Brigitte Macron will present scientific evidence to prove she’s a woman

Summary

---

Fame Under Fire (BBC Sounds)

Episode Title: Brigitte Macron Will Present Scientific Evidence to Prove She’s a Woman
Host: Anoushka Mutanda-Doughty
Guests: Tom Clare (Macrons’ lawyer), Dan Nardello (corporate investigator)
Date: September 18, 2025

---

Episode Overview

This episode addresses the viral conspiracy theory that Brigitte Macron, the First Lady of France, was born a man—a claim that recently resurfaced and exploded in reach due to US political commentator Candace Owens. Host Anoushka Mutanda-Doughty explores the origins and spread of this rumor, the legal and investigative response from the Macrons’ team, the standards for defamation in the US, and the personal and reputational impact on the Macrons. The central theme is how misinformation thrives in the digital age and what it takes—legally and ethically—to fight back.

---

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. Background of the Rumor and Its Amplification

• Origins: French journalist Xavier Poussard wrote “Becoming Brigitte,” claiming Brigitte Macron is actually her brother, Jean Michel Trogneux (02:22).

• Social Media Spread: The theory had been around since 2021, resurfacing and amplified through various content creators, notably Candace Owens (01:32–03:15).

• Owens’ Claims: She asserts Macron is married to “a biological male” and bases her professional reputation on this claim (02:04, 05:04), further weaving in unrelated allegations about pedophilia, “transgenderism,” and incest (03:15).

  “You are officially a very goofy man, Brigitte. But I got to give it to you, you’ve definitely got balls.”
  – Candace Owens (02:16)

  “There is an overwhelming amount of evidence and Emmanuel Macron is married to a biological male.”
  – Candace Owens (02:04)

• Viral Reach: One TikTok alone hit 14.5 million views (03:49), showing the real-world influence of viral conspiracy content.

---

2. The Macrons’ Response and Legal Action

• Defamation Lawsuit: After repeated warnings to Owens to cease making false statements, the Macrons filed a defamation suit in Delaware (04:29). They emphasize the human impact of the allegations and the need to set the record straight (05:38).

  “These folks are obviously very important on the world stage, but they are also human beings... it is offensive and hurtful to them to be accused of effectively criminal actions and conspiring to lie to the world about their identities, their relationship and their professional lives.”
  – Tom Clare (05:38)

• Lawsuit Rationale:

  • Not about engaging with every gossiper online, but targeting the main amplifier whose claims have entered mainstream discourse (06:44).
  • Lawsuit became necessary after Owens ignored retraction letters and doubled down (06:44, 13:17).

---

3. Evidence and Discovery

• Scientific Evidence:

  • Brigitte Macron is prepared to present scientific evidence and personal documentation in open court to conclusively refute the claims (08:18, 22:22).
  • The Macrons’ legal team stresses this is a deeply invasive process but underscores their confidence in disproving the rumors (08:18, 22:32).

  “There will be expert testimony that will come out that will be scientific in nature, that will also demonstrate the falsity of the statements.”
  – Tom Clare (08:18)

• Refusal to Provide ‘Proof’ Directly to Owens: The Macrons will not privately send evidence to Owens for fear of misuse, instead presenting it only under court rules (21:37).

  “We are prepared to supply all of those materials, but we’re just gonna do it in open court where there are rules, where the rules of evidence apply, where there’s proof, and where it can be done publicly in a way that people will see how it’s presented.”
  – Tom Clare (21:37)

---

4. Owens’ Network and Motive

• Political Ties:

  • Investigator Dan Nardello describes connections between Owens and the French far right, as well as associations with Nigel Farage and CPAC appearances (10:29–11:25).
  • Motive is not central to winning a civil suit but is important for narrative in front of a jury (12:00).

  “People want to try to make sense of it because her statements... after being warned repeatedly that this is false and continuing to double down... it’s useful to be able to tell a story about what motivates her.”
  – Tom Clare (12:00)

---

5. Legal Standards and Process (U.S. Defamation Law)

• Actual Malice Standard: As public figures, Macrons must prove Owens made statements with “reckless disregard for the truth” after being expressly notified of their falsity (14:31–15:10).

• Substantiating Proof:

  • Retraction letters laid out contradictory evidence and pointed out Owens’ cherry-picking of sources (15:10, 17:54).
  • Not required to provide all evidence pretrial—denials and a public record suffice initially.

• Merchandising the Rumor: Owens sells T-shirts mocking the Macrons, moving her beyond journalistic standards and into commercial exploitation of the falsehood (20:04).

  “It is designed to bring an audience and to add clicks and to gain attention for herself and for her platform. This is not journalism.”
  – Tom Clare (20:04)

---

6. Jurisdiction and Tactics

• Delaware Filing: Owens’ businesses are Delaware entities, establishing jurisdiction. The Macrons are open to refiling in Tennessee if required—though they view Owens’ objections as evidence of her evasiveness (22:49–24:53).

---

7. Implications for the Macrons

• Discovery Stakes:

  • Both sides’ private lives could be laid bare in the US discovery process. Macrons are prepared for this, underscoring their commitment (25:13).

  “They are courageous in that regard... they’re not afraid. They’re not afraid of that discovery. They’re not afraid of the truth.”
  – Tom Clare (25:13)

• Personal and Reputational Damage:

  • Day-to-day impact includes anxiety at public events and the awareness that others may believe the smear (34:42).

