A defamation lawsuit filed by French President Emmanuel Macron and First Lady Brigitte Macron against American commentator Candace Owens is moving forward in a Delaware court, as Owens’ lawyers seek dismissal on jurisdiction, France’s statute of limitations and the appropriateness of Delaware as the venue. The suit, filed in July, centers on an eight-part series Owens released in January and February 2025 that examined the Macrons’ personal and political lives and included unverified online rumors about Brigitte Macron’s background.

The Macron couple allege that the content harmed their reputation in France. Brigitte Macron, 72, has faced online rumors about her background, which Owens’ series reportedly explored. Owens’ legal team counters that the suit is not about legitimate redress but part of a politically motivated effort to stifle free speech and punish an American journalist for commentary protected by the First Amendment. The filing quotes, "In contravention of a sacred precept of U.S. Constitutional Law, the President and First Lady of France… have filed a baseless defamation suit against an independent American journalist who broadcasts a daily news and culture show from her basement in Nashville, Tennessee," as part of their argument.

Owens seeks dismissal on three grounds: lack of jurisdiction, expiration of France’s three-month defamation statute of limitations, and the forum non conveniens doctrine. The defense notes that Owens is a resident of Tennessee, not Delaware, and has no real property or business ties to Delaware.

The defense argues that any harm would have occurred in France and that the Macrons chose Delaware because the case would be more burdensome for Owens than pursuing action in France. They say if the Macrons were serious about vindicating their rights, they would have filed in France within France’s limitations period.

Further, the filing describes the Macron legal strategy as a "well-documented publicity campaign" featuring threats of litigation and other actions. Owens’ team characterizes the case as "quintessential libel tourism" that exploits Delaware’s borrowing statute to apply France’s shorter three-month deadline, potentially barring the claim.

As of now, the court has not ruled on the motion to dismiss.