Brigitte Macron is a man?
- Thread starter gdpetti
- Start date
Some French news on that front
Brigittegate: A Harsh Conviction That Raises Questions About the Impartiality of the French Justice System
In a verdict handed down on January 5, 2026, by the Paris Criminal Court, ten individuals were convicted of online moral harassment in the so-called “Brigittegate” affair.
The authorities appear to consider that there are persistent, unfounded rumors—described as transphobic disinformation—alleging that Brigitte Macron is a transgender person born under the name Jean-Michel Trogneux, her brother. Yet in July 2025, the courts, by acquitting Natacha Rey and Amandine Roy, dismissed the transphobic qualification:
“The attribution of a gender transition is not, in itself, likely to harm honor or reputation.”
The authorities also denounce unfounded accusations of pedocriminality linked to the age difference between the spouses (Brigitte Macron is 72 and Emmanuel Macron 48), and more specifically to Emmanuel Macron’s age (14) at the time they met, when he was under the authority of Brigitte Macron, his drama teacher at La Providence high school in Amiens. As for the evidence put forward—particularly that presented in Xavier Poussard’s book, although he was not among the defendants, or on the Pressibus website—it was neither examined by the courts nor even by major media outlets, and has not been the subject of any factual rebuttal by the authorities.
While the decision aims to protect the private life of a public figure, it raises serious questions about its punitive severity, its apparent bias, and the broader implications for freedom of expression in France. At a time when President Emmanuel Macron is promoting initiatives such as the Paris Declaration and media labeling, this ruling appears to some as a tool of control, calling into question judicial independence and the factual bases on which court decisions are made in a country historically attached to Voltairean ideals.
A Punitive Verdict with the Air of an Exemplary Measure
The court, presided over by Thierry Donnard, handed down sentences ranging from four to eight months’ suspended prison terms for most defendants, with one case involving six months of actual imprisonment. Fines and damages were also ordered, although the exact amounts were not publicly detailed. Those convicted include individuals from varied backgrounds: Aurélien Poirson-Atlan (alias Zoé Sagan), sentenced to eight months suspended for posts on X; Delphine Jegousse (alias Amandine Roy), a medium, to six months suspended; and Bertrand Scholler, a gallery owner, to six months suspended. One defendant, 80% disabled and absent from the trial, was judged in absentia, reinforcing criticism of the inhumanity of the procedure.
This severity contrasts with other online harassment cases in France. Under the Criminal Code, online moral harassment is punishable by up to two years’ imprisonment and a €30,000 fine, increased to three years and €45,000 in the presence of aggravating circumstances such as sexism or gender-based discrimination.
For example, in cases of cyberharassment involving minors or sexual violence, sentences can reach three years of actual imprisonment, but often, for isolated or uncoordinated statements, courts opt for fines or light suspended sentences. Here, the penalties appear disproportionate in light of earlier acquittals in the same affair for defamation in July 2025, when the court of appeal held that attributing a gender transition was not defamatory in itself.
The judges justified their decision by a collective “intent to harm,” even though the individuals acted in isolation, describing the statements as “malicious and degrading.” The court acknowledged the repetition of acts, but without proof of formal coordination. For critics, this collective approach suggests a verdict “written in advance,” tailor-made to send a strong signal—especially in a context where Brigitte Macron, the complainant, stated she wanted to “set an example,” without even attending the trial.
Having refused a psychological assessment while claiming not to have read the incriminated messages, it fell to her daughter to bear the burden of testifying that the complainant was “deeply affected” by the affair. The court’s acceptance of this testimony is puzzling, given the family ties between Tiphaine Auzière and Brigitte Macron, which should deprive it of real probative value—some observers describing it as a:
“testimonial of convenience by someone with no psychological or medical training.”
Moreover, as one therapist points out, “given Brigitte Macron’s busy schedule and numerous public engagements, her psychological state does not appear to have been significantly impaired. A victim of harassment, on the contrary, tends to withdraw.”
Additionally, questions remain regarding the temporal proximity between this testimony and Tiphaine Auzière’s appointment as a board member of the company Arverne. To date, Brigitte Macron has never provided irrefutable proof of her gender, which would have closed the matter and rendered the magistrates’ decision indisputable.
This decision follows two acquittals in July 2025 in a related defamation case, where two women (Amandine Roy and Natacha Rey) had initially been convicted at first instance in September 2024, but acquitted on appeal. Brigitte Macron and Jean-Michel Trogneux did not appear at trial and initially demonstrated their identity with a simple voter card, and subsequently with an expired identity card for Jean-Michel Trogneux. The latter appears to have vanished, while his “niece” stated during the trial that he was doing very well and that she had seen him recently. Without supporting evidence, should this not have been considered mere “lyricism” by the court? Brigitte Macron has appealed this acquittal to the Court of Cassation. The prosecution had sought sentences of three to twelve months suspended at the October 2025 trial.
Suspicions of Bias and Compromised Independence
At the heart of the controversy are doubts about judicial impartiality, particularly where the prosecution service, under ministerial supervision, opted for the qualification of harassment after the failure of defamation proceedings, accepting as evidence elements that are, to say the least, questionable.
This perception of bias fits into a broader framework in which justice appears instrumentalized. Reactions are polarized, reflecting divisions over freedom of expression and victim protection. Lawyer Juan Branco denounced on X a “politico-media procedure” orchestrated by the Élysée, using a law intended to protect the vulnerable to “smash” critics. He criticizes the absence of debate over the truth of the information, the timely promotions of magistrates, and media outlets relaying government talking points. He speaks of a “pornographic spectacle” staged by the justice system.
Accounts such as @lesaurores highlighted a problematic “level of endogamy” within judicial circles, questioning whether the verdict was not predetermined to protect those in power.
