Well, folks, the judicial gavel has fallen with a resounding thud against former President Donald Trump in his battle against CNN.
In a decision that has conservatives scratching their heads, a federal appeals court panel has affirmed the dismissal of Trump’s whopping $475 million defamation lawsuit against the cable news giant over their use of the term “Big Lie” to describe his claims about the 2020 election, Newsmax reported.
This saga began when Trump filed the lawsuit, arguing that CNN’s repeated use of the phrase was a deliberate attempt to smear him by invoking comparisons to Nazi propaganda and Adolf Hitler. His complaint tallied over 7,700 instances where he believed CNN linked his actions to such historical atrocities. It’s no small accusation, and many on the right see this as yet another media pile-on against a figure who challenges the progressive narrative.
The district court, under Judge Raag Singhal—a Trump nominee, mind you—first tossed out the case, ruling that CNN’s statements were opinions, not verifiable facts, and thus not grounds for defamation. That’s a bitter pill for many conservatives who feel the media hides behind “opinion” to sling mud without consequence.
Trump appealed, hoping for a different outcome, but the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals panel, consisting of Judges Adalberto Jordan, Kevin Newsom, and Elizabeth L. Branch, stood firm. Interestingly, Newsom and Branch were also Trump appointees, which adds a layer of irony to this defeat. Some might quip that even Trump’s own picks aren’t buying what he’s selling here.
The appeals court’s eight-page ruling didn’t mince words, stating that Trump failed to prove the falsity of CNN’s statements. “Trump has not adequately alleged the falsity of CNN's statements,” the judges wrote. For many on the right, this feels like a dodge—how can a phrase so loaded not carry defamatory weight?
Digging deeper, the court clarified that CNN never directly equated Trump’s actions to Hitler’s, despite the loaded implication of the term “Big Lie.” “To be clear, CNN has never explicitly claimed that Trump's 'actions and statements were designed to be, and actually were, variations of those [that] Hitler used to suppress and destroy populations,'” the judges noted. Still, conservatives might argue that the implication was loud and clear to anyone paying attention.
The court also dismissed the sheer volume of CNN’s use of the phrase as irrelevant to whether it was false or defamatory. For Trump supporters, this feels like ignoring the cumulative effect of a media campaign designed to paint a damning picture.
Adding insult to injury, the panel found that Trump didn’t sufficiently show CNN acted with actual malice—a key requirement in defamation cases involving public figures. That’s a high bar, and one that often leaves conservatives feeling the deck is stacked against them when taking on media behemoths.
Let’s be honest: the term “Big Lie” isn’t just a neutral descriptor; it’s a rhetorical sledgehammer meant to evoke the worst historical parallels. Many on the right see this as part of a broader pattern where the mainstream media weaponizes language to discredit conservative voices. It’s not hard to understand why Trump and his base feel targeted.
Yet, the court’s logic, while frustrating, isn’t without grounding in legal precedent—opinions, even harsh ones, are protected speech. For conservatives, this raises a bigger question: how do you fight a cultural battle when the rules seem to shield your opponents?
Trump sought a hefty $475 million in punitive damages, a figure that speaks to the depth of his grievance. Many supporters likely saw this as a chance to finally hold a media outlet accountable for what they perceive as relentless bias. Alas, the courts had other plans.
The ruling also underscores the uphill climb public figures like Trump face in defamation suits. The “actual malice” standard is a fortress, and breaking through it requires more than just hurt feelings or perceived slights. Conservatives might argue it’s a standard that lets the media off too easily.
For now, this chapter closes with Trump on the losing end, though it’s unlikely to be the last we hear of his grievances with CNN. The right will continue to rally against what they see as a biased press, even if the courts aren’t the battleground for victory.
At the end of the day, this decision might not change the minds of Trump’s base, who see the media as an adversary regardless of legal outcomes. It’s a reminder that in the court of public opinion, narratives often outlast rulings. And isn’t that the real “big” story here?