  “You walk into a room of a hundred people... there are people in that room that are wondering is this true?... All of these things are incredibly upsetting.”
  – Tom Clare (34:42)

• Relationship Impact: Despite the intense spotlight and strain, the Macrons remain unified and determined (33:23).

  “They are unified and they are strong in their resolve... they are coming together to fight it.”
  – Tom Clare (33:23)

---

8. Limits and Next Steps

• Can This Ever End? There’s no guarantee Owens wouldn’t just pivot to another wild accusation, but a legal victory should diminish her credibility in mainstream media’s eyes (29:25).
• Immediate Next Steps: Macrons’ legal team is considering how to respond to Owens’ motion to dismiss—either by arguing jurisdiction or amending the complaint with new evidence (38:31).

---

Notable Quotes & Moments (with Timestamps)

• Candace Owens’ Provocation:
  “I would stake my entire professional career on all of those points.” (05:04)
• Tom Clare on Going to Court:
  “It's incredibly intrusive for this family to have to go into open court and present this evidence. But that should just demonstrate how serious they are.” (08:18)
• Dan Nardello on Motive:
  “We found connections, strong connections between Owens and the French far right...” (10:29)
• Owens Selling Merchandise:
  “She’s selling T-shirts, mocking the Macrons. How many responsible journalists do that?” (20:04)
• Tom Clare on Discovery:
  “They said yes to that, yes, we stand ready to go through that discovery process. Yes, we stand ready to travel to the United States and appear in a public courtroom and explain why this is false.” (25:13)
• Personal Toll:
  “You have a reputation and you have sensibilities when you're out in public and they get asked about this at events. Imagine going to an event and... having to know that there are people in that room that are wondering is this true?” (34:42)
• Macrons’ Resolve:
  “They're unified and they are strong in their resolve to do this... it's a really beautiful thing.” (33:23)

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

| Timestamp | Segment Description | |-----------|--------------------------------------------| | 01:09 | Episode Intro, lawsuit context | | 02:04 | Candace Owens’ core claims | | 04:29 | Lawsuit filed against Owens in Delaware | | 05:04 | Owens’ full theory outlined | | 08:18 | Scientific evidence and trial commitment | | 10:29 | Owens’ network, French far right links | | 14:31 | US defamation legal standard explained | | 20:04 | Owens’ merchandising and journalistic ethics| | 22:22 | Existence of personal/proof photos | | 25:13 | Discovery process and Macrons’ resolve | | 29:25 | Future risks—pivoting to new theories | | 33:23 | Personal & relationship impact on Macrons | | 34:42 | Real world repercussions and damages | | 38:31 | Legal next steps—motion to dismiss |

---

Tone & Takeaways

• The episode carries a sober, fact-focused tone, empathetic toward the Macrons’ plight without lapsing into sensationalism.
• It combines legal, investigatory, and personal perspectives to show just how high the stakes are—and how difficult it is to fight viral misinformation in the age of “newsfluencers.”
• The podcast is both a warning about the power of social media conspiracies and a case study in high-stakes, public legal combat.

---

Summary prepared for “Fame Under Fire,” BBC Sounds — For listeners who need an in-depth, timestamped overview of the episode’s substance.

Transcript

[Tom Clare]

This BBC podcast is supported by ads outside the uk.

[Grainger Advertiser]

This is the story of the One as head of maintenance at a concert hall, he knows the show must always go on. That's why he works behind the scenes, ensuring every light is working, the H Vac is humming, and his facility shines with Grainger's supplies and solutions for every challenge he faces. Plus 24. 7 customer support his venue never misses a beat. Call quickgranger.com or just stop by Granger for the ones who get it done.

[Candace Owens]

This is the story of the One As a custodial supervisor at a high school, he knows that during cold and flu season, germs spread fast. It's why he partners with Grainger to stay fully stocked on the products and supplies he needs, from tissues to disinfectants to floor scrubbers, all so that he can help students, staff and teachers stay healthy and focused. Call 1-800-granger. Click granger.com or just stop by Granger for the ones who get it done.

[Anoushka Matandad Doughty]

The first lady of France is resolved to give scientific evidence to counterclaims that she was born a man. Hello and welcome back to this Fame Under Fire exclusive from BBC Sounds with me, Anoushka Matandad, Doughty, Emmanuel and Brigitte Macron's lawyer Tom Clare and corporate investigator Daniel Nardello are here. They say they're ready to provide evidence that proves Brigitte Macron, the First lady of France, was born a woman and not a man.

[Tom Clare]

It is incredibly upsetting to think that you have to go and subject yourself to put this type of proof forward.

[Anoushka Matandad Doughty]

Now, if you're thinking right now, I didn't even know that was up for debate. Buckle up and let me bring you up to speed. As always, if you've got questions, send them to me on social media or WhatsApp at 03306-78114. Don't forget to subscribe and turn on your push notifications so you never miss a thing. Since March 2024, US podcaster and political commentator Owens has had a message for her followers.

[Candace Owens]

There is an overwhelming amount of evidence and Emmanuel Macron is married to a biological male.

[Anoushka Matandad Doughty]

Now she said this is something she was willing to stake her entire professional reputation on.

[Candace Owens]

You are officially a very goofy man, Brigitte. But I got to give it to you, you've definitely got balls.

