Brigitte Macron will present scientific evidence to prove she’s a woman

0:00This BBC podcast is supported by ads outside the UK.

0:30at Whole Foods Market. That refresh you've been putting off until the right deal came along? It's here. Wayfair's Black Friday in July sale is happening now so you can finally get the style you've been waiting for for less. Get up to 80 % off area rugs and up to 60 % off outdoor and bedroom furniture. Shop Wayfair's huge selection of styles and find the piece to fit your style, budget, and space. Plus, free shipping. Black Friday in July ends July 27th. Shop today at Wayfair.com. Way fair, every style, every home.

1:04The First Lady of France is resolved to give scientific evidence to counter claims that she was born a man. Hello and welcome back to this Fame Under Fire exclusive from BBC Sounds with me, Anushka Matanda-Doughty. Emmanuel and Brigitte Macron's lawyer, Tom Clare, and corporate investigator Daniel Nardello are here. They say they're ready to provide evidence that proves Brigitte Macron, the First Lady of France, was born a woman and not a man. It is incredibly upsetting to think that you have to go and subject yourself to put this type of proof forward. Now, if you're thinking right now, I didn't even know that was up for debate, buckle up and let me bring you up to speed.

1:42As always, if you've got questions, send them to me on social media or WhatsApp at 0330 678 1114. Don't forget to subscribe and turn on your push notifications so you never miss a thing. Since March 2024, U.S. podcaster and political commentator Candace Owens has had a message for her followers. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence that Emmanuel Macron is married to a biological male. Now, she said this is something she was willing to stake her entire professional reputation on. You are officially a very goofy man, Brigitte. But I got to give it to you, you've definitely got balls. The Macrons categorically deny the claims, calling them outlandish, defamatory and far-fetched fictions.

2:23Now, Candace Owens isn't the first person to say this. French journalist Xavier Passard wrote a book called Becoming Brigitte. In it, he says that she is actually her brother, Jean-Michel Tronnier. In December 2021, social media voices among Dean Roy and Natasha Ray did a now-deleted 40-minute YouTube video on the topic. The Macrons won a 2024 defamation case against Roy and Ray in France. But in July 2025, the ruling was overturned on appeal. Now, this wasn't because they ruled that the claims were true, but because the judges said they were made in good faith and therefore did not constitute defamation given the importance of freedom of expression in France, the Macrons are appealing the ruling.

3:01But Candace Owens, who has nearly 5 million subscribers on YouTube, took this theory and made it viral. And over time, it's definitely got more layered. As we unpack the story of Brigitte and Emmanuel, you are going to notice some strange recurring themes. That scandals related to pedophilia and transgenderism, incest and sexual perversion, just keep accidentally following them wherever they go. Videos like this have 1.8 million views, over 6 ,000 shares and nearly 115 ,000 likes. The size of Brigitte's hands. I, and again, I'm not trying to be mean guys. We're just taking a look at everything.

3:39The sheer size of Brigitte's hands, the one thing that you can't operate on, right? In July, she posted a TikTok with lots of photos of Brigitte. The caption says, I'm onto you, Brigitte. One of the photos is Brigitte in a swimming costume. The camera slowly pans in. That video has 14.5 million views. You are the alleged first lady, first man of France. In July, she claimed she had had a phone call from the White House that Emmanuel Macron had taken President Donald Trump aside and asked him to intervene to stop her. Emmanuel Macron is holding up negotiations to end the Russian and Ukrainian war, unless you stop speaking about his wife.

4:25Later that month, the Macrons sued Owens and her company in the United States, Delaware to be exact. Joining me now is the Macron's lawyer, Tom Clare, and also Dan Nardello, who's the executive chairman of Nardello, a corporate investigating firm. His company works on behalf of private citizens and businesses to gather information about a person or a company. Hi, Dan. Hello. Nice to be here. Hi, Tom. Hi there. Thanks for having me on. So we've just run our listeners through this story in a very quick space of time. So some of them are going to be like, what on earth is going on? Tom, I want to start with you and play you this clip.

