Media

Home Media Page 9

Erika Kirk Erupts Over Candace Owens Conspiracy Theories

0
Image via Gage Skidmore Flickr

Erika Kirk, the CEO of Turning Point USA and widow of assassinated conservative activist Charlie Kirk, erupted on Wednesday over the conspiracy theories — many of them championed by former TPUSA activist Candace Owens — proliferating about her husband’s death.

During a one-on-one with Fox News host Harris Faulkner in the closing minutes of Wednesday’s episode of Outnumbered, Faulkner ripped into those profiting off conspiracy theories.

After Kirk implored the public to keep the site of her husband’s grave private for the sake of her family, Faulkner asked: “What are they—these conspiracy theorists—taking from you right now?”

Kirk replied:

Nothing. But I will tell you what they are doing. It reminds me so much of Chapter Six in the book of Nehemiah. He is building a wall, and the townspeople are at the base of that hill saying, “Nehemiah!” calling him all these names, saying all these things: “Come on down!” Every single time, he had the same message—four times in a row: “I cannot come down. I am busy building.” That is how I feel.

I do not have time to address the noise. My silence does not mean that I am complacent. My silence does not mean that somehow Turning Point USA—and the handpicked staff who loved my husband and whom my husband loved—are somehow in on it. We are busy building.

And you know what I thought? I thought these people are human. We are all grieving in our own way. They are trying to find the answer to something that happened that was so evil. They are trying so hard. And I get that. We’re doing the same. Anytime we hear a lead or anything at all, we send it to the authorities: Please dig into this. No rock will be left unturned. I want justice for my husband, for myself, for my family—more than anyone else out there.

So for me, you want to keep telling me to come down while we’re building—I don’t have time for that. But here’s my breaking point: Come after me, call me names—I don’t care. Call me what you want, go down that rabbit hole—whatever. But when you go after my family, my Turning Point USA family, my Charlie Kirk Show family—when you go after the people that I love—and you’re making hundreds and thousands of dollars every single episode attacking the people that I love because you claim they’re somehow in on this? No.

“You know, I have to say it: I’ve never seen you like this,” Faulkner observed.

“No,” Kirk responded. “This is righteous anger because this is not okay. It’s not healthy. This is a mind virus. Yes, I believe in our judicial system. I do. We have a hell of a team working on this—excuse my French. But this is not okay.”

“So you want to put these people back in the box where they’ve been creeping from?” Faulkner followed up.

“I don’t care what box you’re in,” Kirk said. “But just know that your words are very powerful—and we are human. My team are not machines and they’re not robots. They are human. We have more death threats on our team and our side than I have ever seen. I have kidnapping threats. You name it—we have it.

“And my poor team is exhausted. Every time they bring this back up, what are we supposed to do—relive that trauma all over again? They watched my husband get murdered. I have no idea how I would have reacted if I was there that day, and thank the good Lord that I did not have to see that happen. But my team—they’re rocked to the core. So why, every single day, do they have to be dragged through the mud, analyzed, hyperanalyzed?”

She later concluded the segment by saying she has seen the “impact” the conspiracy theories have had on “the people that I love.”

“And if people think that I was just going to wilt away—I’m not going to sit in a corner, cry, and be in the fetal position. This is a duty to my husband, and it’s an absolute honor, and I will never back down. And so my message to them is: stop. Stop!”

Earlier this month, Charlie Kirk Show producer Blake Neff announced that Kirk’s friends will be holding an event to refute Owens’s incendiary claims. Owens has turned down an invitation to attend it in person.

Owens has a reputation for spreading widely debunked conspiracy theories, including once staking her entire professional reputation on the claim that the First Lady of France, Brigitte Macron, is a man. Owens has also suggested that Israel was somehow connected to Charlie Kirk’s death.