[Anoushka Matandad Doughty]

The Macrons categorically deny the claims, calling them outlandish, defamatory and far fetched fictions. Now, Candace Owens isn't the first person to say this. French journalist Xavier Poussard wrote a book called Becoming Brigitt. In it, he says that she is actually her brother, Jean Michel Troneau. In December 2021, social media voices among Dean Roy and Natasha Ray did a now deleted 40 minute YouTube video on the topic. The Macrons won a 2024 defamation case against Roy and Ray in France. But in July 2025, the ruling was overturned on appeal. Now, this wasn't because they ruled that the claims were true, but because the judges said they were made in good faith and therefore did not constitute defamation. Given the importance of freedom of expression in France, the Macrons are appealing. But Candace Owens, who has nearly 5 million subscribers on YouTube, took this theory and made it viral. And over time, it's definitely got more layered.

[Candace Owens]

As we unpack the story of Brigitte in Emanuel, you are going to notice some strange recurring themes that scandals related to pedophilia and transgenderism, incest and sexual perversion just keep accidentally following them wherever they go.

[Anoushka Matandad Doughty]

Videos like this have 1.8 million views, over 6,000 shares, and nearly 115,000 likes.

[Candace Owens]

The size of Brigitte's hands. And again, I'm not trying to be mean, guys. We're just taking a look at everything. The sheer size of Brigitte's hands. The one thing that you can't operate on, right?

[Anoushka Matandad Doughty]

In July, she posted a TikTok with lots of photos of Brigitte. The caption says, I'm onto you, Brigitte. One of the photos is Brigitte in a swimming costume. The camera slowly pans in. That video has 14.5 million views.

[Candace Owens]

You are the alleged first lady, first man of France.

[Anoushka Matandad Doughty]

In July, she claimed she had had a phone call from the White House that Emmanuel Macron had taken President Donald Trump aside and asked him to intervene to stop her.

[Candace Owens]

Emmanuel Macron is holding up negotiations to end the Russian and Ukrainian war unless you stop speaking about his wife.

[Anoushka Matandad Doughty]

Later that month, the Macrons sued Owens and her company in the United States. Delaware, to be exact. Joining me now is the Macrons lawyer, Tom Clare, and also Dan Nardello, who's the executive chairman of Nardello, a corporate investigating firm. His company works on behalf of private citizens and businesses to gather information about a person or a company. Hi, Dan.

[Tom Clare]

Hello.

[Dan Nardello]

Nice to be here.

[Anoushka Matandad Doughty]

Hi, Tom.

[Tom Clare]

Hi there. Thanks for having me on.

[Anoushka Matandad Doughty]

So we've just run our listeners through this story in a very quick space of time. So some of them are going to be like, what on earth. Earth is going on? Tom, I want to start with you and play you this clip.

[Candace Owens]

I believe that Emmanuel Macron is a homosexual man that was groomed from his youth. I believe the individual who groomed him is now his wife. I believe that his wife is was born Jean Michel Trogno and transition transitioned in his early 30s. And I believe that the entire state is colluding to protect that secret. And like I said, I would stake my entire professional career on all of those points.

[Anoushka Matandad Doughty]

Tom, that's kind of a potted run through of Candice's different theories about the Macrons. What are your clients response to this, first of all?

[Tom Clare]

Well, it's provably false is the short version of it. I mean, it's obviously upsetting and offensive to have false things said about you. But this is someone with a significant audience who has done this and said these falsehoods over an extended period of time, time after being warned that they were false. And you know, it's obviously upsetting. These folks are obviously very important on the world stage, but they are also human beings and it is offensive and hurtful to them to be accused of effectively criminal actions and conspiring to lie to the world about their identities, their relationship and their professional lives.

[Anoushka Matandad Doughty]

And you talk about them there being important players on the world stage. I mean those type of figures have to be used to being spoken about, having things said about them that they feel are untrue. Why file this? Do you feel like it's crediting it with something that if you hadn't have filed this civil lawsuit, it wouldn't have?

[Tom Clare]

You know, there is a line. And when you are making false statements of fact about someone and when your false statements of fact are being spread and picked up and used by your adversaries to support coming after you in different venues, you have to take a stand and her statements are over the line. This was not a step that they took lightly. You know, Candace didn't go on her podcast and make these statements once and then President Mrs. McCrone filed the lawsuit. This only came after an extended period of putting her on notice, warning her about the falsity of her statements in detail and having her double down time and time again. And the one other point that I would make is, you know, she has got a significant audience, people listen to her, not just her, her many listeners on her podcast. But you start to see mainstream media, credible news outlets that actually cite her in reporting on this false story. And these falsehoods are like a cancer. They metastasize into the mainstream media. And so it might be easy for someone to think, well, why would you go after a podcaster if you're the president and first lady of France. But it's really very dangerous how these falsehoods can get into the bloodstream of the media and then people report on it as true because Candace has said it. And so we had to go to the root, and the root was Candace.

[Anoushka Matandad Doughty]

And you say that these claims are provably false. What is that proof?

[Tom Clare]

Well, we are the plaintiffs in the case, and we're going to have the burden of proving falsity, and we're going to have the testimony of the two plaintiffs, President and Mrs. McCrone. There will be expert testimony that will come out that will be scientific in nature, that will also demonstrate the falsity of the statements. And obviously, it's incredibly intrusive for this family to have to go into open court and present this evidence. But that should just demonstrate how serious they are about and how confident they are in their ability to prove it as false in a public forum and how they want to put this falsehood to rest once and for all.

[Anoushka Matandad Doughty]

That's the first time we've heard about expert testimony. Is this going to be expert testimony that scientific in nature, speaking generically, or is this going to be expert testimony from an expert who spent time with Brigitte Macron?

