Can Candace Owens force Brigitte Macron to take a medical exam? Short answer: No—at least not automatically
The most important correction first: despite viral headlines, U.S. courts do not automatically order medical exams in defamation cases. Any physical exam would require a judge’s approval and a high legal bar. And those splashy “Daily Mail” quotes about Owens “coming for” Brigitte Macron’s medical records? We couldn’t verify them.
Now the twist: the Macrons say they are ready to present “photographic and scientific” evidence in a U.S. court to rebut the claims—a rare, high-stakes move that could make this case a global test of truth, privacy, and free speech.
The big correction: what discovery can—and can’t—do
- Discovery is not a free-for-all. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35, a court may order a physical or medical examination only when a person’s physical condition is “in controversy” and for “good cause.” That requires a judge’s order. It is uncommon in defamation cases. Source: Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute (Rule 35) https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_35
- So the claim that Brigitte Macron “will need” to sit for a third‑party medical exam as part of “court‑mandated discovery” is misleading. It’s not automatic, and there’s no such order on the docket at this time.
What’s verified about the lawsuit
- The case is real and filed in Delaware on July 23, 2025: “EMMANUEL MACRON v. CANDACE OWENS, et al.” (defamation). Docket: N25C‑07‑194 https://courtconnect.courts.delaware.gov/cc/cconnect/ck_public_qry_doct.cp_dktrpt_docket_report?backto=P&begin_date=&case_id=N25C-07-194&end_date=
- Tom Clare of Clare Locke LLP represents the Macrons. Multiple outlets quote him on the case. https://www.cnbc.com/2025/07/23/france-macron-brigitte-candace-owens-defamation-transgender-lawsuit.html
- Owens’ team has moved to dismiss/challenge jurisdiction. The case remains in early stages. https://www.thepinknews.com/2025/09/18/brigitte-macron-trans-case-candace-owens/
What the Macrons say they’ll present
- Their lawyer says they will bring “photographic and scientific” evidence—including photos of Brigitte Macron pregnant or with her children—and expert testimony “scientific in nature.” Reported across mainstream outlets and said on the BBC’s Fame Under Fire podcast.
- Clare also described the claims as “extremely upsetting” and a “distraction,” comments echoed across outlets. https://www.thepinknews.com/2025/09/18/brigitte-macron-trans-case-candace-owens/
What Owens actually said—and what we can’t confirm
- Unverified: We could not find the specific Daily Mail interview quoting Owens as saying “We’re going to demand Brigitte sit down for an exam with an independent doctor… We’re coming for her medical records… This isn’t France, this is America.” No reliable archive or reprint surfaced.
- Related but different: Owens did use medical-test rhetoric publicly. In a video reacting to the suit, she said, “I’ll send my doctors to take your blood,” and talked about discovery—but that’s not the same as a legal filing or a court order. https://www.thepinknews.com/2025/07/24/candace-owens-brigitte-macron-lawsuit-trans/
- A statement from Owens’ camp used similar “this is America, not France” language to argue free-speech points, reported by CNBC, but it did not promise a court‑compelled exam. https://www.cnbc.com/2025/07/23/france-macron-brigitte-candace-owens-defamation-transgender-lawsuit.html
How we got here: the claim’s path from fringe to courtroom
- The “Brigitte is a man” conspiracy percolated in 2021 via the far‑right French newsletter Faits & Documents, then exploded after a four-hour YouTube interview on December 10, 2021, by Amandine Roy with blogger Natacha Rey.
- Snopes review: https://www.snopes.com/news/2024/06/10/brigitte-macron-not-trans/
- Additional context: https://infos.rtl.lu/actu/fact-check/a/2279185.html
- French courts initially convicted Roy and Rey of defamation (September 2024), but on July 10, 2025, the Paris Court of Appeal overturned those convictions on freedom‑of‑expression/good‑faith grounds. The Macrons are appealing to the Cour de cassation. https://www.rfi.fr/en/france/20240913-two-women-found-guilty-of-false-transgender-claims-against-france-s-first-lady-brigitte-macron
Smaller but important fixes
- The original article says Brigitte Macron’s first husband “died a recluse in 2020.” Correct date: André‑Louis Auzière died on December 24, 2019. The death became public in October 2020. https://www.tellerreport.com/news/2020-10-16-the-discreet-death-of-brigitte-macron-s-first-husband—her-daughter-announces-it-ten-months-later.Hk4AdmP8Dw.html
- The complaint length is reported as 218 or 219 pages depending on outlet, a trivial discrepancy that doesn’t change the substance. Example report: https://www.wsls.com/news/world/2025/07/24/frances-first-couple-sue-candace-owens-for-defamation-over-claims-that-brigitte-macron-is-a-man/
What’s true, what’s not, and what’s still unclear
Verified facts
- The Delaware defamation suit exists and is active.
- Tom Clare represents the Macrons.
- The Macrons plan to present photographic and scientific evidence and expert testimony.
- Owens has publicly doubled down on her claims and moved to dismiss the case.
Needs more evidence
- The Daily Mail quotes about forcing a third‑party medical exam and “coming for” medical records remain unconfirmed. We have not found the original interview in any reliable archive.
Misleading or wrong
- “Court‑mandated discovery” does not automatically force medical exams or broad medical‑record disclosure. Any exam would require a judge’s order for good cause under Rule 35.
- Brigitte Macron’s first husband did not die in 2020; he died in 2019.
Uncertain outcomes
- Will a judge deem Brigitte Macron’s medical status “in controversy” and order an exam? That’s a high bar, especially in a defamation case focused on truth, malice, and harm. No such order exists on the docket now.
- Will the court even reach discovery? Owens’ motions to dismiss could reshape or delay what evidence is exchanged. Current docket: https://courtconnect.courts.delaware.gov/cc/cconnect/ck_public_qry_doct.cp_dktrpt_docket_report?backto=P&begin_date=&case_id=N25C-07-194&end_date=
Why this matters
This case is more than a culture‑war headline. It tests:
- How far private lives can be dragged into view to refute a viral lie.
- Whether U.S. courts will entertain invasive discovery when the allegations themselves hinge on disproven conspiracies.
- How transphobic rumors jump borders—born on fringe blogs, amplified on YouTube, then laundered through mainstream attention.
Our reporting process
- We checked the Delaware docket to confirm the case and parties.
- We traced the origin of the claims through French and international fact‑checks.
- We reviewed interviews and reports quoting the Macrons’ lawyer and Owens’ public statements.
- We searched for the specific Daily Mail interview language and did not find a verifiable source; we flagged it as unconfirmed.
Bottom line: The lawsuit is real. The Macrons say they’ll bring scientific and photographic proof. But the headline‑friendly claim that Brigitte Macron can be forced into a medical exam is, so far, more bluster than law. Until a judge says otherwise, it’s a talking point—not a court‑ordered reality.