Kirk, who founded the pro-Trump student group Turning Point USA, was shot and killed at a Utah university in September, and his alleged assassin is currently awaiting trial on murder charges. Neff called Owens’s claims “either lies or they are innuendos thrown around with a total, reckless disregard for the truth,” and added, “I would say we have suffered more harassment from these people than we have from Antifa supporters who overtly celebrate Charlie’s murder.”

He concluded by saying Turning Point will host a live stream to further debunk Owens’s conspiracies and invited her to participate.

“We wanted to use this segment at the top of this hour to say something important, something very important. For the past two and a half months, there is a topic that has flooded our Freedom inbox. It has been nonstop on social media, but which we have almost totally avoided on this show. You probably already know what I’m talking about, which shows just how ubiquitous it has been,” Neff began.

Read his full statement below:

Ever since Charlie’s murder, Candace Owens has leveled a flood of allegations against people at Turning Point USA, people at Turning Point Action, and people who work for this show. She has made them against some of Charlie’s closest friends and against some of his most dedicated employees. She has suggested that Michael McCoy, Charlie’s chief of staff, knew Charlie would be murdered, was happy that he died, and stayed silent because he was told he would be the next Charlie.

She has suggested Michael is not his real name. It is—I have seen his birth certificate myself. She has called it suspicious that Mikey’s wife, who works at Turning Point, helped plan the campus tour event where Charlie was murdered, which she didn’t, by the way. She doesn’t work on campus events.

Candace has suggested the Utah Valley University event was unusual and its details suggested a quote “inside job.” She has claimed that foreign aircraft have followed Erica Kirk around the country and that Turning Point has lied about this happening. She has accused us of lying about Charlie wanting Erica to take over for him if he died. She has suggested Charlie’s security team intentionally denied him first aid after the shooting to ensure that he died. She has raised suspicions about the head of our technical team because he took an SD card out of a camera. She has spread absurd claims that Tyler Boyer, who we just had on the show, sexually abuses male interns. She has suggested that TPUSA Faith-affiliated pastors, like theologian Frank Turek, who we’ll have on in a moment, and Pastor Rob McCoy, are part of a military quote “infiltration” of Turning Point, either because they are veterans or because they have family members who are.

Even if not everyone has been named specifically, though, Candace has effectively tarred everyone here with complicity in Charlie’s death by repeatedly saying he was, quote, “betrayed by,” quote, “everyone.” She has said Charlie’s murder, quote, “had to be approved by Charlie’s friends,” and then suggested those friends might have her murdered too for quote “knowing the truth.” She has made claims of financial impropriety and fraud at Turning Point, adding up into the millions of dollars, which again is not true. Charlie made sure the organization was audited by a third party every year. He personally reviewed and signed off on every expense report and literally every single bill paid by the organization down to a single United States dollar. We have never missed a 990 deadline.

Candace has made other, stranger allegations involving French paratroopers in maroon shirts, Egyptian Air Force planes flying out of Provo, Utah, and potential underground assassins traveling through unseen tunnels. At one point in early November, she started wildly throwing suspicion on members of Utah Valley’s soccer team for wearing hoodies. I could go on. There is always something new coming up, and none of it ever pans out. Because from the start, there has been nothing there.

The attacks and allegations from Candace are either lies or they are innuendos thrown around with a total, reckless disregard for the truth, so that Candace can manipulate and string along an audience of people who don’t realize they are being played. Instead of being able to grieve properly after one of the most heinous murders in American history, a murder many of us had to witness, my friends have had to endure harassment from people who have gotten whipped up by what Candace is saying. I would say we have suffered more harassment from these people than we have from Antifa supporters who overtly celebrate Charlie’s murder. And just like a lot of those Antifa members, many of these people take delight in how gross and unpleasant they can be. What our friends have had to endure is not funny and it’s not insignificant. It is evil. I have seen it.