[Tom Clare]

I think it's not ready to reveal all of our strategy as it relates to presenting expert testimony, But I would just say that we're prepared to demonstrate fully, both generically and specifically, that what she's saying about Regime Macron is false. We would not be here if we were not prepared to undertake that burden.

[Anoushka Matandad Doughty]

And so for our listeners right now, who are some of them quite legal nerds, really getting into this, they're used to these civil lawsuits. They read it, they have the factual allegations, and they, they understand that with this, there's a other half of this civil lawsuit, and that's Dan, that's your work. There's an investigation that's running alongside this. You're investigating Candace Owens. How did you begin investigating Candace? Where did you start?

[Dan Nardello]

We wanted to build a profile of who the adversary was, who Candace Owens was. So we looked at her network, her relationships. We did an analysis of that and confined ourselves, certainly up until this point in open sources, haven't gone out and spoken to anybody, although that's perfectly appropriate in the right context. And we did our work in English, in French, in Russian, and some of it in Italian, because some of her network extends into Italy.

[Anoushka Matandad Doughty]

And part of what you flesh out in, in your investigation is what you might term motive. Motive for what you say is an attack on the Macrons. Can you tell me a little bit about Candace's motive from your perspective?

[Dan Nardello]

I'm not sure if it's motive, but I can tell you what we found. We found connections, strong connections between Owens and the French far right, and also connections to Reform and Nigel Farage in England.

[Tom Clare]

That was Candace Owens, and she will be running for office in a few years. Time of that I have no doubt.

[Anoushka Matandad Doughty]

And you say you found these connections? I'm going to focus in there on the connections with the political opponents of Macron in France. What's the proof of those connections? What are you basing that on?

[Dan Nardello]

I mean, there's public statements by Owens. They follow each other on social media. They appeared together at conferences at cpac, for instance, with Marion Marichelle, who's on, you know, to the right of Le Pen, Arnis, but to the right of Le Pen and more. The sort of custodian of Jean Marie Le Pen's heritage. Owens was the keynote speaker at a conference that Marichelle and her people organized.

[Candace Owens]

To weaker leaders like Emmanuel Macron, Justin Trudeau, Angela Merkel. The list goes on. The future belongs to globalists and not patriots. Ladies and gentlemen, without question, we are in the midst of an ideological war, a war for the spirit of our nations.

[Anoushka Matandad Doughty]

Tom, is the legal theory then, that. I'm gonna use the word motive with you. The motive that Candace had was she was aligned with political opponents, and therefore it works to her ideology to discredit the Macrons. And that is why she's pushing this first.

[Tom Clare]

You know, sort of from the technical legal perspective in a civil defamation suit, we do not have to prove motive. It doesn't matter why she is doing this or what's motivating her. What we have to demonstrate is that she made fals statements of fact with reckless disregard for the truth, and it caused damage. That's it. However, when you try a case in front of a jury, in front of real human beings, that they want to understand a texture about what. What's going on here? What's the story? Why would people act in such a seemingly irrational way? People want to try to make sense of it because her statements and her comments and her actions, especially after being warned repeatedly that this is false and continuing to double down and even go extreme. And so, just as part of the trial advocacy, as part of the art of persuasion of real human beings, it's useful to be able to tell a story about what motivates her, who her connections are. It is part of the texture of the storytelling that we're going to want to do. And all effective trial lawyers weave a story, a narrative about what happened. And that's where Dan's work is really so vital to our case. Even if it's not legally required, it is going to make it much more persuasive to both the jurors and to the people of the world who are gonna be watching this case. As to why somebody would behave in this manner.

[Anoushka Matandad Doughty]

I was gonna ask that because obviously you're gonna try this in front of a jury, but in this day and age, people watch these cases. People are really engaged in this. When you were putting it together and asking Dan to help, was there an element of this, of, well, we hope the public reads this. This is the platform that the Macrons have to give their side of the story?

[Tom Clare]

Well, there certainly is that element of it. Right. This is a public proceeding, and it's important in public, because one of the things that President Mrs. Macron get out of filing this lawsuit is they get an opportunity to disprove it in a public forum. And regardless of how much money the jury awards, having a jury verdict that says, we've heard all the evidence and we find this statement to be false and defamatory, that has enormous value to them, as well as being able to shoulder the burden of proof and be able to prove to the world that's watching, as you said, all the different ways that this is wrong. And so it is a forum for them to get the truth out while they can hold her accountable for her lies.

[Anoushka Matandad Doughty]

I just want to talk about defamation in the U.S. this is filed in Delaware. It's a pretty high bar if you're dealing with public figures. The idea is that they open themselves up to commentary and people saying things about them, whether they're right or wrong or true or false. You have to prove actual malice. And if you guys have been listening to us for a while, you will know actual malice. We've talked, spoken about it before. But in short, you need to prove that Candace said something that she knew to be false, and she said it after she received proof that she knew it to be false. So you sent her these retraction letters that you talk about in the lawsuit. We've seen them. Can you just run me through the proof that was in those letters that says to Candace what you're saying, it's just incorrect, right?

