Candace Owens Faces Two Defamation Suits With No End in Sight

Candace Owens, conservative podcaster and founder of an independent media operation reaching tens of millions of subscribers, is fighting two active defamation lawsuits in 2026. The first was filed by French President Emmanuel Macron and First Lady Brigitte Macron in Delaware Superior Court in July 2025, targeting a conspiracy theory Owens promoted claiming Brigitte Macron was born male. The second was filed in April 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee by Brian Harpole, the former head of security for Charlie Kirk, over Owens’ claims that Harpole conspired in Kirk’s assassination.

Neither case has produced a ruling against Owens. Both are active and advancing through federal and state courts. Owens has shown no sign of backing down publicly in either matter.

Candace Owens Lawsuit Timeline and Updates

Early 2024 — Owens Begins Promoting Brigitte Macron Conspiracy Theory

Owens begins circulating a debunked conspiracy theory claiming that Brigitte Macron, France’s First Lady, was born male. The claim originates from anonymous online posts, manipulated photographs, and a French blog. The theory is not new. It emerged in France in 2021 and was repeatedly refuted. The individual named in the theory, Jean-Michel Trogneux, is actually Brigitte Macron’s brother, not a former identity of Brigitte herself.

Owens does not present verified evidence. She nonetheless amplifies the claim repeatedly and publicly commits to it. She says she will “stake my entire professional reputation” on the allegation.

2024 — “Becoming Brigitte” Series Launches on YouTube

Owens produces an eight-part video series titled “Becoming Brigitte” for her YouTube channel, which at the time approaches 4.5 million subscribers. The series is built around the conspiracy theory about Brigitte Macron’s gender identity. The Macrons’ later complaint alleges Owens aggressively monetized the series. This is a critical element of their legal strategy: proving that the false statements were not merely negligent, but commercially driven.

December 2024 — Macrons Send Retraction Demand

The Macrons’ legal team, represented by Clare Locke LLP, the Washington, D.C. firm that extracted a $787.5 million settlement from Fox News on behalf of Dominion Voting Systems, sends Owens a detailed retraction demand letter. The letter purports to conclusively disprove the gender identity conspiracy theory. Follow-up emails are sent December 18, 2024, and January 8, 2025. Owens does not respond to any of them.

July 23, 2025 — Macrons File 219-Count Suit in Delaware

Emmanuel and Brigitte Macron file a 219-page complaint in Delaware Superior Court. The suit names three defendants: Candace Owens personally, Candace Owens LLC (her Delaware-incorporated business managing social media revenue and advertising), and Georgetom Inc. The complaint asserts 22 counts of defamation and false light invasion of privacy.

The choice of Delaware raises immediate controversy. Owens lives in Tennessee. The Macrons are French. Owens’ legal team frames the filing as “quintessential libel tourism,” arguing the Macrons selected Delaware to sidestep France’s strict 90-day statute of limitations on defamation claims. Owens responds publicly on her podcast: “I wake up, I stretch, I have a cup of coffee, and then I am served with a lawsuit.”

September 2025 — Owens Fights Back in Court and on Air

On September 12, 2025, Owens files a 43-page motion to dismiss the Macron complaint. She argues three grounds: lack of personal jurisdiction over her in Delaware, expiration of France’s statute of limitations as the applicable limitation period, and the doctrine of forum non conveniens, which courts may invoke when a case has little connection to the chosen forum.

The same month, Owens launches a second season of “Becoming Brigitte.” The Macrons respond by filing an amended complaint, adding the new content as further evidence of ongoing defamation.

September 10, 2025 — Charlie Kirk Assassinated at Utah Valley University

Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA and one of the most prominent figures in conservative media, is fatally shot at Utah Valley University in Orem, Utah. A gunman named Tyler Robinson is identified as the perpetrator. Law enforcement investigation concludes Robinson acted alone.

Brian Harpole, founder of Integrity Security Solutions, had provided security services for Turning Point USA and for Kirk personally from 2022 through 2025. Integrity Solutions provided security at the Utah Valley University event where Kirk was killed.

October to November 2025 — Owens Begins Kirk Conspiracy Coverage

Shortly after the assassination, Owens begins producing podcast and social media content suggesting Kirk was betrayed by people close to him, that the government orchestrated a cover-up, that Turning Point USA was implicated, and that someone other than Tyler Robinson was involved in the murder.

