Fame Under Fire: Macron vs. Candace Owens Lawsuit – Detailed Summary

Episode Release Date: July 31, 2025
Podcast: Fame Under Fire
Host: Anoushka Mutanda-Dougherty
Produced by BBC Sounds

Introduction

In this compelling episode of Fame Under Fire, host Anoushka Mutanda-Dougherty delves into high-profile controversies involving celebrities and public figures. The primary focus centers on two major cases: Candace Owens' defamation lawsuit against France's First Lady, Brigitte Macron, and Blake Lively's deposition in her own lawsuit against co-star Justin Baldoni. Additionally, the episode touches upon Sydney Sweeney's contentious American Eagle advertisement and its ensuing public backlash.

Sydney Sweeney’s American Eagle Advertisement Controversy

Timeline: [00:51] – [06:42]

The episode opens with a discussion on Sydney Sweeney's latest American Eagle jeans advertisement, which has stirred significant online debate. The ad features Sweeney prominently and includes subtle references that many interpret as nods to eugenics—a discredited belief system advocating for the improvement of human genetics through selective breeding.

Candace Owens' Perspective: Candace Owens criticizes the advertisement, stating:

"It's diabolical copy in this political climate. Let's talk about that American eagle, Sydney Sweeney ad and eugenicist dog whistles. We can't keep pretending that media and marketing exist in a vacuum..."
[02:15]

Host’s Analysis: Anoushka highlights the play on words between "genes" and "jeans," noting that despite partial profits supporting domestic abuse survivors, the campaign's overtones can be offensive to many. She explains:

"...Sydney Sweeney is a Caucasian woman who typifies Western beauty standards. The use of the word genes has historically been the language of eugenics..."
[03:45]

Expert Insights:

Molly McPherson, PR and crisis manager, offers that the campaign’s intention was to generate conversation and viral marketing:

"...when no one flags something like that, it has an intentionality that is so obvious. We're talking about it right now. People are talking about it online..."
[04:18]

Legal Implications:

Sean Kent, a criminal defense attorney, discusses the potential for litigation:

"They could try. But is it going to go anywhere? No. Lawsuits require proof of damages, and this ad, while offensive to some, hasn’t caused specific harm that meets legal thresholds."
[05:06]

Despite the backlash, American Eagle has not retracted the ad, leaving it up as it continues to drive conversation.

Candace Owens vs. Brigitte Macron: A Defamation Lawsuit

Timeline: [06:42] – [14:50]

The spotlight shifts to Candace Owens, a right-wing political commentator, who has made explosive claims about Brigitte Macron, France's First Lady. Owens alleges that Macron was biologically male named Jean Michel Trogneau—a claim that conflates Brigitte with her brother of the same name.

Background: These allegations gained traction after a journalist, Natasha Ray, appeared in a now-deleted interview with spiritualist Amadine Roy, which was viewed approximately 450,000 times before removal. Brigitte Macron successfully sued both Ray and Roy for defamation, securing a favorable verdict, which was later overturned by a French appeals court. The case is escalating to a higher judicial authority.

Candace Owens' Allegations: Owens expands her claims in a podcast series titled "Becoming Brigitte", implicating the Macron family in various conspiracies, including allegations of being part of an elite group practicing homosexuality, pedophilia, and worshiping a transgender deity.

Legal Strategy and PR Management:

Molly McPherson explains the Macron family's decision to sue Owens:

"...they are going against a personality who is struggling reputationally in the US. She's almost a good target to win a case like this..."
[08:31]

First Amendment Protections:

Sean Kent elaborates on the challenges in defamation lawsuits involving public figures in the U.S.:

"...to sue a public official like Candace or like the president or anybody of that, you must prove actual malice. You must prove falsity and that you knew it was false or recklessly disregarded the truth..."
[10:33]

He references the landmark case New York Times vs. Sullivan to underscore the high burden of proof required to establish defamation against a public figure.

Host’s Commentary: Anoushka reviews the exhaustive 200+ page lawsuit filed in Delaware, which includes:

• Photographic Evidence: Photos of a young Brigitte alongside her brother.
• Journalistic Confirmation: Media outlets confirming the distinct identities of Brigitte and Jean Michel.
• Brigitte Macron’s Reactions: Official retraction requests sent to Owens, which were allegedly ignored.