For months, we have received hundreds, thousands, I suspect, of emails and calls asking us to respond. People have wanted us to invite Candace on the show. But for a long time, our approach was to say nothing. We did that for several reasons. First, we thought that her prevarications were so absurd that nobody would believe them. We shouldn’t have to answer questions about secret tunnels or Egyptian Air Force planes. That sort of thing is just—it’s beneath contempt to respond to. Lastly, we didn’t respond because Charlie always viewed Candace as a friend, and we were holding out hope that she would return that friendship and stop what she was doing.

But a week from now it’s going to be three months since Charlie’s murder. Candace has not changed her behavior. She has continued to spread falsehoods about Charlie’s friends, and she continues to concoct new ones about new people. She’s using these falsehoods to enrich herself while dividing the conservative movement at an absolutely critical time for this country. And far too often, we here have heard from ordinary people, people who loved Charlie and who Charlie loved so much in return. These people have expressed the worry that we are staying silent out of cowardice or as some sort of tacit admission that some of the attacks are true. Neither is the case. Our silence has never been, and it will never be, equal to complacency or approval.

Still, we decided Charlie would not allow this to go on. Charlie was not a coward. Charlie was a fighter. Charlie would not allow someone to spread lies about the people closest to him with impunity. And he would feel ashamed if other people were stepping up to defend his friends while he never did so himself. Candace has mentioned several times that the ball is in our court.

So here’s what is going to happen. In the near future, there will be a livestream here in Phoenix where we address in a clear and comprehensive way the claims and accusations, the false accusations that have been made against Charlie’s family, friends, and the people here at Turning Point. We plan to walk through everything carefully and thoroughly. If Candace is available, we would sincerely welcome her participation in that livestream at our studio here in Phoenix. At this point, we believe the ball is back in her court.

Our motivation for doing this is not out of any obligation to Candace. It is about honoring Charlie. We feel a deep responsibility to protect his legacy, his work, and the truth. I feel that. I owe Charlie everything in my life. I feel it immensely. And that is why we feel compelled to speak clearly and openly now. We’ll have more on this in the near future.

Trump Reportedly Promised ‘Sweeping Changes’ at CNN If Paramount Takes Over Warner Bros.

0

David Ellison is reportedly already talking about what he’d do to CNN—before he even owns the company.

According to The Wall Street Journal, the Paramount Skydance CEO told Trump administration officials during a recent Washington visit that he’d make “sweeping changes” at CNN if he manages to buy Warner Bros. Discovery, the network’s parent. The subtext isn’t subtle: CNN is a longtime Trump target, and Trump has told confidants he wants new ownership and programming changes, the Journal reported.

Ellison’s comments come amid a fast-moving takeover scramble involving Warner Bros. Discovery. After the company accepted an offer from Netflix, Ellison said Paramount would pursue a hostile bid directly to shareholders.

“WBD shareholders deserve an opportunity to consider our superior all-cash offer for their shares in the entire company,” Ellison said in a statement announcing the move. He argued that the competing proposal would leave shareholders exposed to uncertainty around the company’s linear cable networks business and face a more difficult regulatory path.

Ellison’s father, Oracle co-founder and Trump ally Larry Ellison, called President Donald Trump after the announcement that Warner Bros. had accepted the Netflix deal to argue that “the transaction would hurt competition,” according to The Wall Street Journal.

“Trump has told people close to him that he wants new ownership of CNN as well as changes to CNN programming,” added the Journal story.

Trump, for his part, has never been shy about where he thinks CNN belongs on the media food chain. Earlier this year, he dismissed the network as “scum” in remarks on the White House lawn.

Democrat Senator Claims Uniformed Military Is Planning Coup Against Trump

14
President Donald J. Trump is presented with a 10th Combat Aviation Brigade challenge coin following an air assault and gun rain demonstration at Fort Drum, New York, on August 13. The demonstration was part of President Trump's visit to the 10th Mountain Division (LI) to sign the National Defense Authorization Act of 2019, which increases the Army's authorized active-duty end strength by 4,000 enabling us to field critical capabilities in support of the National Defense Strategy. (U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Thomas Scaggs) 180813-A-TZ475-010

This week, Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) said that he believes the U.S. military could serve as a constraint on President Donald Trump’s administration, arguing that senior uniformed leaders remain primarily loyal to the Constitution rather than any individual political figure.