[Tom Clare]

So what? The letters that we sent to her were designed to do multiple things. They were designed to demonstrate to her that President Mrs. Macron were directly to her denying these allegations. And so it was putting her on notice of their position relative to the falsehoods. It was also pointing Candace to things that we already knew Candace had seen earlier, sources that we know she had relied upon, incited, and that she was claiming were the foundation of some of her work, that point in exactly the opposite direction. And what she chose to do was to take those sources and cherry pick the pieces that supported what she wanted to say about the Macrones and ignored the parts that cut against them. And even some of the sources that she cited didn't believe and said that these things were false. And so it was laying all of that out for her and giving her an opportunity to do the right thing and stop saying this. And if she had done that, I'm not sure that the lawsuit would have been filed. But you talked about the legal standard. The legal standard is reckless disregard for the truth. And how do you prove recklessness? Right. You can't get in somebody's head. And the Supreme Court of the United States has recognized that nobody, no defendant gets up and raises their right hand and swears to tell the truth and say, yep, I knew it was false when I published it. And so what we have to do is we have to show the jury that she had a narrative that she disregarded things that didn't fit with that narrative, and she adopted the things that she wanted to. And we have a written record of doing it. And that's where those pre publication letters are so important. I would also add the same is true for what she's done after the lawsuit was filed. You know, a letter is a letter, right? We put her on notice, we gave her a warning, she continued to double down. She continued to make the false statements. She's gone even further over the top since the lawsuit was filed and what she said. And so that recalcitrance, that desire to continue to double down, it's not just important for the reckless disregard of the truth for the actual malice, but it also starts to help our case on punitive damages. We all like freedom of speech and we all want to make sure that we're not punishing people just for making innocent mistakes. But once you send these letters and once you have them slammed back in your face and made fun of, and once you file a lawsuit and people double down, judges and juries look at that materially differently.

[Anoushka Matandad Doughty]

You touched on it there. But what is some of the actual proof, in detail that you gave to Candace that proves that Brigitte Macron was born a biological woman?

[Tom Clare]

We don't have to lay out evidence in our letter. It is enough from a legal standpoint to deny it and to point to the facts in the public domain that demonstrate that this is false. And that's what the letter has done. So, like, for example, the scientific proof that I talked about earlier, that comes at a later stage, we don't have to put that in our letter. All we have to do is put her on notice of the falsity of her statements. And that's really the purpose of the letter. It is not intended to be a fulsome exposition of the evidence. But, for example, we cite in our letters the other news accounts that we know she was relying on because she herself cited them.

[Anoushka Matandad Doughty]

Yeah, and you're talking there about the Daily Mail article that was debunking, claimed to debunk this theory. Right. And Candace speaks about this and she says there's no debunking going on in that article. And what you have in there is the journalists say they spoke to residents of where Brigitte was brought up and they spoke about her being a little girl and getting like silver bracelets from her family. But Candace said in response to that, you want me to take the Daily Mail seriously? She said they're an unreliable source. So why shouldn't she question that journalism? Why should she take that as right? Why can't she continue to pursue this theory that she has as a, quote, independent journalist?

[Tom Clare]

Well, she's certainly entitled to pursue it if she wants to, but that's a choice that she makes to ignore the facts that cut against her theory. And she doesn't, even in the clip that you just played for your viewers. Right. She is staking her professional reputation on these things being true. So from a legal perspective, what she has done is not just investigated this and laid out the pros and cons and the evidence, but she has said, I have reached this conclusion. And that's where it lapses over into defamation. The law says that if you're going to make those allegations, you have to have proof. And the more far fetched, or in the words of the legal parlance, the more inherently implausible they are, that you need to have some evidence for it.

[Anoushka Matandad Doughty]

But in the assessment of her as a journalist there, she says she's an independent journalist. Why can't she just turn around and say, you know, this isn't actual malice. I'm not doing this to hurt them.

[Tom Clare]

Them. I mean, look, journalism has standards. Journalism has professional rigor associated with it. There are methodological standards, there are Ethical standards. There are procedural standards to try to get the truth. If she is going to wrap herself in the mantle of journalism, she needs to follow those things. And if she deviates from them, that is additional evidence that she's acting with reckless disregard. But you don't have to look any further than her merchandising this falsehood. She's selling T shirts, mocking the Macrons. How many responsible journalists do that? And this is a commercial venture for her. It is designed to bring an audience and to add clicks and to gain attention for herself and for her platform. This is not journalism that's not informing the public. And from a legal perspective, that's what, what our founding fathers in the United States recognize that defamation is for. It's the reason why we have it.

[Anoushka Matandad Doughty]

And look, before you filed this lawsuit, you sent these letters to Candace trying to get her to stop making these claims. On her podcast, she said publicly what it would take for her to stop saying this.

[Candace Owens]

And like I said, we were asking for photos from a 30 year period of Brigitte's life. We were not asking for blood. We were asking for simple answer, yes or no. Could you show us some photos of you raising your alleged children? They failed to produce that.

[Anoushka Matandad Doughty]

So outside of the bounds of filing the lawsuit in order to just get this to stop for the Macrons, why not just send those photos?

[Tom Clare]

When you're dealing with someone who has not demonstrated a level of responsibility in the way that she handles facts and evidence, handing more evidence to her versus other responsible journalists doesn't make any sense. And so we are prepared to supply all of those materials, but we're just gonna do it in open court where there are rules, where the rules of evidence apply, where there's proof, and where it can be done publicly in a way that people will see how it's presented.

[Anoushka Matandad Doughty]

So to be clear, it's not that that proof doesn't exist. You have those pictures. You have that evidence that Candace has been asking for this whole time, but you're gonna submit it in open court. Pictures of Brigitte, perhaps pregnant, raising her children. This is the stuff Candace has asked for that all exists.