4:59I believe that Emmanuel Macron is a homosexual man that was groomed from his youth. I believe the individual who groomed him is now his wife. I believe that his wife was born, Jean-Michel Trogneau, and transitioned in his early 30s. And I believe that the entire state is colluding to protect that secret. And like I said, I would stake my entire professional career on all of those points. Tom, there's kind of a potted run through of Candace's different theories about the Macrons. What are your clients' response to this, first of all? Well, it's provably false is the short version of it. I mean, it's obviously upsetting and offensive to have false things said about you.

5:44But this is someone with a significant audience who has done this and said these falsehoods over an extended period of time after being warned that they were false. And, you know, it's obviously upsetting. These folks are obviously very important on the world stage, but they are also human beings. And it is offensive and hurtful to them to be accused of effectively criminal actions and conspiring to lie to the world about their identities, their relationship and their professional lives. And you talk about them there being an important players on the world stage. I mean, those type of figures have to be used to being spoken about, having things said about them that they feel are untrue.

6:32Why file this? Do you feel like it's crediting it with something that if you hadn't have filed this civil lawsuit, it wouldn't have? You know, there is a line. And when you are making false statements of fact about someone, and when your false statements of fact are being spread and picked up and used by your adversaries to support coming after you in different venues, you have to take a stand. And her statements are over the line. This was not a step that they took lightly. Candace didn't go on her podcast and make these statements once, and then President Mrs. Macron filed the lawsuit. This only came after an extended period of putting her on notice, warning her about the falsity of her statements in detail, and having her double down time and time again.

7:25And the one other point that I would make is, she has got a significant audience. People listen to her, not just her or many listeners on her podcast, but you start to see mainstream media, credible news outlets that actually cite her in reporting on this false story. And these falsehoods are like a cancer. They metastasize into the mainstream media. And so it might be easy for someone to think, well, why would you go after a podcaster if you're the president and first lady of France? but it's really very dangerous how these falsehoods can get into the bloodstream of the media and then people report on it as true because Candace has said it.

8:07And so we had to go to the root and the root was Candace. And you say that these claims are provably false. What is that proof? Well, we are the plaintiffs in the case and we're going to have the burden of proving falsity and we're going to have the testimony of the two plaintiffs, President and Mrs. Macron. There will be expert testimony that will come out that will be scientific in nature that will also demonstrate the falsity of the statements. And obviously, it's incredibly intrusive for this family to have to go into open court and present this evidence. But that should just demonstrate how serious they are about it, how confident they are in their ability to prove it as false in a public forum, and how they want to put this falsehood to rest once and for all.

8:49That's the first time we've heard about expert testimony. Is this going to be expert testimony, that scientific in nature, speaking generically? Or is this going to be expert testimony for an expert who spent time with Brigitte Macron? I think it's not ready to reveal all of our strategy as it relates to presenting expert testimony. But I would just say that we're prepared to demonstrate fully, both generically and specifically, that what she's saying about Brigitte Macron is false. We would not be here if we were not prepared to undertake that burden. And so for our listeners right now, who are some of them quite legal nerds really getting into this, they're used to these civil lawsuits.

9:30They read it, they have the factual allegations, and they understand that with this. There's the other half of this civil lawsuit, and that's, Dan, that's your work. There's an investigation that's running alongside this. You're investigating Candace Owens. How did you begin investigating Candace? Where did you start? We wanted to build a profile of who the adversary was, who Candace Owens was. So we looked at her network, her relationships. We did an analysis of that and confined ourselves, certainly up until this point, in open sources. I haven't gone out and spoken to anybody, although that's perfectly appropriate in the right context.

10:04And we did our work in English, in French, in Russian, and some of it in Italian, because some of her network extends into Italy. And part of what you flesh out in your investigation is what you might term motive. Motive for what you say is an attack on the Macrons. Can you tell me a little bit about Candice's motive from your perspective? I'm not sure if it's motive, but I can tell you what we found. We found connections, strong connections between Owens and the French far right and also connections to reform and Nigel Farage in England. That was Candace Owens and she will be running for office in a few years time of that.

