🔗 Share this article

President Macron and the first lady will submit medical evidence in a US court to demonstrate that the first lady was not assigned male at birth, as stated by their lawyer overseeing their defamation legal action.

Context

Emmanuel and Brigitte Macron brought a defamation suit in July against political commentator a US-based personality, stating that she engaged in baseless allegations to increase her audience reach and obtain financial gain.

The commentator previously stated that she would “risk” her career on the claim that Brigitte Macron was born male and went by the name another name. The personality has since doubled down on these claims across various podcasts.

Court Approach

The Macrons’ attorney indicated that expert testimony would be submitted in court to counter the accusations. Despite details of the proof were not disclosed, Clare stated that the first family is prepared to demonstrate without doubt that the allegations are false.

“Medical evidence will be presented that will be fact-based in nature,” the attorney commented. “This is a step that she will have to subject herself to in a highly visible way.”

Additionally noted that images depicting Mrs. Macron expecting and raising her children would be part of the evidence.

Personal History

As stated in the legal filing, the individual named is Mrs. Macron’s older brother who is based in the Macron family’s hometown. The brother reportedly attended the French leader’s swearing-in ceremonies in recent years.

Mrs. Macron, 72, is significantly older than her spouse. The couple met when Macron was a student at a school where she ran a acting workshop. Brigitte has sons and daughters from a previous marriage and several grandchildren.

Earlier Litigation

Similar claims emerged in online forums in 2021, prompting prior defamation cases against individuals. Even though the first lady and her family member originally won a libel case, an higher court later overturned the decision.

This latest case against the commentator alleges that she dismissed verifiable proof and rather platformed baseless claims.

Her legal team have entered a request to dismiss the complaint, stating that the venue is improper. In spite of the motion, the commentator has maintained her claims.