Some stories refuse to be closed. The moment a Paris court handed down guilty verdicts against all ten defendants on January 5, 2026 — finding them guilty of cyberbullying France's First Lady — you could almost hear the gears shifting on the other side of the Atlantic. Within twenty-four hours, Candace Owens was already announcing she would bring the conspiracy back. France had won a battle. The war was still very much running.
Then, on April 21, 2026, Marc Kasowitz — the New York attorney who spent decades as one of Donald Trump's most trusted legal defenders — quietly withdrew from Owens' defense team in Delaware. No explanation. Just a court filing, and silence. The departure came days after far-right personality Laura Loomer had launched a blistering public campaign against Owens, accusing her of hypocrisy for hiring what Loomer called a "Zionist Jewish lawyer" — a man with documented ties to pro-Israel legal causes. Loomer claimed credit for the departure. Whether she truly caused it will likely never be fully known. What is not in doubt is what it means: Owens now faces the most consequential legal battle of her career without her highest-profile counsel, and the hearing is coming fast.
On July 27, 2026 — thirty-four days from today — Delaware Superior Court Judge Sheldon K. Rennie will hear arguments on Owens' motion to dismiss the Macrons' lawsuit. If he rules in her favor, the case dies before a single piece of evidence reaches a jury. If he rules against her, Candace Owens may eventually find herself sitting in a Delaware courtroom facing the sitting President of France. The Macrons have already said they will fly to the United States to testify in person if it comes to that.
Meanwhile, the complaint itself has grown. From 219 pages to 241. The new allegations added since the original filing are extraordinary even by the standards of this case: that Owens claimed Brigitte Macron participated in the Stanford Prison Experiment under the name "Jean-Michel," and that the couple belongs to a network of satanic pedophiles. These are not marginal additions. They signal a lawsuit that has been expanding in scope precisely because Owens has kept escalating — and because each escalation, legally, makes the Macrons' case for "actual malice" that much more compelling.
Judge Sheldon K. Rennie, Delaware Superior Court, New Castle County — will rule on whether the Macrons' 22-count defamation lawsuit proceeds to discovery and trial, or is dismissed on jurisdictional and statute-of-limitations grounds.
Marc Kasowitz — who has represented Donald Trump for decades — filed a formal withdrawal from Candace Owens' Delaware defense team. Laura Loomer claimed credit, citing her public exposure of Kasowitz's ties to Jewish legal organizations and pro-Israel causes. The exact reason remains private. Owens now faces July's decisive hearing with a restructured team.
When the Lawyer Walks Five Weeks Before the Hearing
Marc Kasowitz is not a minor figure in American law. His firm, Kasowitz Benson Torres, is known for handling high-stakes corporate litigation, and Kasowitz himself spent years as one of the most recognizable defenders of Donald Trump during the most turbulent chapter of modern American legal history. Having him on her team was a signal that Owens was treating this lawsuit with serious strategic firepower.
His departure — formally filed in Delaware court on April 21, 2026 — sent a different signal entirely. In the days before the withdrawal, Loomer had been running a sustained campaign across social media: she published detailed posts highlighting the fact that Kasowitz has deep connections to pro-Israel and Jewish organizations, and directly juxtaposed this with Owens' repeated public statements attacking Jewish people and Zionism on her podcast. Loomer's conclusion was blunt: Owens was a hypocrite who funded, through her legal fees, the very lawyers she claimed to despise. Whether Kasowitz read those posts and decided to exit, whether internal disagreements about strategy pushed him out, or whether something else entirely was at play — none of that is in the public record.
What is in the public record is the timing: five weeks before the most important hearing in the case so far. Owens now relies on her remaining Delaware-based counsel and other attorneys to argue that the entire lawsuit should be thrown out before it generates a single subpoena. Her legal strategy, even with Kasowitz in place, had never engaged the core factual questions of the case. It has focused almost entirely on process: that Delaware courts have no jurisdiction over a Tennessee resident broadcasting from her Nashville basement; that France's three-month statute of limitations should apply under Delaware's borrowing statute; that the entire case is "libel tourism" — a calculated attempt to escape France's restrictive defamation framework and use a friendlier American forum instead.