By November 2025, Owens is specifically targeting Harpole by name. On November 18, she accuses Harpole of lying about drone availability at the Utah Valley event, questions how rooftops were left unsecured, and calls for Harpole to be fired. On November 19, she repeats the drone allegation.

December 2025 — Owens Escalates to Fort Huachuca Conspiracy Claims

On December 8, 2025, Owens says she receives a “credible” tip from a source she initially identifies as “Harry Meyers,” later identified as Mitchell Snow, a former military member. Snow claims he witnessed Harpole at Fort Huachuca, a U.S. Army installation in Arizona, the day before Kirk’s assassination. The allegation implies Harpole attended a secret military meeting to coordinate the killing.

Owens runs with the claim immediately. Between December 9 and December 28, 2025, she publishes at least eight separate statements on X and through her podcast, alleging Harpole attended the Fort Huachuca meeting and colluded with the government in Kirk’s assassination.

What matters here: Harpole’s own flight records place him in Dallas, Texas, on September 9, 2025. Owens reviews those records. She acknowledges them in her December 19 podcast, and then continues making the Fort Huachuca claim anyway. The complaint quotes her saying she found Snow’s narrative “compelling” because it was “entirely possible” Harpole could have made it to the meeting based on travel logs, even as those logs placed him elsewhere.

On December 17, 2025, apparently anticipating legal action, Owens contacts Harpole via text asking if he wants an “off the record discussion.” Harpole does not respond. Owens uses his silence as further material for her podcast, framing it as suspicious behavior.

January 2026 — French Cyberbullying Convictions; Owens Continues

A Paris court convicts 10 people for cyberbullying related to social media posts questioning Brigitte Macron’s gender identity. Sentences range from an eight-month suspended prison term to mandatory online harassment education. The convictions are separate from the Macrons’ civil case against Owens in Delaware.

A French appeals court, in a different but related case, overturns an earlier ruling, finding that stating someone had changed gender did not meet the French legal threshold for an attack on honor. That case moves to France’s highest court. Owens seizes on the appeals outcome, posting that the headlines are “written in a way to deceive the public” and that the ruling does not establish Brigitte Macron proved she is a woman.

On January 8, 2026, Owens makes five additional statements on her podcast targeting Harpole, including allegations that there was no security plan at a separate Kirk event, that Harpole was “planning things you’re not supposed to be planning,” and questioning why Harpole’s team failed to coordinate with local police for events after Utah Valley University.

April 30, 2026 — Harpole Files Defamation Suit in Federal Court

Brian Harpole files a defamation complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee against Candace Owens and Mitchell Snow. The complaint documents at least 13 specific statements Owens made between October 2025 and January 2026, across X and her podcast, accusing Harpole of foreknowledge of Kirk’s assassination, participation in the killing, and criminal negligence.

The complaint seeks more than $75,000 in damages, the jurisdictional minimum to bring a diversity case in federal court. Actual claimed damages for lost clients, reputational harm, and emotional distress could substantially exceed that threshold. Punitive damages are possible if the court finds Owens acted with actual malice. Under New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, actual malice requires proving the defendant knew the statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for its truth or falsity. The complaint argues both standards are met: Owens had Harpole’s flight records showing he was not at Fort Huachuca, acknowledged them, and continued publishing the claim.

What the Macron Complaint Alleges

The 219-page Delaware complaint is built around a straightforward defamation theory: Owens made false statements of fact, presented them as true, monetized them aggressively, refused to retract them when confronted with contradicting evidence, and continued producing new content expanding on the original claims even after being sued.

The 22 counts include defamation per se, meaning statements so inherently harmful that damage is presumed without specific proof. Claiming a person has a different gender identity than their actual identity, in a way that causes public humiliation and professional harm, qualifies under this standard in many U.S. jurisdictions.

The Macrons also assert false light invasion of privacy, which is a tort distinct from defamation. False light claims address statements that, even if not technically defamatory, create a false and highly offensive impression of the plaintiff in the minds of reasonable people. The theory applies squarely to a sustained media campaign built on a fabricated personal narrative.

Clare Locke, the plaintiffs’ law firm, secured a $787.5 million settlement from Fox News in the Dominion Voting Systems case. That firm’s involvement signals the Macrons are prepared for a long and expensive legal fight and are not seeking a symbolic outcome.