10:43I have no doubt. And you say you found these connections. I'm going to focus in there on the connections with the political opponents of Macron in France. What's the proof of those connections? What are you basing that on? I mean, there's public statements by Owens. They follow each other on social media. They appeared together at conferences at CPAC, for instance, with Marion Marichal, who's on, you know, to the right of Le Pen, our niece, but to the right of Le Pen and more the sort of custodian of Jean-Marie Le Pen's heritage. Owens was the keynote speaker at a conference that Marichal and her people organized.

11:20To weaker leaders like Emmanuel Macron, Justin Trudeau, Angela Merkel, the list goes on. The future belongs to globalists and not patriots. Ladies and gentlemen, without question, we are in the midst of an ideological war, a war for the spirit of our nations. Tom, is the legal theory then that I'm going to use the word motive with you. The motive that Candace had was she was aligned with political opponents and therefore it works to her ideology to discredit the Macrons. And that is why she's pushing this. First, you know, sort of from the technical legal perspective, in a civil defamation suit, we do not have to prove motive.

12:02It doesn't matter why she is doing this or what's motivating her. What we have to demonstrate is that she made false statements of fact with reckless disregard for the truth and it caused damage. That's it. However, when you try a case in front of a jury, in front of real human beings, that they want to understand a texture about what's going on here. What's the story? Why would people act in such a seemingly irrational way? People want to try to make sense of it because her statements and her comments and her actions, especially after being warned repeatedly that this is false and continuing to double down and even go more extreme.

12:42And so just as part of the trial advocacy, as part of the art of persuasion of real human beings, it's useful to be able to tell a story about what motivates her, who her connections are. It is part of the texture of the storytelling that we're going to want to do. And all effective trial lawyers weave a story, a narrative about what happened. And that's where Dan's work is really so vital to our case. even if it's not legally required it is going to make it much more persuasive to both the jurors and to the people of the world who are going to be watching this case as to why somebody would behave in this manner.

13:21I was going to ask that because obviously you're going to try this in front of a jury but in this day and age people watch these cases people are really engaged in this. When you were putting it together and asking Dan to help was there an element of this of well we hope the public reads this this is the platform that the Macrons have to give their side of the story? Well, there certainly is that element of it, right? This is a public proceeding, and it's important that this be done in public because one of the things that President and Mrs. Macron get out of filing this lawsuit is they get an opportunity to disprove it in a public forum.

13:57And regardless of how much money the jury awards, having a jury verdict that says, we've heard all the evidence and we find this statement to be false and defamatory, that has enormous value to them, as well as being able to shoulder the burden of proof and be able to prove to the world that's watching, as you said, all the different ways that this is wrong. And so it is a forum for them to get the truth out while they can hold her accountable for her lies. I just want to talk about defamation in the US. This is filed in Delaware. It's a pretty high bar if you're dealing with public figures. The idea is that they open themselves up to commentary and people saying things about them, whether they're right or wrong or true or false.

14:39You have to prove actual malice. If you guys have been listening to us for a while, you will know actual malice. We've spoken about it before. But in short, you need to prove that Candace said something that she knew to be false. And she said it after she received proof that she knew it to be false. So you sent her these retraction letters that you talk about in the lawsuit. We've seen them. Can you just run me through the proof that was in those letters that says to Candace what you're saying, it's just incorrect? Right. So what the letters that we sent to her were designed to do multiple things.

15:12They were designed to demonstrate to her that President Mrs. Macron were directly to her denying these allegations. And so it was putting her on notice of their position relative to the falsehoods. It was also pointing Candace to things that we already knew Candace had seen, earlier sources that we know she had relied upon and cited, and that she was claiming were the foundation of some of her work that point in exactly the opposite direction. And what she chose to do was to take those sources and cherry pick the pieces that supported what she wanted to say about the Macron's and ignored the parts that cut against them.