Speaking during an appearance on “MS NOW” Wednesday morning, Warner previewed questions he said he plans to ask U.S. Navy Adm. Frank M. Bradley when Bradley testifies Thursday before the Senate Intelligence Committee. Warner serves as the committee’s vice chair.

Warner said his questions will focus in part on concerns surrounding Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and the administration’s recent military actions, including strikes in the Caribbean. Warner said he trusts Bradley, but raised doubts about Hegseth’s public statements.

“Remember, this is an administration that has treated the uniformed military with unprecedented disrespect when they were all brought to get a pep rally in front of Hegseth and Trump,” Warner said. “This is an administration that’s fired uniform generals from the head of the NSA, the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency.”

He added: “And I think in many ways, the uniformed military may help save us from this president and his lame people like Hegseth, because I think their commitment is to the Constitution and obviously not to Trump. And I expect Bradley to adhere to that.”

Warner’s comments follow similar remarks from other Democrats who have suggested service members could resist unlawful directives. Earlier this year, six Democratic lawmakers urged members of the military to resist “illegal” orders.

Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) made a related argument in an interview last month with Don Lemon, saying he has spoken with service members who view their oath as a safeguard.

“What gives me hope, and I talk to service members all the time. They tell me that I don’t appreciate enough and the public doesn’t appreciate enough that while Congress is not a check on the president anymore, and the judiciary at the Supreme Court is hardly a check, military members have told me, ‘We can be a check,’” Swalwell said.

He continued: “They’re essentially saying, ‘We’re not going to betray our oath to the Constitution because this guy tells us to.’ While it’s not codified that way — they’re not a branch of government on their own— their honor and integrity might just save us.”

Former President Barack Obama also addressed the issue Monday, saying he has seen signs of “resistance” within the military to what he described as politicization, while adding he does not believe that politicization has fully taken hold.

“I would not expect the politicization of the Justice Department or our military,” Obama said. “And I don’t think that’s happened. I think there’s been resistance, particularly in the military, to that, but the degree to which that has been encouraged, you know, that used to be something that I would lecture other countries not to do.”

CNN Inks Deal With Major Prediction Market Backed by Trump Jr.

0
CNN Headquarters via Wikimedia Commons

CNN is reportedly entering a new partnership with prediction-market company Kalshi that would weave Kalshi’s real-time odds and forecasts into CNN’s on-air and digital coverage—an alliance that also has the effect of placing the network in a business relationship with Donald Trump Jr.

Axios first reported the deal Tuesday, citing sources who said Kalshi will appear “across its television, digital, and social channels.” Under the arrangement, Kalshi’s prediction data would be featured on CNN programming as a live “real-time data ticker,” with additional segments built around prediction-market oriented content touching politics, news, culture, and weather. CNN chief data analyst Harry Enten is also expected to incorporate Kalshi’s numbers into his data-driven analysis, according to the report.

The collaboration would represent Kalshi’s first major partnership with a national news organization—an important milestone for a company that has sought to position itself as a go-to source for fast-moving probability estimates about cultural and political events. In practice, prediction markets function like real-time sentiment gauges: prices (or implied probabilities) move up and down as participants buy and sell contracts tied to specific outcomes, translating collective bets into a snapshot of what the market thinks is most likely at a given moment. For a television newsroom, that kind of constantly updating “odds board” can be a compelling visual—especially during election cycles and major breaking-news moments—because it packages uncertainty into an easy-to-read number.

But the most politically sensitive dimension of the reported partnership is who else is tied to Kalshi.

