Candace Owens, one of America’s most popular podcasters, political and cultural commentators and an author of several books, says she is in a festive frame of mind, after a Delaware judge deleted her as a defendant in a high-profile defamation lawsuit filed by Emmanuel Macron, the President of France and his wife, Brigitte.
According to a story by Morning Honey, Superior Court Judge Sheldon K. Rennie delivered the order on Tuesday, October 27. The outspoken Owens told her followers how she felt.
“I am in the absolute best mood over this Macron dismissal. Feels like a year and a half of my family having to deal with psychotic lies regarding pending bankruptcies, secret accounts and plans to flee the country, has finally come to end,” Owens posted on X.
“I believe it is worth again noting that the couple is NOT and has never sued anyone for matters pertaining to sex, sexual orientation, or gender (despite intentional media misrepresentations),” Owens wrote on X. “But rather for defamation related to claims regarding MK Ultra and theft. You are free to read their initial filing against me yourself.”
The case with the Macrons, which drew international attention, including the French press, was even taken up by none other than President Donald Trump himself, according to Owens, who spoke about it in one of her YouTube posts. According to Owens, Trump called her up to try to dissuade her from talking about the Macrons.
“Pick up the phone, and lo and behold, ‘I’m negotiating this thing… I’m negotiating Ukraine and Russia and you wouldn’t believe how many parts,” Owens mimicked Trump’s style of speech in the video. “It’s President Donald J. Trump! He is calling me and in true President Trump fashion he jumps right into the narrative.”
I am in the absolute best mood over this Macron dismissal. Feels like a year and a half of my family having to deal with psychotic lies regarding pending bankruptcies, secret accounts and plans to flee the country, has finally come to end. For those of you wondering what happens now with the case, here is a synopsis: You will note the Macrons additionally named two other business entities in their lawsuit: Candace Owens LLC and GeorgeTom Inc. They admitted in our hearing that they were unsure if one or both of these entities housed the podcast and that they would need limited discovery to determine how those businesses run and who runs them. As it turns out, one of the above mentioned entities has absolutely nothing to do with the podcast in any way, shape, or form, so it will be a legal exercise in futility for the couple. In effect, that leaves just one entity. In addition to my personal dismissal, the court also decided in favor of our argument that France’s defamation law should apply. Let me explain to you why that decision deeply impacts matters and was a major point of legal contention; France’s defamation law has a statute of limitation of just 3 months. This means defamation claims time out very quickly. We argued the Macron couple was intentionally forum shopping because being held to France’s 3 months would have naturally expired their claims. We included a briefing from a French legal expert explaining French defamation law. The Macrons did not submit a briefing to counter our arguments, but during oral arguments they suggested that France has a unique statutory law that could, in theory, extend claims up to one year IF the defamation claim pertains to an individual’s sexual orientation or gender. Before ruling on the dismissal pertaining to the remaining entities, the judge is allowing for the Macron couple to submit a supplemental brief, arguing why they believe this case could meet that threshold In his response (see below), the Judge has duly noted our legal expert’s notation that in parallel cases filed by the Presidential couple against other journalists in France, the couple sued under France’s 3 month defamation rule—not the one year statutory. I believe it is worth again noting that the couple is NOT and has never sued anyone for matters pertaining to sex, sexual orientation, or gender (despite intentional media misrepresentations), but rather for defamation related to claims regarding MK Ultra and theft. You are free to read their initial filing against me yourself. So what happens now is the remaining entities and the Macrons submit additional briefings regarding French law and statutes. The judge will then rule on the lingering dismissals.
— Candace Owens (@RealCandaceO) October 28, 2026
Still, Owens refused to drop her case against the Macrons, because she said she has a strong case against them.
According to the Morning Honey story, Rennie ruled that his court had no power over Owens personally because she resides in Tennessee. The court threw out every claim aimed at her as an individual.
Rennie’s motion to dismiss in Macron v. Owens made two arguments. She said she made the statements from Tennessee, and she called the complaint “libel tourism” because the plaintiffs are French citizens.
The firm representing the Macrons, Clare Locke, said they welcomed the decision to keep the claims against Owens’ companies alive.
They wrote that they are “keeping all options open to ensure that, in addition to the liability she still faces through her companies, she is held accountable personally.”
In July 2025, the Macrons filed their lawsuit in July 2025, contending defamation and false light. They described a “campaign of global humiliation” built on the false claim that Brigitte was born male, and said Owens used it to grow her platform and make money.
Save and Share This Catholic Patriotic Minute!