Users such as the anonymous account @lactetue criticize Branco’s argument as “lyricism” masking a legal vacuum, while @christelesanary is outraged by the conviction of a disabled defendant judged in absentia, and @Isabelle81150 expresses exhaustion with a system she describes as “rotten to the core.”
In a video, Bertrand Scholler, one of the defendants, highlights the alleged censorship of his comments on a manipulated photo of Brigitte Macron when young, initially shared by her daughter Laurence Auzière. He also deplores the censorship of his remarks by the program Quotidien.
Lionel Labosse, author of the book “Elle est menteur, mon cher Watson ! Précis de Brigittologie” (“She Is Lying, My Dear Watson! A Primer of Brigittology”), was filmed without his knowledge. He expresses his indignation at this intrusion, contrary to all journalistic ethics. One of the few people present during the deliberations, he wrote an article analyzing in detail the “claims” of the “brigittologists,” citing a photo of Brigitte Macron when young (shared by Bertrand Scholler with proof that he did not manipulate it), as well as sources such as videos and posts on X. A report worth reading to gain a more balanced view than what is found in subsidized, collaborative mainstream media.
The Schiappa Law Under Fire: A Double-Edged Tool?
The decision is based on Article 222-33-2-2 of the Criminal Code, introduced by the law of August 3, 2018, strengthening the fight against sexual and sexist violence, championed by Marlène Schiappa. This text defines online moral harassment as “repeated statements or behaviors” altering the victim’s health, with aggravated penalties for sexism. While this law aimed to protect the vulnerable, it is now being questioned for its selective application.
Schiappa herself was at the center of a scandal involving the Marianne Fund, launched in 2021 to combat separatism after the assassination of Samuel Paty. Investigations by the Senate and the General Inspectorate of Administration (IGA) described its management as a “fiasco” and a “political maneuver gone off the rails,” pointing to opacity, favoritist allocations, and suspicions of misappropriation of public funds. The Senate report denounced the direct responsibility of Schiappa and her cabinet, with a judicial investigation opened by the National Financial Prosecutor’s Office for breach of trust and illegal taking of interests. Subsidized associations allegedly used the funds to target political opponents, calling Schiappa’s impartiality into question—ironically, the same person who pushed through a law now used against critics of those in power.
Links with Macron’s Initiatives: Toward Increased Control of Information?
This affair unfolds as Emmanuel Macron, husband of the complainant, promotes measures perceived as tools for regulating information. The Paris Declaration, signed on October 29, 2025, by 29 nations, aims to promote “independent and reliable information” as a public good, with €120 million per year in French funding for aligned media outlets. Criticized as hypocritical, it ignores past “state lies,” such as during the COVID-19 crisis, when independent media like France-Soir were censored by the tech giant YouTube before later being rehabilitated. Can the State therefore not be described as a “propagandist of its own lies,” with examples of disinformation on pensions, public debt, and the environment?
At the same time, Macron is proposing a media labeling system via the Journalism Trust Initiative (JTI) of Reporters Without Borders (RSF), assessing reliability based on 130 indicators.
Non-certified media could be made invisible on platforms, evoking “censorship disguised as protection” and a “Ministry of Information 2.0.” These initiatives, stemming from the General States of Information launched in 2023, raise fears of unchecked control, particularly when Arcom already exists to regulate media pluralism.
Voltaire’s France in Peril? A Step Toward a Ministry of Truth
Voltaire, a fierce defender of freedom of expression, with the famous apocryphal quote attributed to him—“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”—symbolizes the French spirit.
Yet this decision raises more questions than it answers: why such severity for rumors, when more serious harassment cases receive similar sentences? The absence of debate on the underlying facts and the alleged links between the judiciary and the executive reinforce the idea of a system without balance.
In a context where Macron is perceived as an “artisan of lies” controlling regulatory bodies, this verdict marks another step toward an Orwellian “Ministry of Truth.” The Brigittegate affair illustrates the tension between protecting individuals and preserving fundamental freedoms. It remains to be seen whether the Court of Cassation, seized in the related defamation case, will restore balance or confirm these fears. The defendants have already announced their intention to appeal.
The improbable legal action brought by the Macrons in the United States against journalist Candace Owens, presented as an “influencer,” should be the subject of a possible ruling on nullity next week, with both parties’ submissions having been filed on January 9, 2026.
To be continued.
Brigittegate : une condamnation sévère qui interroge l'impartialité de la justice française | FranceSoir
Dans un verdict rendu le 5 janvier 2026 par le tribunal correctionnel de Paris, dix personnes ont été condamnées pour harcèlement moral en ligne dans l'affaire dite « Brigittegate ». Les autorités semblent considérer qu'il y a des rumeurs persistantes, sans fondements, qualifiées d'infox...www.francesoir.fr
Translated with chatgpt
Just a note:
According to Candace people in France have recently now been convicted “as criminals“ via fines and even prison sentences for merely “hurtful words“ they have posted on social media. And the person that feels ohh so emotionally negatively effected of those words is “Brigitte“ who is the person that complained and put them into prison.
Of special note here again is that “she“ is not challenging the “claims“ and facts itself that she is a man but she merely feels emotionally negatively effected by words.
Which is (as Candace rightfully says) quite something to get into prison for.
According to Candace people in France have recently now been convicted “as criminals“ via fines and even prison sentences for merely “hurtful words“ they have posted on social media. And the person that feels ohh so emotionally negatively effected of those words is “Brigitte“ who is the person that complained and put them into prison.
Of special note here again is that “she“ is not challenging the “claims“ and facts itself that she is a man but she merely feels emotionally negatively effected by words.
Which is (as Candace rightfully says) quite something to get into prison for.