What the Harpole Complaint Alleges

The Harpole complaint is a direct defamation and false light action rooted in a documented pattern: Owens published specific factual claims about a named private citizen that she either knew to be false or continued publishing after receiving contradicting evidence.

The core accusations Owens made are extreme. Accusing someone of conspiring to murder a public figure, attending secret military meetings to plan an assassination, and lying to cover up a killing constitute allegations of serious criminal conduct. Under defamation law, accusations of criminal behavior are treated as defamation per se — meaning the accusation itself is presumed harmful without requiring proof of specific monetary loss.

The actual malice argument is the strongest part of Harpole’s case. If a court accepts that Owens reviewed his flight records showing he was in Dallas on September 9, acknowledged in her podcast that the records exist, and then continued making the Fort Huachuca claim anyway, the reckless disregard standard becomes very difficult for her to defeat. That is not speculation or rhetorical excess; that is a specific factual claim contradicted by documents the speaker admits she reviewed.

Owens’ Legal History Before These Cases

The current lawsuits are not Owens’ first encounters with defamation litigation, though her prior history does not work against her directly. She previously filed suit against USA Today and the fact-checking outlet Lead Stories after those organizations labeled her COVID-19 claims false and Facebook flagged them as misinformation. A Delaware court dismissed that case in July 2021. A refiling in 2024 was dismissed as well.

In December 2022, a Tennessee court dismissed a $20 million defamation lawsuit filed against Owens by Republican congressional candidate Kim Klacik, who alleged Owens defamed her by suggesting she had worked as a stripper. The dismissal was with prejudice.

Both earlier cases resolved without findings of wrongdoing against Owens. The current cases are structurally different. In the Macron case, Owens is the defendant, not the plaintiff, facing a law firm with the institutional firepower and resources to pursue the case through trial if necessary. In the Harpole case, the factual record — particularly the flight records she reviewed and then disregarded — presents a more difficult legal position than her prior encounters with defamation litigation.

The Delaware Jurisdiction Fight in the Macron Case

The most immediate legal battleground in the Macron case is jurisdiction. Owens’ team argues Delaware has no meaningful connection to the dispute. Owens lives in Tennessee. The Macrons are French. The statements were made and published from the United States.

The Macrons’ counter is straightforward: Candace Owens LLC is a Delaware corporation. That corporate connection gives Delaware courts personal jurisdiction over the entity. The question for the court is whether that corporate registration justifies exercising jurisdiction over the individual, Owens herself, and over claims arising from her podcast and social media activity.

Owens’ lawyers also argue the Macrons chose Delaware specifically to escape France’s 90-day defamation statute of limitations, a doctrine courts call libel tourism. Delaware courts have discretion to decline cases under forum non conveniens when a more appropriate forum exists. The motion to dismiss on these grounds has not been ruled on as of April 2026.

What This Lawsuit Teaches Consumers

The Candace Owens defamation cases illustrate a legal risk that has expanded significantly in the era of independent media. The controversy-as-currency model — producing provocative content to drive engagement, subscriptions, and ad revenue — works as a business strategy until it runs into a plaintiff with the resources and legal standing to fight it in court.

Most defamation targets lack those resources. Brian Harpole and the Macrons do not. The Macrons retained Clare Locke, the same firm that made Fox News pay nearly $800 million. Harpole has a documented evidentiary record that his attorney is using to establish actual malice directly from Owens’ own public statements.

The pattern across both cases is the same. Owens received contradicting evidence, acknowledged it, and continued publishing the original claim. In defamation law, that is not protected opinion. That is not hyperbole or rhetorical excess. It is a specific factual assertion maintained in the face of known contradicting facts. Courts have consistently found that standard meets actual malice.

For anyone operating in independent media, the lesson is structural: building a media brand on explosive factual claims about named private individuals is a different legal risk than criticizing public policy or public officials. Harpole is not a politician. He is a private security contractor. Private individuals have lower bars to clear in defamation claims than public figures do. Whether Owens’ legal strategy can survive two simultaneous defamation suits, one backed by the firm that broke Fox News, will play out in courts over the next one to two years.

Learn about why Affirm Sued Over Hidden Fees.