Candace Owens Fights Macron Defamation Lawsuit Citing French Filing Deadline Over U.S. Court Jurisdiction

Candace Owens is fighting to have a bombshell defamation lawsuit filed by French President Emmanuel Macron and his wife, Brigitte, thrown out of court, arguing the couple improperly turned to the American legal system after a much shorter deadline for bringing defamation claims in France, OK! can exclusively reveal.

According to court documents obtained by OK!, Owens' legal team argued the Macrons should not be allowed to pursue their claims in Delaware, challenging the court's jurisdiction and questioning whether the couple improperly sought to take advantage of the United States' longer filing deadline.

The dispute centers on the couple's decision to sue Owens in Delaware over allegations she repeatedly made about France's first lady, including the false claim that Brigitte was born male.

Owens has denied wrongdoing and maintains her statements are protected speech.

The Macrons filed their lawsuit in July 2025, accusing Owens of spreading damaging falsehoods about their family through her online broadcasts and social media platforms.

Owens' legal team has challenged whether Delaware is the appropriate place for the dispute, pointing to the couple's connections to France and questioning whether the claims belong in an American courtroom.

The defense has also raised concerns about the time limits governing defamation lawsuits.

Under French law, many defamation claims are subject to a three-month filing deadline, while Delaware generally allows two years for defamation actions.

Owens' attorneys have argued that the Macrons should not be permitted to take advantage of the longer American deadline simply by filing their lawsuit in the United States.

The French president and his wife have accused Owens of conducting a sustained campaign of misinformation that damaged their reputations.

Their lawsuit alleges Owens continued promoting claims about Brigitte despite being presented with information contradicting her assertions.

The couple is seeking damages, although the precise amount they could recover would ultimately depend on the outcome of the litigation.

Owens, meanwhile, has maintained that the case raises significant questions about free speech and whether foreign public figures can pursue American defamation claims over statements made by a U.S. commentator.

During the July 27 hearing, attorneys presented competing arguments about whether the lawsuit should remain in Delaware.

Judge Sheldon K. Rennie reserved his decision rather than issuing an immediate ruling.

As of September 30, public reporting indicated that the court had not decided Owens' dismissal request.

A dismissal could bring the Macrons' Delaware case to an end, subject to any appeal or further proceedings. If the judge rejects Owens' arguments, the lawsuit could continue toward additional litigation and potentially trial.

For now, the legal battle remains unresolved, with Owens attempting to stop the case before it advances further.