[Tom Clare]

It all exists. And they're all materials that we intend to present in court so everybody can see in a forum where there are rules and where there are standards.

[Anoushka Matandad Doughty]

Now, Candace has responded to the lawsuit. Candace Owens legal team have filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit because it was filed in Delaware. They claim that court has no jurisdiction over Candace. She doesn't live there or work there. And attending that court, would she say cause her substantial financial and operational hardship. Why file in Delaware?

[Tom Clare]

Well, Delaware is got a well developed body of defamation law, and Candace and her business ventures have chosen to avail themselves of the privileges of being Delaware business entities. And so it didn't cause her a hardship to take advantage of Delaware law when she was setting up her business empire and then turn around and say, oh, well, I'm surprised and shocked that I would be hailed into court in Delaware. Obviously, President and Mrs. Macron do not live in the United States. There is no reason why they should have to travel any further than they need to in order to pursue it. And Delaware has a well developed body of defamation law and there's jurisdiction over Candace. And we trust the men and women of Delaware to adjudicate this dispute fairly and accurately.

[Anoushka Matandad Doughty]

Would you be willing to refile in Tennessee? She says this is going to cause her financial damage and maybe she won't be able to defend herself because of that. Would you be willing to refile?

[Tom Clare]

Well, look, if a court says we need to file in Tennessee, we'll take the fight to Tennessee. But I do not anticipate that happening. The thing for me that is the most telling about her motion to dismiss is just the sharp disconnect between what she says in her papers and what she said to her audience after the lawsuit was filed. Repeatedly. The only thing she has said since the lawsuit was filed is effectively, bring it on. I can't wait to get into court. I can't wait to pursue discovery. President Mrs. Macron made a huge mistake by picking this fight with me because I am ready to defend myself and what I said on the merits and I want to take discovery of them. She even went so far as to say and to predict in a really irresponsible way that Mrs. Macron was going to fake her own death to avoid the discovery. But instead, you know, she's trying to delay and obfuscate and say, well, I can't really defend myself. And so it's just another example of what she's saying on her podcast, being completely divorced from real life. And I think if I were her listeners, I would be incredibly disappointed with this response.

[Anoushka Matandad Doughty]

You speak there about discovery. That's discovery for both sides. I mean, this is not a process that leaves much left to the imagination. Your private life is often laid bare. I am assuming the Macrons are well aware of this in terms of their communications and their deposition. They're fully committed to seeing this through a hundred percent.

[Tom Clare]

I mean, this was not a step that was taken lightly. It was a step that was fully considered. And obviously subjecting yourself to discovery in the United States, which is fulsome, much more fulsome than in other parts around the world, is not something that people relish doing. But the fact that they said yes to that, yes, we stand ready to go through that discovery process. Yes, we stand ready to travel to the United States and appear in a public courtroom and explain why this is false. It just demonstrates one, their conviction in the truth. And I give them a lot of credit for this. I really do. It'd be very easy for them to say we're just going to let the lie go, but they are courageous in that regard. But it also tells you that they're not afraid. They're not afraid of that discovery. They're not afraid of the truth. If they were, they wouldn't have filed the lawsuit. And so we're looking forward to it.

[Anoushka Matandad Doughty]

This can be their communications with each other, their texts, their emails, the deposition. They can be asked any questions that Candace's lawyers feel is pertinent to the lawsuit. All of that they're willing to do.

[Tom Clare]

I mean, there are obviously limits in any lawsuit to discovery, right? We are not saying that all communications between a husband and a wife are fair game and appropriate in all communications, regardless of the topic or the issue, but on issues that bear on what we have sued on. Absolutely.

[Anoushka Matandad Doughty]

I just want to touch on the sort of through line of Candace's relationship with this theory. She talks about where she first heard about it and who she was reading or getting her information from. She references Xavier Poussad a lot. She talks about him a lot. He has a book called Becoming Brigitte, which is the title of her podcast series. Now, she holds up quite often the fact that he hasn't been sued by the Macrons as evidence that he must be saying something that is factually correct. Tom, why haven't they sued?

[Tom Clare]

Well, she is the one that has amplified this falsehood in a way that it had not existed before, certainly in the US Market. She is the one that mainstream news outlets are pointing to when they report on this false allegation. She has provided the megaphone to the falsehood. This is not uncommon where there are people who are spreading falsehoods on X or on social media in these dark corners of the Internet that nobody pays any attention to. It is a far different exercise when you have 5 million listeners and then your podcast is cited by Newsweek in the New York Post as proof that these allegations have some merit to it. And so we made a decision to sue the most impactful amplifier of this message, and that is Candace Owens.

[Anoushka Matandad Doughty]

Okay, but the Macron sued Ray and Roy as well, who had the YouTube video that only got in the. I say only got. That got in the hundreds of thousands of views, but it wasn't 5 million subscribers like Candace has. So why the distinction there?

[Tom Clare]

It's not exclusively about audience size, right? You can have someone who is spreading virulent lies in a way that is effective, in a way that's getting picked up, that does not have a huge audience. You have to pick the ones that are going to have the greatest impact, that are going to give you the opportunity to set the record straight in the most impactful way.