As Media Matters’ Matthew Gertz noted, Donald Trump Jr. announced in January 2025 that he had joined Kalshi as a “strategic advisor.” Trump Jr. framed the company as a disruptive force in the U.S. market for event-based trading, touting Kalshi’s legal fights and its efforts to build mainstream legitimacy. “I’m excited to be part of what they’re building,” he said at the time, casting Kalshi as a pioneering player in an industry that has long operated in a gray area in the United States.

That makes CNN’s reported move notable for more than its graphics package. If Kalshi data becomes a recurring on-air feature—particularly in political coverage—CNN would be elevating a product linked to a prominent partisan figure: the son of a president and a central surrogate in Republican politics. Even if Trump Jr. has no day-to-day role in editorial decisions at CNN, his publicly announced advisory position creates an unavoidable headline: a major news network integrating a data feed from a company whose strategic advisor is one of the most recognizable names in national GOP politics.

The questions are as much about perception as they are about logistics. Prediction-market numbers can be useful as one input among many—alongside polling, modeling, and reporting—but they can also be misunderstood by audiences as “what will happen” rather than “what traders think might happen,” especially when those percentages are presented like sports odds. And with Trump Jr. connected to the company supplying the data, critics are likely to scrutinize when and how CNN uses the ticker, whether the network discloses the advisory relationship on-air, and how often the data appears in politically charged segments.

For Kalshi, the upside is obvious: a prominent distribution channel that could normalize prediction markets and introduce the brand to a much larger audience. For CNN, the draw is fresh, visually dynamic data—something that fits modern broadcast pacing and could complement its analytics-heavy style, particularly in elections and major news events. But the addition of Donald Trump Jr. to the equation ensures the partnership won’t be viewed as just another data collaboration.

House Democrat Launches Investigation Into Trump’s ’60 Minutes’ Interview Edit

2
Gage Skidmore Flickr

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) is pressing CBS and its parent company, Paramount, to explain how the network handled edits to a President Trump interview that aired on “60 Minutes” on Nov. 2 — raising new questions about media transparency, newsroom accountability, and whether political pressure is being applied behind the scenes.

In a letter to newly appointed CBS News ombudsperson Ken Weinstein, first shared with The Hill, Raskin accused the network of yielding to what he called the “improper influence President Donald Trump wielded over CBS News’s editorial decisions” in recent weeks.

“President Trump increasingly appears to be exercising direct control over CBS’s editorial decisions, destroying CBS’s ‘journalistic integrity’ while violating its right to be free from governmental coercion and manipulation,” Raskin wrote.

At the center of the dispute is CBS’s decision not to include a portion of Trump’s on-camera remarks to journalist Norah O’Donnell in which he referenced a past settlement involving Paramount and his presidential foundation. That omission, Raskin argued, undercuts the network’s responsibility to air relevant context — especially at a moment when many conservatives have long criticized legacy media for selective editing and narrative framing.

In the transcript CBS posted online after the broadcast, Trump’s comments appeared, even though they weren’t included during the televised segment:

“And, actually, ’60 Minutes’ paid me a lot of money,” Trump said. “And you don’t have to put this on, because I don’t want to embarrass you, and I’m sure you’re not … I think you have a great, new leader, frankly, who’s — the young woman that’s leading your whole enterprise is a great, from what I know.”

Raskin’s complaint comes against the backdrop of a separate editing fight involving CBS and a “similar interview with former Vice President Kamala Harris ahead of the 2024 election,” which drew heavy criticism from Trump allies and prompted CBS to change its approach. After that blowback, CBS pledged to publish full transcripts of “60 Minutes” interviews with presidents and presidential candidates — a move some conservatives applauded as a step toward transparency.

The letter also points to a major leadership shakeup inside Paramount and CBS. The transcript indicates Trump’s reference to a “new leader” was aimed at Bari Weiss, described as “the former New York Times columnist and a controversial figure in media,” who was installed as CBS’s editor in chief under new CEO David Ellison — son of tech billionaire Larry Ellison.