That strategy has not changed. The person executing it has.
From 219 to 241 Pages: The Macrons Keep Building
The original complaint filed in Delaware Superior Court on July 23, 2025 already ran to 219 pages across 22 counts. It accused Owens of orchestrating "a campaign of global humiliation, turning their lives into fodder for profit-driven lies." Their legal team — Clare Locke LLP, the same firm that secured a $787.5 million settlement from Fox News in the Dominion Voting Systems case — described the lawsuit as a last resort after months of attempts to reach Owens were systematically ignored and, eventually, actively blocked.
The Macrons had sent a formal retraction demand in December 2024. Owens did not respond. Follow-up attempts in January 2025 were blocked by her counsel. The Macrons then attempted personal service — and were blocked again. During this period, Owens began broadcasting an eight-part series running from January 31 to February 20, 2025. The complaint was filed five months later.
When Owens filed her 43-page motion to dismiss in September 2025, the Macrons responded not by retreating but by expanding. The amended complaint — 241 pages — added allegations that had accumulated since the original filing. Among the most striking: that Owens had claimed Brigitte Macron participated, under the name "Jean-Michel," in the Stanford Prison Experiment of 1971 — the study shut down after six days when student "guards" began abusing their peers. Macron would have been 18 at the time; the experiment is exhaustively documented; there is no record of her participation in it. The amended complaint also expanded on Owens' alleged connections of the Macrons to satanic pedophile networks.
Tom Clare, lead counsel for the Macrons, was direct: Owens had "only strengthened our case by doubling down on, and escalating, her knowingly false and defamatory rhetoric." Each escalation adds to the record of what U.S. law calls "actual malice" — the knowledge or reckless disregard of falsity that public-figure plaintiffs must prove to win a defamation claim in American courts.
Case N25C-07-194, Delaware Superior Court. The Macrons' 241-page amended complaint is active. Owens' motion to dismiss remains pending — no ruling has been issued on jurisdiction or statute of limitations. The motion hearing is scheduled forJuly 27, 2026 at 10:00 AM, before Judge Sheldon K. Rennie, New Castle County Courthouse. No damages have been awarded. No settlement discussions have been publicly reported.
A Tax Record, a Viral Post, and 100 Million People Reached
To understand why this case matters, you have to go back to where the conspiracy came from — and how it grew from a fringe YouTube video to a court docket on two continents.
In 2021, Delphine Jegousse — who operates under the pseudonym Amandine Roy and describes herself as a medium and author — posted a four-hour video on YouTube falsely claiming that France's First Lady was born male under the name Jean-Michel Trogneux. Jean-Michel Trogneux is, in documented fact, Brigitte Macron's older brother. He is a real person. He lives in Amiens. Journalists who have investigated the conspiracy theory have met both him and Brigitte Macron separately, with documentary and photographic evidence establishing them as two distinct individuals. The theory was debunked thoroughly by multiple fact-checkers before it ever crossed the Atlantic.
It crossed anyway. In March 2024, Candace Owens — with approximately 5.58 million YouTube subscribers — produced a video titled "Is France's First Lady a Man?" and subsequently a full series she called "Becoming Brigitte." She stated she would "stake her entire professional reputation on the fact that Brigitte Macron is in fact a man." The content reached tens of millions of people across YouTube and TikTok. By January 2025, she was broadcasting a new eight-part series of the same name — while the Macrons were simultaneously trying to serve her a retraction demand.