[Anoushka Matandad Doughty]

One thing that Candace's faces some criticism about is that she has multiple layers of theories that are on top of each other. Dan, you outlined this in the investigation that you did. You can, can see and she talks about on her podcast. There is the core theory that Brigitte Macron was born a biological male. There is also stuff in there about satanic worship. There is stuff about worshiping a satanic figure called Baphomet. There is incest allegations in there layered on top of each other, and at times presented as one through theory. That's all combined. What is to stop Candace, if you are successful and you win in Delaware from just pivoting to another theory about the Macrons and saying, actually it's this, this, and we know that she has great sway over her audience, so what's to stop her doing that and then causing a huge thing about that on social media, and then you're in the same position again. So can they ever really win this?

[Tom Clare]

You gotta pick one fight at a time, right? I mean, if she is going to undertake to pivot to a different theory and a different falsehood, we'll evaluate that. But if she has been adjudicated in a court of law to be a liar and to have been a defamer, the credibility with which anything she says after that is materially different than now. And so that's a question for a different day. What we know is that she has staked her professional reputation on this being true. And so we're gonna, we're gonna hold her to that. And if her professional reputation is adjudicated to have been a liar in this instance, then we do have faith that real news outlets that are currently paying some attention to her will stop.

[Anoushka Matandad Doughty]

One thing she's been quite committed to saying over and over again is that she thinks the nature of the relationship between Brigid Macron and Emmanuel Macron was abusive. She cites the beginning of that relationship, her being his teacher and how it came about. In the December retraction that you sent her. On page 22, you say that they did fall in love when he was 15 and she was his teacher. There are going to be questions to Brigitte Macron, I'm assuming, from Candace's lawyers about the nature of that relationship. How are you preparing her for that?

[Tom Clare]

That the number one rule that we're going to provide her is you're going to tell the truth about what happened and they've told their story many times and she is going to lay out exactly how their love story came to pass. She is the one that has distorted that truth and put it in this ugly context of an abusive relationship, a cover up, mind control fraud on the public, the CIA, all of these kind of crazy things. You know, that's her take on it and that's the part that we're suing on.

[Anoushka Matandad Doughty]

But in terms of the defamation, if Candace says, okay, you told me that they fell in love when he was 15, I believe that to be abusive, wouldn't you have to show her concrete proof that nothing outside the bounds of the law took place between Emmanuel and Brigitte in order for her to be able to then say it and it be defamatory? Because at the moment she's saying, this is what I believe. I believe this is the nature of this relationship. Isn't that her defense against the defamation?

[Tom Clare]

She's entitled to whatever opinions she wants to have about the Macrons, about their relationship, et cetera. But what she's not allowed to do is to support those opinions with false statements of fact. And those are the things that we've sued on. Right. She can say that she thinks it's abusive, like, okay, we can litigate that if we need to. But that's not really the crux of the claim. The crux of the claim or the facts that she alleges that she believes are truthful and factual that support her, you know, crazy, crazy theories.

[Anoushka Matandad Doughty]

And I just want to talk now about the people, because there are three people central to this. We hear from Candace a lot. She has her own, as we've acknowledged, large platform. But for the Macrons, what was the turning point or like the straw that broke the camel's back in terms of filing this? Was it a specific thing she said or cumulative?

[Tom Clare]

What was it the cumulative effect of the false statements actually getting resonance and traction, you know, having to go to news outlets and try to Explain why the statements that Candace Owens were making shouldn't be quoted, shouldn't be perpetuated to a broader audience. And to the extent that there was a straw that broke the camel's back, it was the response to the demand letter that gave her a chance to do the right thing. Right, just do the right thing. Stop this, say you were wrong or say something that walks back these allegations that are so hurtful and so damaging. And to double down on that, it just demonstrated to us that she was never going to stop. If that was not going to cause her to stop, then she was never going to stop. And that it has to go up a level and that this is that next level.

[Anoushka Matandad Doughty]

And has this affected the relationship between the Macrons? I mean, this is all eyes on them at the moment.

[Tom Clare]

Look, I've been doing this a long time. To have false allegations that are this harmful and this personal and this poisonous leveled at you every day to a massive audience is creates a lot of stress, it creates a lot of anxiety and a lot of hurt. But they are unified and they are strong in their resolve to do this and the support that they have for one another in the righteousness of this cause and their resolve to do this. It's a really a beautiful thing thing. But you're seeing people that are greatly injured and damaged by these falsehoods who are coming together to fight it. And so yes, it's incredibly upsetting, it is incredibly damaging for them. But from a relationship standpoint, they are together and unified in their resolve here and obviously taking the step of litigating in another country and being willing to travel across the country and expose these personal details to a public court. You have to be aligned as a married couple to do that.

[Anoushka Matandad Doughty]

Candace refutes the idea that this has caused damages to Emmanuel and Brigitte Macron. Tell me about like the real world impact for them, like the day to day impact. How are they suffering because of this? What are those damages that Candace refutes?

[Tom Clare]

So just like any other human being who has to go into the world, you have a reputation and you have sensibilities when you're a out public and they get asked about this at events. I mean, imagine going to an event and having a friend or a colleague or somebody you're just meeting for the first time want to ask you about this or even somebody who doesn't say something to you about it, right? You walk into a room of a hundred people and you have to know that there are people in that room that are wondering is this true? And what would they say about it? And, you know, can I get up close and personal and see if I can see for myself? All of these things are incredibly upsetting. And so that's why the law of defamation recognizes that damages in the reputational realm are difficult to quantify. That's why the law leaves it up to a jury to say, what is the reputation worth? What is the emotional harm that's caused by false allegations out there? And it's not always the phone that rings. People call you up and say, I, you know, I can't believe this. It's going through life knowing that people believe this. Some segment of the population believes this about you when it's false. And so even though they are in a very public position, they are also human beings that have the same reputation and the same entitlement to the peace of mind as anybody else.