Sean Kent’s Insights: Kent discusses the possibility of punitive damages if Owens is found to have acted with actual malice, drawing parallels to Alex Jones’ legal battles:

"...if they can prove actual malice, you can see billions with a B because of the punitive dam aspect."
[13:29]

Candace Owens’ Reaction: Owens counters in her podcast:

"If you need any more evidence that Brigitte Macron is definitely a man, it is just what is happening right now. The idea that you would file this lawsuit is all of the proof that you need."
[14:50]

Host’s Analysis: Anoushka highlights the aggressive stance Owens has taken, including her previous encouragement for the Macrons to sue, indicating a relentless pursuit that could undermine her legal standing.

Blake Lively’s Deposition in the Justin Baldoni Lawsuit

Timeline: [14:50] – [22:49]

The episode transitions to Blake Lively, who is in the midst of a lawsuit against her co-star and producer, Justin Baldoni, along with his production company, Wayfarer Studios, charging sexual harassment, retaliation, breach of contract, and defamation.

Allegations: Lively accuses Baldoni of creating an unprofessional and hostile work environment, citing specific incidents such as:

• Unchoreographed Intimacy: Baldoni allegedly inserted unscripted physical acts like biting and sucking on her lower lip during a kissing scene.
• Unplanned Sex Scenes: Incorporation of unscripted sex scenes in flashbacks without proper choreography.

Expert Commentary:

Molly McPherson discusses the reputational strategies:

"...this case has been so incredibly damaging for Blake Lively and her husband, Ryan Reynolds. It is a case of two people who will not stop digging and they are looking for any type of out or blame shifting..."
[17:09]

Sean Kent explains the potential fallout from the deposition:

"...the deposition is going to be a big deal. And then later, at some point, those depositions will be released for the public."
[19:53]

Astroturfing Claims: Lively alleges an untraceable smear campaign, including tactics like starting Reddit forums to sway public opinion.

Molly McPherson critiques these claims:

"...it's incredibly difficult to prove in court. But what Blake Lively's side is missing is that she did not have a lot of reputational goodwill to begin with..."
[18:15]

Legal and Reputational Impact:

Discussing the sexual harassment claims, Sean Kent warns that:

"...the stronger the sexual harassment allegations are, the harder we're going to go after you on the reputational damages... this deposition is going to be a big deal."
[21:33]

He emphasizes that Blake Lively's reputation is already vulnerable, and the upcoming deposition could further damage her public image.

Conclusion

Host Anoushka Mutanda-Doughty wraps up the episode by underscoring the gravity of the cases discussed. She emphasizes the ongoing nature of these legal battles and commits to providing updates as new information, such as Blake Lively's deposition, becomes available. Anoushka encourages listeners to subscribe and engage with the podcast for continued coverage on similar high-stakes fame-related controversies.

Key Takeaways

• Defamation Lawsuits with Public Figures: The episode elucidates the complex legal landscape surrounding defamation claims against public figures, highlighting the stringent requirements for proving actual malice in the U.S. legal system.

• Impact of Public Backlash on Advertising: Sydney Sweeney's American Eagle ad serves as a case study on how advertising can inadvertently or intentionally provoke significant public discourse and potential reputational damage.

• Legal and Reputational Strategies in High-Profile Cases: Through insights from legal and PR experts, the episode demonstrates how strategic litigation and public relations maneuvers interplay in shaping public perception during scandals.

• The Role of Media and Social Platforms: The discussions reveal the potent influence of social media and online forums in magnifying controversies, often complicating the legal and reputational outcomes for those involved.

Notable Quotes:

• Candace Owens on the American Eagle ad:
  "It's diabolical copy in this political climate. Let's talk about that American eagle, Sydney Sweeney ad and eugenicist dog whistles."
  [02:15]

• Sean Kent on Defamation Standards:
  "To sue a public official like Candace or like the president or anybody of that, you must prove actual malice. You must prove falsity and that you knew it was false or recklessly disregarded the truth."
  [10:33]

• Molly McPherson on Astroturfing Claims:
  "It's incredibly difficult to prove in court. But what Blake Lively's side is missing is that she did not have a lot of reputational goodwill to begin with."
  [18:15]

• Candace Owens Responding to Lawsuit:
  "If you need any more evidence that Brigitte Macron is definitely a man, it is just what is happening right now. The idea that you would file this lawsuit is all of the proof that you need."
  [14:50]

This episode offers a comprehensive exploration of the tangled web of fame, legal battles, and media influence, providing listeners with a nuanced understanding of how public figures navigate crises and the relentless pursuit of truth in the modern age.