The Cyberattack That Made It Worse
In September 2024, Brigitte Macron logged into her personal French tax account and found her name had been changed to "Jean-Michel Macron." French investigators traced this to a Corsican couple who claimed to have altered the tax record as a "stupid and thoughtless joke" and a form of political protest against the government. They had apparently entered the false name in a section of their own tax return. A post exploiting the discovery — framed as evidence that the conspiracy theory was real — went viral with more than 8 million views. French authorities confirmed explicitly that the name appeared due to unauthorized access, not any official identity documentation. The cyberattack was the mechanism. Social media was the weapon.
The Paris Trial: All Ten Convicted
In October 2025, ten defendants stood trial in Paris on charges of sexist cyberbullying. They ranged in age from 41 to 60 and included, in one account, an elected official, a gallery owner, an IT specialist, and a teacher. Jegousse herself was among them. Brigitte Macron's daughter Tiphaine Auzière — herself an attorney — testified in person, describing a toll that extended beyond her mother: the harassment had reached Macron's grandchildren, who faced taunts and mockery at school. Brigitte Macron had begun second-guessing her choice of clothing and her posture in public, fearful that any image would be weaponized.
All ten defendants convicted of sexist cyberbullying. Sentences ranged from three to eight months suspended to six months' imprisonment for one defendant tried in absentia. All defendants ordered to collectively pay€10,000 (approx. $11,700)in damages to Brigitte Macron. Three primary instigators, including Jegousse, received temporary social media bans. All defendants ordered to complete mandatory online harassment education courses.
Within 24 hours of the verdict, Owens posted on X that the headlines were "written in a way to deceive the public into believing that Brigitte proved she was a woman. NO. France just has cyber-bullying laws." She then announced plans to revive "Becoming Brigitte" later in 2026. The Paris court had convicted ten people. It had not touched Owens — and she had no intention of staying quiet.
From a 2021 YouTube Video to a 2026 Delaware Courtroom
Conspiracy Originates in France — Delphine Jegousse publishes a four-hour YouTube video falsely claiming Brigitte Macron was born male under the name Jean-Michel Trogneux. Jean-Michel Trogneux is, in documented fact, her brother.
Owens Amplifies Globally — "Is France's First Lady a Man?" reaches tens of millions. Owens states she will "stake her entire professional reputation" on the false claim. The conspiracy reaches an international audience.
Tax Database Cyberattack — Brigitte Macron's name changed to "Jean-Michel Macron" in French government records by a Corsican couple. A viral post generates 8M+ views falsely suggesting it validates the conspiracy. French authorities confirm: hacking, not documentation.
Retraction Demand Sent and Ignored — The Macrons' lawyers send a formal retraction demand to Owens. No response. Follow-up attempts in January 2025 are blocked by her legal team.
Eight-Part Series Broadcasts — "Becoming Brigitte" runs January 31 to February 20, 2025, expanding allegations to include incest, CIA mind control, Stanford Prison Experiment, and satanic pedophile networks. The Macrons' retraction service attempts are actively blocked.
Delaware Complaint Filed — Emmanuel and Brigitte Macron file a 219-page, 22-count defamation lawsuit in Delaware Superior Court against Candace Owens, Candace Owens LLC, and GeorgeTom, Inc. Retained counsel: Clare Locke LLP.
French Appeals Court Creates Complication — A Paris appeals court overturns some earlier related convictions, finding that alleging a gender change did not meet the legal threshold of an "attack on honor" under French press law. Case referred to Court of Cassation.
Owens' Motion / Macrons' Amended Complaint — Owens files 43-page motion to dismiss arguing lack of jurisdiction and libel tourism. Macrons respond with 241-page amended complaint adding Stanford Prison Experiment allegation and expanded satanic network claims.
Paris Criminal Trial — Ten defendants tried for sexist cyberbullying. Tiphaine Auzière testifies. Trial concludes in two days.
French Government Collapses — Prime Minister Barnier's government falls after just three months, deepening France's political vacuum and the context in which the conspiracy originally thrived.