15:57And even some of the sources that she cited didn't believe and said that these things were false. And so it was laying all of that out for her and giving her an opportunity to do the right thing and stop saying this. And if she had done that, I'm not sure that the lawsuit would have been filed. But you talked about the legal standard. The legal standard is reckless disregard for the truth. And how do you prove recklessness, right? You can't get in somebody's head. And the Supreme Court of the United States has recognized that nobody, no defendant gets up and raises their right hand and swears to tell the truth and say, yep, I knew it was false when I published it.

16:36And so what we have to do is we have to show the jury that she had a narrative, that she disregarded things that didn't fit with that narrative, and she adopted the things that she wanted to. And we have a written record of doing it. And that's where those pre-publication letters are so important. I would also add the same is true for what she's done after the lawsuit was filed. A letter is a letter, right? We put her on notice. We gave her a warning. She continued to double down. She continued to make the false statements. She's gone even further over the top since the lawsuit was filed and what she said.

17:10And so that recalcitrance, that desire to continue to double down, it's not just important for the reckless disregard of the truth for the actual malice, but it also starts to help our case on punitive damages. We all like freedom of speech and we all want to make sure that we're not punishing people just for making innocent mistakes. But once you send these letters and once you have them slammed back in your face and made fun of, and once you file a lawsuit and people double down, judges and juries look at that materially differently. You touched on it there, but what is some of the actual proof in detail that you gave to Candace that proves that President Macron was born a biological woman?

17:49We don't have to lay out evidence in our letter. It is enough from a legal standpoint to deny it and to point to the facts in the public domain that demonstrate that this is false. And that's what the letter has done. So like, for example, the scientific proof that I talked about earlier, that comes at a later stage. We don't have to put that in our letter. All we have to do is put her on notice of the falsity of her statements. And that's really the purpose of the letter. It is not intended to be a fulsome exposition of the evidence. But for example, we cite in our letters the other news accounts that we know she was relying on because she herself cited them.

18:34Yeah. And you're talking there about the Daily Mail article that was debunking, claimed to debunk this theory, right? And Candace speaks about this and she says, there's no debunking going on in that article. And what you have in there is the journalists say they spoke to residents of where Brigitte was brought up and they spoke about her being a little girl and getting like silver bracelets from her family. But Candace said in response to that, you want me to take the Daily Mail seriously? She said they're an unreliable source. So why shouldn't she question that journalism? Why should she take that as rote?

19:03Why can't she continue to pursue this theory that she has as a, quote, independent journalist? Well, she's certainly entitled to pursue it if she wants to, but that's a choice that she makes to ignore the facts that cut against her theory. And she doesn't, even in the clip that you just played for your viewers, right, she is staking her professional reputation on these things being true. So from a legal perspective, what she has done is not just investigated this and laid out the pros and cons of the evidence. But she has said, I have reached this conclusion. And that's where it lapses over into defamation.

19:38The law says that if you're going to make those allegations, you have to have proof. And the more far-fetched, or in the words of the legal parlance, the more inherently implausible they are, that you need to have some evidence for it. But in the assessment of her as a journalist there, she says she's an independent journalist. Why can't she just turn around and say, you know, this is an actual malice. I'm not doing this to hurt them. I mean, look, journalism has standards. Journalism has professional rigor associated with it. There are methodological standards. There are ethical standards. There are procedural standards to try to get the truth.

20:14If she is going to wrap herself in the mantle of journalism, she needs to follow those things. And if she deviates from them, that is additional evidence that she's acting with reckless disregard. But you don't have to look any further than her merchandising this falsehood. She's selling T-shirts mocking the Macrons. How many responsible journalists do that? And this is a commercial venture for her. It is designed to bring an audience and to add clicks and to gain attention for herself and for her platform. This is not journalism. That's not informing the public. And from a legal perspective, that's what our founding fathers in the United States recognize that defamation is for.

