Macrons to offer 'scientific evidence' to US court to prove Brigitte is a woman, lawyer says

"I don't want to suggest that it somehow has thrown him off his game. But just like anybody who is juggling a career and a family life as well, when your family is under attack, it wears on you. And he's not immune from that because he's the president of a country," he said.

Mr Clare said there would be "expert testimony that will come out that will be scientific in nature" and while he would not reveal, at this stage, its exact nature, he said the couple were prepared to demonstrate fully "both generically and specifically" that the allegations are false.

"It is incredibly upsetting to think that you have to go and subject yourself, to put this type of proof forward," he said.

"It is a process that she will have to subject herself to in a very public way. But she's willing to do it. She is firmly resolved to do what it takes to set the record straight.

"If that unpleasantness and that discomfort that she has of opening herself up in that way is what it takes to set a record straight and stop this, she's 100% ready to meet that burden."

When asked if the Macrons would be supplying pictures of Brigitte pregnant and raising her children, Mr Clare said they existed and would be presented in court where there are rules and standards.

Ms Owens, a former commentator for conservative US outlet Daily Wire who has millions of followers on social media, has repeatedly promoted her view that Brigitte Macron is a man.

In March 2024, she claimed she would stake her "entire professional reputation" on the allegation.

The allegation originated in fringe online spaces years earlier, notably through a 2021 YouTube video by French bloggers Amandine Roy and Natacha Rey.

The Macrons initially won a defamation case in France against Roy and Rey in 2024, but that ruling was overturned on appeal in 2025 on freedom of expression grounds, not on the basis of truth. The Macrons are appealing the decision.

In July, the Macrons filed a lawsuit against Ms Owens in the US. It alleges she "disregarded all credible evidence disproving her claim in favour of platforming known conspiracy theorists and proven defamers".

In American defamation cases against public figures, plaintiffs are required to prove "actual malice" - that the defendant knowingly spread false information or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.