Paris Verdict: All 10 Convicted — Suspended sentences, €10,000 collective damages, social media bans, mandatory harassment education. France wins a battle.
Owens Announces Series Revival — Within 24 hours of the Paris verdict, Owens declares "Becoming Brigitte" will return in 2026 and frames the conviction as evidence of governmental censorship.
Kasowitz Withdraws — Marc Kasowitz files formal notice of withdrawal from Owens' Delaware defense team. Laura Loomer claims credit, citing her public attack over Kasowitz's ties to pro-Israel organizations. No explanation given in the court filing. Owens' defense restructures five weeks before the decisive hearing.
Motion to Dismiss Hearing — Judge Sheldon K. Rennie, Delaware Superior Court, 10:00 AM. This hearing determines whether the Macrons' defamation lawsuit proceeds to discovery and potential trial, or is dismissed on jurisdictional and limitations grounds.
Why Being Sued by the President of France Is Good for Business
One of the most unsettling truths this case forces into the open is also one of the most consequential: for a certain kind of media personality, a high-profile lawsuit is not a liability. It is an accelerant.
A Fortune Magazine investigation published in December 2025 mapped Owens' estimated annual income across sponsorships, YouTube advertising, speaking fees, and merchandise sales. The total — ranging from approximately $5 million to $15 million annually — grew during the same period she was facing a defamation lawsuit from the President of France. Her estimated net worth, placed at roughly $5 million at the start of 2024, had climbed to between $8 and $12 million by early 2026. The lawsuit itself contributed to that growth, because every development in the case generated new content cycles.
George Farmer, Owens' husband, has noted in public interviews that advertisers have seen returns of 2:1 to 5:1 on controversial content compared to more neutral fare. Each legal development — the Paris verdict, the Delaware complaint, the Kasowitz drama — becomes source material for new broadcasts, each of which generates new downloads, new subscribers, and new revenue. Owens has acknowledged potential legal costs of around $5 million. Analysts estimate her income has grown by more than that amount over the same period.
This asymmetry between viral lies and slow-moving corrections is structural. Platform algorithms consistently reward content that generates strong emotional reactions — outrage, shock, tribal identification — over content that corrects or contextualizes. A Media Matters analysis found that controversial content earns roughly 40% more reach than factual corrections on the same events, and that advertising rates for high-engagement right-wing content run two to five times higher than neutral factual content. For every person who encountered an official French government denial of the "Jean-Michel" theory, twenty encountered the original false claim first.
France Can Convict. America Doesn't Have to Care.
Balances free expression with robust legal protection for personal dignity and honor.
Public figures face a lower threshold to establish harm.
Courts can impose social media bans, mandatory education, and criminal sentences.
Three-month statute of limitations for defamation claims.
"Good faith" defense available but limited in scope.
Result in this case: 10 convictions, January 5, 2026. Court of Cassation ruling still pending.
Among the strongest speech protections for commentary on public figures in the democratic world.
Requires proof of "actual malice" — knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth.
Very high bar for defamation claims by those in public life.
SPEECH Act blocks U.S. courts from enforcing foreign defamation rulings that don't meet First Amendment standards.
Status: Motion to dismiss hearing July 27, 2026. No ruling yet.
The critical legal tension the July 27 hearing must resolve is jurisdictional, not substantive. Delaware courts must first decide whether they have the legal authority to hear a case where a Tennessee resident — broadcasting from her Nashville basement — made statements about a French national, using companies that happen to be incorporated in Delaware but maintain no physical presence there. Owens' lawyers have framed this as a textbook example of libel tourism: using an unusual forum to escape the plaintiff's home jurisdiction's stricter rules and France's 90-day limitations period.
The Macrons chose Delaware deliberately. Both Candace Owens LLC and GeorgeTom, Inc. — the companies that manage Owens' social media presence and her website — are Delaware corporations. That gives the court a hook. But the question Judge Rennie must answer is whether that hook is legally sufficient: whether incorporating in a state gives its courts personal jurisdiction over an individual who works and lives elsewhere, and whether Delaware's borrowing statute requires applying France's shorter statute of limitations, which would make the claims time-barred.
