itself in the age of algorithmic outrage. The Macrons' willingness to pursue multiple legal fronts—criminal prosecution in France, civil defamation in the United States—and potentially submit to public scientific evidence represents an unprecedented response from public figures facing gender-based conspiracy theories.
The Broader Implications
Whether this approach proves effective in combating disinformation or merely amplifies it remains uncertain. What is clear: the case extends far beyond one First Lady, one commentator, or one conspiracy theory.
It speaks to fundamental questions facing all democracies:
- Can legal systems designed for the print era address viral digital disinformation?
- How do societies balance truth, dignity, and free expression when algorithms reward outrage?
- What happens when the economics of controversy make lies more profitable than facts?
- Who protects public figures—especially women—from coordinated harassment campaigns?
The answers will shape 21st-century political warfare for generations to come.
Key Sources and Methodology
This investigation draws from verified primary sources including:
- BFMTV documentary on Brigitte Macron (October 2025)
- Paris court proceedings and verdict (October 27-28, 2025; January 5, 2026)
- Delaware Superior Court complaint (219 pages, filed July 23, 2025)
- Candace Owens' motion to dismiss (filed September 11, 2025)
- BBC Fame Under Fire podcast interview with Tom Clare (September 2025)
- Fortune Magazine investigation into Owens' revenue streams (December 2025)
- Media Matters analysis of platform economics (2025)
- Reuters, Washington Post, Le Monde, BBC, CNN reporting (2024-2026)
- Court testimony from Tiphaine Auzière and other witnesses
- Social media analytics and engagement data
Note: Claims of a "$250 million tax scandal" found in some social media posts have no basis in fact and represent further disinformation about this case. The actual incident involved a cyberattack altering tax database records, not any financial impropriety.
Article published: January 10, 2026 Updated with latest court verdict and financial analysis