Macrons file defamation suit against right-wing US podcaster Candace Owens
The 218-page complaint against Candace Owens, who has millions of followers on X and YouTube, was filed by the Macrons in Delaware Superior Court on Wednesday and seeks a jury trial and unspecified punitive damages.
In a statement released by their lawyer, the Macrons said they filed the lawsuit after Owens repeatedly ignored requests to retract false and defamatory statements made on an eight-part YouTube and podcast series called Becoming Brigitte.
According to the Macrons, the series spread 'verifiably false and devastating lies', including that Brigitte stole another person's identity and transitioned to female, and that the Macrons are blood relatives committing incest.
Their complaint discusses circumstances under which the Macrons met, when the now 47-year-old president was a high school student and Brigitte was a teacher. It said their relationship 'remained within the bounds of the law'.
'Owens' campaign of defamation was plainly designed to harass and cause pain to us and our families and to garner attention and notoriety,' the Macrons said.
'We gave her every opportunity to back away from these claims, but she refused. It is our earnest hope that this lawsuit will set the record straight and end this campaign of defamation once and for all,' they added.
In her podcast on Wednesday, Owens said, 'This lawsuit is littered with factual inaccuracies' and part of an 'obvious and desperate public relations strategy' to smear her character.
Owens also said she did not know a lawsuit was coming, though lawyers for both sides had been communicating since January.
A spokesperson for Owens called the lawsuit itself an effort to bully her, after Brigitte rejected Owens's repeated requests for an interview.
'This is a foreign government attacking the First Amendment rights of an American independent journalist,' the spokesperson said.
Have world leaders sued for defamation before?
Wednesday's lawsuit is a rare case of a world leader suing for defamation.
United States President Donald Trump has also turned to the courts, including in a $10bn lawsuit accusing The Wall Street Journal of defaming him by claiming he created a lewd birthday greeting for disgraced late financier Jeffrey Epstein in 2003.
The Journal said it would defend against that case and had full confidence in its reporting.
In December, meanwhile, Trump reached a $15m settlement with Walt Disney-owned ABC over an inaccurate claim that a jury found him liable for rape, rather than sexual assault, in a civil lawsuit.
To prevail in US defamation cases, public figures must show defendants engaged in 'actual malice', a tough legal standard requiring proof that the defendants knew what they published was false or had reckless disregard for its truth.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Jazeera
a day ago
- Al Jazeera
White House getting new $200M ballroom
White House getting new $200M ballroom NewsFeed The White House has announced plans for a new $200m ballroom, with construction to start in September. The 90,000-square-foot space will replace the East Wing and seat up to 650 guests. It will be paid for by Trump and other donors. Video Duration 01 minutes 22 seconds 01:22 Video Duration 02 minutes 54 seconds 02:54 Video Duration 01 minutes 30 seconds 01:30 Video Duration 01 minutes 26 seconds 01:26 Video Duration 01 minutes 13 seconds 01:13 Video Duration 00 minutes 47 seconds 00:47 Video Duration 02 minutes 33 seconds 02:33
Al Jazeera
a day ago
- Al Jazeera
Refugee and migrant crossings to UK hit record high by end of July
More than 25,000 people have crossed the English Channel into the United Kingdom so far this year, marking the fastest pace of arrivals since records began in 2018 and piling pressure on the UK's Labour government as anti-immigration sentiment is stoked by the political right wing. Figures released on Thursday show that nearly 900 refugees and migrants made the crossing in 13 small boats on Wednesday alone, bringing the total number of arrivals in 2025 to 25,436. It's a perilous journey that has resulted in dozens of deaths over the years. The milestone is likely to intensify political scrutiny over Prime Minister Keir Starmer's handling of undocumented migration. His government has pledged tougher action on smuggling networks, with Starmer vowing to 'smash the gangs' responsible for transporting people across the Channel. Opposition politicians have seized on the latest numbers to criticise Labour's approach. 'Almost 900 people crossed the Channel yesterday, meaning 25,000 people, mainly young men, have crossed the Channel this year. [And] 2025 is the worst year on record so far, and the Labour Government are doing nothing to stop the crossings,' said Conservative Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp. He added: 'Their 17 in, one out deal with France will not even make a dent – it would take 10 years for [Home Secretary] Yvette Cooper to deport the illegal immigrants that have arrived since the start of this year alone under her so-called deal, which still hasn't started.' Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron announced 'one in, one out' returns of asylum seekers earlier this month. The pilot programme sets out that for every person returned, a different individual would be allowed 'to come here via a safe route: controlled and legal, subject to strict security checks and only open to those who have not tried to enter the UK illegally', Starmer said at the time. Philp also reiterated his party's proposal to immediately detain and deport new arrivals, warning that continued legal challenges under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) could force a Conservative government to consider withdrawing from it, a threat they have often made in and around the Brexit years when the party was in government. Radical right Reform UK leader Nigel Farage echoed those criticisms, writing on social media: '898 illegals crossed the English Channel yesterday. This means more hotels, more costs and more people who should not be here. The public have had ENOUGH!' A series of violent far-right demonstrations have been held recently outside a hotel housing asylum seekers in Epping, north of London. Meanwhile, United States President Donald Trump, who campaigned on a hardline anti-immigration platform and has been executing it during his second term with raids and deportations of immigrants, recently praised the UK government's efforts, saying it was 'doing a fantastic thing' by addressing the issue, though he admitted knowing 'nothing about the boats'.