Even if the Macrons prevail in Delaware, they face another obstacle: the SPEECH Act, a 2010 federal law that prevents U.S. courts from enforcing foreign defamation judgments that would not meet First Amendment standards. The Paris cyberbullying verdict against ten French nationals has no binding force on Candace Owens under U.S. law. France can convict. America does not have to enforce it. The Delaware case is the only mechanism through which the Macrons can reach Owens financially on American soil.
"Transvestigations": When Gender Identity Becomes a Weapon
Brigitte Macron is not the only prominent woman to have been targeted by this specific form of disinformation. A growing pattern — sometimes called "transvestigations" — has emerged as a recurring tool in coordinated far-right disinformation globally, falsely alleging that prominent women are secretly transgender. The tactic weaponizes anti-trans prejudice as a form of political character assassination, using the allegation itself as a slur regardless of its factual content.
Research by the Global Disinformation Index published in 2024 documented a marked increase in coordinated gendered abuse targeting female political leaders across EU member states, incorporating misogyny, global conspiracy frameworks, homophobia, and xenophobia into sustained campaigns. The fact that neither Michelle Obama nor Kamala Harris pursued legal action despite being subjected to nearly identical conspiracy theories reflects the calculation most public figures reach: legal costs run into millions, the First Amendment bar for public-figure plaintiffs is extraordinarily high, and the Streisand Effect — the well-documented phenomenon in which legal action draws more attention to the content it targets — is a genuine strategic risk.
The Macrons made a different calculation. They decided that allowing the lie to circulate unchallenged, growing in reach and generating revenue for those who spread it, was the greater danger. That bet is now being tested in two countries simultaneously.
Win or Lose, the Machine Keeps Running
The Dilemma Every Democracy Faces
If the Macrons win in Delaware, Owens frames herself as a free-speech martyr. Follower counts surge. Revenue grows. The conspiracy gains a victim narrative and an entirely new content cycle. If the case is dismissed on technicalities, the conspiracy theories gain a legal "win" — in the sense that no American court ever examined them on the merits. Spread accelerates. Other public figures become easier targets.
Neither outcome is clean. The fight is no longer simply over whether Brigitte Macron was born male. It is over whether truth can be made to matter in a media environment where lies generate more revenue than corrections.
The French Court of Cassation — France's highest court — has not yet ruled on the "good faith" defense standard raised by the 2025 appeals court decision that overturned some earlier related convictions. That ruling, when it arrives, will determine the applicable legal standard for similar cases in France going forward. It is a second major legal thread, running parallel to the Delaware case, and it has not yet reached its conclusion.
"This case sends a message that, in a democratic society, people can't just spread hateful conspiracy theories without consequences. All eyes are on the U.S."
— Emma-Kate Symons, Paris-based journalist, Conspiracy Watch, January 2026
What makes the Macron case unusual — and unusually important — is the combination of a legal system that has actually convicted perpetrators, an ongoing U.S. action targeting the primary international amplifier, and a legal team that has already demonstrated it can win the largest media defamation payout in American history. That combination makes it the most consequential test case for cross-border defamation law in the social media era.
The People at the Center of This Fight
Born Brigitte Trogneux in Amiens, France, April 13, 1953. Former teacher. Three children from her first marriage. Married Emmanuel Macron in 2007. Has pursued legal action across two continents against disinformation targeting her identity.
Approx. 5.58M YouTube subscribers. Estimated annual income $5–15M. Facing 22-count, 241-page defamation lawsuit. Motion to dismiss pending. As of April 2026, operating without Marc Kasowitz as lead counsel, 34 days before the decisive hearing.