[Anoushka Matandad Doughty]

And you talk about events. Is there a specific event that they attended where they experienced this that changed things for them?

[Tom Clare]

We'll certainly have. As we get into discovery and as we get into the presentation of evidence at trial, we certainly will have specific examples that we'll put forward.

[Anoushka Matandad Doughty]

At the start of this, you said that Brigitte would be willing to give specific scientific evidence as part of this trial to counter these claims. How does she feel about that on a personal level? That's deeply, deeply personal stuff. What's her emotions like when she talks about this?

[Tom Clare]

I mean, it's obviously awful. It is incredibly upsetting to think that you have to go and subject yourself to put this type of proof forward. It's not something that she is looking forward to or wants to do for exactly those reasons. It's not something that I have to do in my life. It's not something that you have to do in your life. It is a process that she will have to subject herself to in a very public way. But she's willing to do it. She is firmly resolved to do what it takes to set the record straight. And if that unpleasantness and that discomfort that she has of opening herself up in that way is what it takes to set the record straight and stop this, she's 100% ready to meet that burden. And those are all things that were talked about and decided before we launched the.

[Anoushka Matandad Doughty]

And you spoke there about how this has impacted them in terms of going to events and just emotional distress as well. What about impacting Emmanuel Macron's ability to do his job?

[Tom Clare]

No, I mean, it's obviously just. As anyone who has a career and is also being subjected to defamatory falsehoods in their personal life. It is a distraction. It is upsetting. He has great love and affection for his wife who has been subjected to this. You know, obviously, I think he's an incredibly talented and capable person who is able to do his job effectively and keep his attention focused on the affairs of state. So I don't want to suggest that it, you know, somehow has thrown him off his game. But just like anybody who is juggling a career and a family life as well, when your family is under attack, it wears on you. And, you know, he's not immune from that because he's the president of guns.

[Anoushka Matandad Doughty]

Dan? Tom, thank you so much for joining me today and walking me through all of that. Can I just ask what the next steps are for you both in terms of this? Do you respond to the motion to dismiss?

[Tom Clare]

Yes. So we have some time to decide how we're going to respond to it. We have two options to respond. We will either address the jurisdictional deficiencies that she claims exist and we'll argue why Delaware is the appropriate forum and kind of get this jurisdictional issue behind us. We'll probably have to confront that at some point along the way anyway. But we also procedurally have the option to amend the complaint. There's been a lot of things that have occurred since we filed the original complaint. We have a lot of new statements by Candace. We have a lot additional evidence of her reckless disregard for the truth. And this is an opportunity that the court allows us to amend the complaint. And so we are weighing those two options right now. And we'll be responding sometime before the deadline, which I believe is about 10 days from from now.

[Anoushka Matandad Doughty]

Dan, thank you so much for joining me today.

[Dan Nardello]

Thanks for having me, Tom.

[Anoushka Matandad Doughty]

Thank you.

[Tom Clare]

It was a real privilege to be here. Thank you so much.

[Anoushka Matandad Doughty]

That was the Macron's lawyer, Tom Clare, and corporate investigator Dan Nardello. We approached Candace Owens legal team for a comment. We will let you know next week if we get a response. Now, she has previously said that she believes what she is saying is true and there is nothing more American than free speech and the ability to criticize. Now, don't forget, you can get in touch with us on what the WhatsApp at 03306-78114. That's 03306-78-1114. Let us know your questions or thoughts on who we should be talking about next. That's it for this episode of Fame Under Fire from BBC Sounds with me, Anushka Mutanda Doughty. It's not funny.

[Candace Owens]

It's true.

[Anoushka Matandad Doughty]

Lily Allen and Makita Oliver Keats, I've got some questions for you, BBC Sounds. Tell me what you've enjoyed about our podcast so far. I like that you've got more and more comfortable in this space and I've watched you show all parts of yourself. We've both cried. Miss me With Lily Allen and Makita Oliver, we're just us having a chat. Feels like we've been doing it forever. We kind of have. Listen on BBC Sounds.

[Grainger Advertiser]

This is the story of the One. As head of maintenance at a concert hall, he knows the show must always go on. That's why he works behind the scenes, ensuring every light is working, the H Vac is humming, and his facility shines with Grainger's supplies and solutions for every challenge he faces. Plus 24. 7 customer support. His venue never misses a beat. Call quickgranger.com or just stop by Grainger for the ones who get it done.

[Tom Clare]

You're listening to Leaffilter Radio and the guru of gutter protection himself, Chris Counahan is here to take your most pressing leaf related questions. Hey everybody, Chris here. I understand we have Ron on the line. Ron, where are you calling from? Uh oh, Ron, are you calling from a ladder? Well, I was. I wanted to ask Chris what I need to do to get my gutters ready to have Leaffilter installed. Oh, Ron, you don't have to do anything. A Leaffilter trusted pro will come out and clean out your gutters, realign and seal your gutters and install Leaffer Filter, America's number one gutter protection system. So I didn't need to get on this ladder. Ron, Leaffilter trusted pros are in your neighborhood and ready to help. Just visit leaffilter.comday to schedule your free gutter inspection and get up to 30% off. Thank goodness. What was that site? That's leaffilter.com day for your free gutter inspection today. See representative for warranty details. Promotion is 20% off plus a 10% senior or military discount. One discount per household.