Al Jazeera
a day ago
- Al Jazeera
US appeals court hears arguments about legality of Trump tariffs
Oral arguments over United States President Donald Trump's power to impose tariffs have kicked off before a US appeals court after a lower court ruled he had exceeded his authority by imposing sweeping new levies on imported goods. The appeals court judges on Thursday sharply questioned whether what Trump calls his 'reciprocal' tariffs, announced in April, were justified by the president's claim of emergency powers. A panel of all the court's active judges – eight appointed by Democratic presidents and three appointed by Republican presidents – is hearing arguments in two cases brought by five small US businesses and 12 Democratic-led US states. The judges on the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, DC, pressed government lawyer Brett Shumate to explain how the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1977 law historically used for sanctioning enemies or freezing their assets, gave Trump the power to impose tariffs. Trump is the first president to use IEEPA to impose tariffs. The judges frequently interrupted Shumate, peppering him with a flurry of challenges to his arguments. 'IEEPA doesn't even say tariffs, doesn't even mention them,' one of the judges said. Shumate said the law allows for 'extraordinary' authority in an emergency, including the ability to stop imports completely. He said IEEPA authorises tariffs because it allows a president to 'regulate' imports in a crisis. The states and businesses challenging the tariffs argued they are not permissible under IEEPA and the US Constitution grants Congress, and not the president, authority over tariffs and other taxes. Neal Katyal, a lawyer for the businesses, said the government's argument that the word 'regulate' includes the power to tax would be a vast expansion of presidential power. Tariffs are starting to build into a significant revenue source for the federal government as customs duties in June quadrupled to about $27bn, a record, and through June have topped $100bn for the current fiscal year, which ends on September 30. That income could be crucial to offset lost revenue from extended tax cuts in a Trump-supported bill that passed and became law this month. 'Tariffs are making America GREAT & RICH Again,' Trump wrote in a social media post on Thursday. 'To all of my great lawyers who have fought so hard to save our Country, good luck in America's big case today.' But economists said the duties threaten to raise prices for US consumers and reduce corporate profits. Trump's on-again, off-again tariff threats have roiled financial markets and disrupted US companies' ability to manage supply chains, production, staffing and prices. Dan Rayfield, the attorney general of Oregon, one of the states challenging the levies, said the tariffs are a 'regressive tax' that is making household items more expensive. Since Trump began imposing his wave of tariffs, companies ranging from carmaker Stellantis to American Airlines, temporarily suspended financial guidance for investors, which has since started again but has been revised down. Companies across multiple industries, including Procter and Gamble, the world's largest consumer goods brand, announced this week that it would need to raise prices on a quarter of its goods. The president has made tariffs a central instrument of his foreign policy, wielding them aggressively in his second term as leverage in trade negotiations and to push back against what he has called unfair practices. Pressure outside trade Trump has said the April tariffs, which he placed on most countries, are a response to persistent US trade imbalances and declining US manufacturing power. However, in recent weeks, he's used them to increase pressure on nontrade issues. He hit Brazil with 50 percent tariffs over the prosecution of former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, a key Trump ally who is on trial for an alleged coup attempt after he lost the 2022 presidential election. Trump also threatened Canada over its move to recognise a Palestinian state, saying a trade deal will now be 'very hard'. He said tariffs against China, Canada and Mexico were appropriate because those countries were not doing enough to stop fentanyl from crossing US borders. The countries have denied that claim. On May 28, a three-judge panel of the US Court of International Trade sided with the Democratic states and small businesses that are challenging Trump. It said IEEPA, a law intended to address 'unusual and extraordinary' threats during national emergencies, did not authorise tariffs related to longstanding trade deficits. The appeals court has allowed the tariffs to remain in place while it considers the administration's appeal. The timing of the court's decision is uncertain, and the losing side will likely appeal quickly to the US Supreme Court. The case will have no impact on tariffs levied under more traditional legal authorities, such as duties on steel and aluminium. The president recently announced trade deals that set tariff rates on goods from the European Union and Japan after smaller trade agreements with Britain, Indonesia and Vietnam. Trump's Department of Justice has argued that limiting the president's tariff authority could undermine ongoing trade negotiations while other Trump officials have said negotiations have continued with little change after the initial setback in court. Trump has set a deadline of Friday for higher tariffs on countries that don't negotiate new trade deals. There are at least seven other lawsuits challenging Trump's invocation of IEEPA, including cases brought by other small businesses and California.