Operates as "Amandine Roy." Published the original 2021 YouTube conspiracy video. Among 10 people convicted in Paris, January 5, 2026. Received suspended sentence and temporary social media ban.
The firm that won a $787.5M settlement from Fox News for Dominion Voting Systems — the largest media defamation payout in U.S. history. Clare has publicly stated that Owens' continued escalation has only "strengthened the case."
Withdrew April 21, 2026. Had represented Donald Trump for decades. Firm: Kasowitz Benson Torres. Exit came amid Laura Loomer's public campaign about his ties to pro-Israel organizations. No explanation filed in court.
Attorney who testified in person at the Paris trial. Described how the harassment changed her mother's daily life and public behavior, and extended to Macron's grandchildren facing taunts at school.
July 27 and the Three Scenarios
Everything now points toward July 27, 2026. The motion hearing before Judge Rennie will produce one of three outcomes, each with dramatically different consequences for both parties and for the broader landscape of cross-border defamation law.
Judge Rennie rules that Delaware lacks jurisdiction, or that France's three-month statute of limitations bars the Macrons' claims under the borrowing statute. The case ends before discovery. Owens frames the outcome as a vindication of free speech. Content production accelerates. The Macrons would need to evaluate refiling in Tennessee — where Owens actually works and lives — but would face identical First Amendment challenges and a potentially longer legal journey.
The judge allows some counts to proceed but narrows the complaint, eliminating certain claims on jurisdictional or limitations grounds. Discovery begins on surviving counts. The Macrons gain access to Owens' communications, financial records, and content creation materials. Costs for both sides escalate sharply. The case could run several more years.
The complete complaint survives to discovery and eventual trial. Tom Clare has said publicly that if Owens "continues to double down between now and the time of trial, it will be a substantial award." The Macrons have said they will travel to Delaware to testify in person. This scenario is the one both sides have been most publicly preparing for — one framing it as justice, the other as government censorship of American journalism.
Beyond Delaware, the French Court of Cassation's ruling on the "good faith" defense standard remains pending — a decision that will shape French law on online harassment for years beyond this case. And Owens has made no indication she plans to step back: she has promised "Becoming Brigitte" will return in 2026, and every legal development since January has become material for her content operation.
"What began as a database hack in September 2024 has become a stress test for democracy itself in the age of algorithmic outrage. The answers to the questions it raises will shape political warfare for a generation."
— Peak of Trending Editorial Analysis, June 23, 2026
The alteration of Brigitte Macron's name in the French government tax database in September 2024 was confirmed by French authorities as a deliberatecyberattackby a Corsican couple. It represents no official identity documentation of any kind. Every claim in the "Jean-Michel Trogneux" conspiracy theory has been independently debunked by French investigative journalists, international fact-checkers, and documented historical records — including photographs, testimony from people who knew Brigitte Macron as a child, and verified interviews with her living family members, including Jean-Michel Trogneux himself, who lives in Amiens, France.
Delaware Superior Court Docket — Case N25C-07-194, courtconnect.courts.delaware.gov
Bloomberg Law — "Trump Lawyer Kasowitz Leaves Candace Owens Team in Macron Case," April 22, 2026
Christian Science Monitor — Paris Verdict Analysis, January 6, 2026
The Advocate — 241-Page Amended Complaint Coverage, September 2025
VOR News — Kasowitz Impact Analysis, April 27, 2026
AllAboutLawyer — Full Legal History and Case Status, April 2026
LawFold — Candace Owens Lawsuit: Macron Case Status, April 2026
Fortune Magazine — Owens Revenue Analysis, December 2025
Media Matters — Platform Reach and Asymmetry Analysis, 2025
Global Disinformation Index — Gendered Abuse Research, 2024
Clare Locke LLP — Original complaint (219 pages), filed July 23, 2025
Paris court proceedings and verdict transcript — January 5, 2026
BFMTV documentary on Brigitte Macron — October 2025
Owens motion to dismiss (43 pages) — September 12, 2025