Raskin’s letter further notes broader corporate and regulatory developments surrounding Paramount, including federal approval for its merger with Skydance and reported plans for additional media deals. He also claimed CBS News “is just one victim in President Trump’s systematic campaign of intimidation against media organizations,” and referenced Trump’s reported threats involving the BBC over editing in a Jan. 6 documentary.

In practical terms, Raskin is asking for internal detail on how CBS handles complaints and how editorial choices get made. He is requesting a written explanation of CBS’s complaint-review standards, an assessment of whether “Trump’s requests to CBS to omit portions of his interview violates CBS News’s editorial independence standards,” and “all documents, communications, and editorial guidance provided to ‘60 Minutes’ producers regarding the Trump interview.”

In his message to Weinstein, Raskin framed the ombudsman’s role as a check on management and outside influence:

“Mr. Weinstein: news ombudsmen serve as independent advocates for the public, investigating complaints and publicly critiquing their organizations when those organizations fall short,” Raskin wrote. “You have a duty to defend CBS’s editorial independence, rather than ratify President Trump’s influence over the organization’s coverage.”

Controversial Republicans Join New Pentagon Press Corps For Rare Briefing

1
David B. Gleason from Chicago, IL, CC BY-SA 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons

Right-wing media personality Laura Loomer and former Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) were among the press invited to a rare Pentagon briefing Tuesday, a meeting that underscored the Defense Department’s shifting approach to media access and messaging.

Gaetz—once floated for attorney general and now a host at the pro-Trump outlet One America News Network—was called on early and asked what role the U.S. military could play in Venezuela if the country’s leader, Nicolás Maduro, flees amid a Trump administration pressure campaign tied to allegations of drug trafficking.

“The department has a contingency plan for everything,” Pentagon press secretary Kingsley Wilson replied. “Our focus is taking out narco terrorists … every single boat we strike is saving American lives.”

The briefing comes as the Pentagon is facing backlash, including from some Republican lawmakers, over two U.S. military strikes in September on an alleged drug-trafficking boat in the Caribbean. The second strike reportedly killed survivors of the initial hit, raising fresh questions on Capitol Hill about rules of engagement and oversight.

When Loomer was recognized, she asked about reported plans for the United States to sell fighter jets to Qatar.

Wilson responded that the Pentagon “looks forward to continuing its partnership with Qatar.” Loomer pushed back, calling Qatar the “largest sponsor of the Muslim Brotherhood,” and asked whether the U.S. would “reevaluate” its relationship with the country.

Wilson declined to suggest any policy shift, saying the Defense Department “prioritizes national security” and that he was not aware of changes to U.S.-Qatari military agreements.

The exchange unfolded against broader turmoil over Pentagon press access. Earlier this fall, the department announced a major revamp of operating procedures for journalists covering the Pentagon, including a requirement that reporters sign a more restrictive press policy—an overhaul that reportedly contributed to a mass departure of several mainstream outlets from the building.

In response, the Trump administration has credentialed a number of right-leaning or MAGA-aligned figures, including some who have not previously attended Pentagon press briefings in person, signaling an effort to broaden access beyond the traditional media establishment.

Florida Judge Tosses Truth Social Lawsuit Against The Guardian

0

A Florida judge has dismissed a defamation lawsuit brought by Truth Social’s parent company, Truth Media & Technology Group Corp. (TMTG), against The Guardian, the Sarasota Herald-Tribune, and several reporters—marking another instance in which legal actions connected to President Donald Trump’s media interests have faced significant hurdles in court.