20:59It's the reason why we have it. And before you filed this lawsuit, you sent these letters to Candace trying to get her to stop making these claims on her podcast. She said publicly what it would take for her to stop saying this. And like I said, we were asking for photos from a 30 year period of Brigitte's life. We were not asking for blood. We were asking for simple answer. Yes or no. Could you show us some photos of you raising your alleged children? They failed to produce that. So outside of the bounds of filing the lawsuit, in order to just get this to stop for the Macron's, why not just send those photos?

21:32When you're dealing with someone who has not demonstrated a level of responsibility in the way that she handles facts and evidence, handing more evidence to her versus other responsible journalists doesn't make any sense. And so we are prepared to supply all of those materials, but we're just going to do it in open court where there are rules, where the rules of evidence apply, where there's proof and where it can be done publicly in a way that people will see how it's presented. So to be clear, it's not that that proof doesn't exist. You have those pictures. You have that evidence that Candace has been asking for this whole time, but you're going to submit it in open court.

22:12Pictures of Brigitte, perhaps pregnant, raising her children. This is the stuff Candace has asked for. That all exists. It all exists and they're all materials that we intend to present in court so everybody can see in a forum where there are rules and where there are standards. Now, Candace has responded to the lawsuit. Candace Owens' legal team have filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit because it was filed in Delaware. They claim that court has no jurisdiction over Candace. She doesn't live there or work there. And attending that court, would she say, cause her substantial financial and operational hardship?

22:43Why file in Delaware? Well, Delaware has got a well-developed body of defamation law, and Candace and her business ventures have chosen to avail themselves of the privileges of being Delaware business entities. And so it didn't cause her a hardship to take advantage of Delaware law when she was setting up her business empire and then turn around and say, oh, well, I'm surprised and shocked that I would be held into court in Delaware. Obviously, President and Mrs. Macron do not live in the United States. There is no reason why they should have to travel any further than they need to in order to pursue it.

23:21And Delaware has a well-developed body of defamation law. And there's jurisdiction over Gandas. And we trust the men and women of Delaware to adjudicate this dispute fairly and accurately. Would you be willing to refile in Tennessee? She says this is going to cause her financial damage and maybe she won't be able to defend herself because of that. Would you be willing to refile? Well, look, if a court says we need to file in Tennessee, we'll take the fight to Tennessee. But I do not anticipate that happening. The thing for me that is the most telling about her motion to dismiss is just the sharp disconnect between what she says in her papers and what she said to her audience after the lawsuit was filed repeatedly.

24:01The only thing she has said since the lawsuit was filed is effectively, bring it on. I can't wait to get into court. I can't wait to pursue discovery. President and Mrs. Macron made a huge mistake by picking this fight with me because I am ready to defend myself and what I said on the merits. And I want to take discovery of them. She even went so far as to say and to predict in a really irresponsible way that Mrs. Macron is going to fake her own death to avoid the discovery. But instead, you know, she's trying to delay and obfuscate and say, well, I can't really defend myself. And so it's just another example of what she's saying on her podcast being completely divorced from real life.

24:43And I think if I were her listeners, I would be incredibly disappointed with this response. You speak there about discovery. That's discovery for both sides. I mean, this is not a process that leaves much left to the imagination. Your private life is often laid bare. I am assuming the Macrons are well aware of this in terms of their communications and their deposition. They're fully committed to seeing this through? A hundred percent. I mean, this was not a step that was taken lightly. It was a step that was fully considered. And obviously, subjecting yourself to discovery in the United States, which is, you know, fulsome, much more fulsome than in other parts around the world, is not something that people relish doing.

25:26But the fact that they said yes to that, yes, we stand ready to go through that discovery process. Yes, we stand ready to travel to the United States and appear in a public courtroom and explain why this is false. It just demonstrates, one, their conviction in the truth. And I give them a lot of credit for this. I really do. It'd be very easy for them to say, we're just going to let the lie go. But they are courageous in that regard. But it also tells you that they're not afraid. They're not afraid of that discovery. They're not afraid of the truth. If they were, they wouldn't have filed the lawsuit.