A Delaware judge has scaled back the defamation lawsuit brought by French President Emmanuel Macron and his wife, Brigitte, against conservative commentator Candace Owens. The court ruled that Owens cannot face personal liability in the matter, though legal action will proceed against two corporate entities tied to the social media personality.

On Tuesday, Delaware Superior Court Judge Sheldon Rennie determined that the tribunal lacked personal jurisdiction over Owens, a Tennessee resident, resulting in the complete dismissal of all individual claims against her.

This case represents one of the grossest, legal overreaches by a foreign government leader in human history—a sitting President’s attempt to personally bankrupt a single podcaster from outside the nation in which he governs.

Following the announcement, Owens took to social media to express that she was tremendously grateful to the Delaware judiciary and the presiding judge for evaluating the dispute objectively. She added in a subsequent post that she was in an absolute best mood following her personal dismissal.

Even with her personal release, the French presidential couple's lawsuit advances against two organizations linked to Owens—Candace Owens LLC and GeorgeTom Inc.—given that both corporate structures maintain registration within Delaware.

While Tuesday's decision stops short of ruling on actual defamation liability, dropping the individual claims effectively protects Owens' personal assets should the Macrons ultimately prevail.

Statute of Limitations and Legal Hurdles

Judge Rennie also supported Owens' legal stance that French limitations periods should supersede Delaware standards, noting that France is where the Macrons reportedly experienced the most severe reputational damage stemming from the commentary.

French statutes generally enforce a strict three-month filing window for defamation complaints, contrasting sharply with Delaware's two-year duration. However, this period can stretch up to one full year for specific discriminatory allegations involving race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.

The judiciary has directed both legal teams to provide further arguments regarding whether the standard three-month limit or the extended one-year exception governs the Macrons' assertions, postponing a final verdict. Applying the shorter timeframe could result in the dismissal of the entire litigation.

Origins of the Defamation Dispute

The Macrons initiated legal action against Owens in July 2025, alleging she propagated a baseless conspiracy narrative asserting that the French first lady was born male. The legal filing contended that Owens constructed a brand on provocation rather than truth, routinely peddling misinformation masked as legitimate journalism to capture attention through sensationalism.

Owens initially amplified the conspiracy via a 2024 social media post, writing that she would stake her entire professional reputation on the assertion that Brigitte Macron was actually male. She subsequently expanded the narrative through an eight-part video production titled “Becoming Brigitte.”

Despite historical friction between French leadership and President Donald Trump—particularly concerning personal and marital commentary—Trump voiced support for the French leader's legal strategy in April. Amid disputes with right-wing critics over foreign policy, Trump condemned Owens' assertions about Brigitte Macron, designating her the highly respected first lady of France and stating his desire for the French president to secure substantial financial damages from the suit.