The case stemmed from two articles published by the UK-based Guardian in March 2023. According to Judge Hunter Carroll of the Twelfth Judicial Circuit Court for Sarasota County, the reporting focused on “a federal criminal investigation related to TMTG’s receipt of two payments totaling $8 million.” The articles described claims—sourced to individuals familiar with the matter—that “federal prosecutors in New York were conducting a money laundering investigation related to the payments, which were wired through the Caribbean from Paxum Bank and ES Family Trust, entities with ties to an ally of Russian president Vladimir Putin and a history of providing banking services to the sex worker industry.” The reporting also said the origins of the loans raised internal concerns at TMTG, including that its then-CFO considered returning the funds before the company “ultimately did not.”

The Guardian’s reporting was later referenced by other outlets, including the Herald-Tribune. TMTG filed suit, arguing the articles were false and defamatory and asserting that TMTG “is not, and never was, under investigation for money laundering,” and that neither the company nor its executives “have been the focus of any investigation.”

Judge Carroll noted in his ruling that TMTG acknowledged it is a public figure, which requires a higher standard of proof—“actual malice”—to prevail on a defamation claim. After reviewing the allegations, the court concluded that TMTG had not met that threshold. The judge also cited Florida’s anti-SLAPP statute, intended to stop lawsuits “without merit and primarily because such person or entity has exercised the constitutional right of free speech in connection with a public issue.” Under the statute, defendants may recover attorneys’ fees when targeted by meritless suits aimed at discouraging public participation.

Carroll emphasized that “merely reporting on negative information is not enough to establish actual malice,” adding that the law “requires more than a departure from journalistic standards or a mere failure to investigate.”

The articles, he wrote, were grounded in “multiple sources familiar with the investigation, review of internal TMTG communications, investigation of the entities who made the loans, and fruitless requests for further information from the Department of Justice, the investigators’ office, and outside counsel for TMTG.”

TMTG’s CEO Devin Nunes—formerly a Republican congressman—had publicly denied that the company was aware of any issues related to the loans, and the Guardian included his denial in its reporting. But Carroll found that the denial did not demonstrate malice, writing: “This denial is not germane to the existence or nature of the investigation, and even if it was, such commonplace denials do not establish actual malice.”


Broader Context: Trump-Affiliated Defamation Suits Face Legal Barriers

The dismissal is the latest example of how defamation cases brought by Trump or entities connected to him have struggled to move forward, largely due to high legal standards for public figures and strong protections for political and investigative reporting.

Key related examples include:

Trump v. CNN (2022–2023)

President Trump sued CNN for $475 million, arguing the network defamed him by comparing some of his statements about the 2020 election to rhetoric used by authoritarian regimes. A federal judge dismissed the suit in 2023, finding that the comparisons were protected opinion rather than factual claims.

Trump Campaign v. The New York Times (2020–2021)

The Trump campaign sued The New York Times over an opinion piece suggesting Trump had welcomed Russian election interference. A New York judge dismissed the case, emphasizing that opinion columns—especially on political matters—receive robust First Amendment protection.

Trump Campaign v. The Washington Post (2020–2021)

A similar lawsuit against The Washington Post over opinion articles discussing the campaign’s contacts with Russia was also dismissed for lack of actionable factual claims.

Trump v. The New York Times and Mary Trump (2019 publication; lawsuit filed 2021; dismissed 2022)

President Trump filed suit against the newspaper and his niece Mary Trump over reporting that relied on family tax records. A judge dismissed the case in 2022, finding that newsgathering activities—even aggressive ones—are protected under the First Amendment.

Bill Maher Open To Voting Republican – But With Some Changes

2
Missvain, CC BY 4.0 via Wikimedia Commons

Comedian and longtime liberal commentator Bill Maher told Fareed Zakaria on CNN’s GPS that he could “of course” envision voting Republican — but only if the party becomes something markedly different than what it has been.

Maher, who has been a longtime critic of Donald Trump and a traditional supporter of Democrats, laid out a number of caveats before making such a move. “They would have to certainly lose the idea of ‘we don’t concede elections,’” he said.

He added his biggest concern:

“And my biggest worry is that they feel that the excesses of the left are so great, that they are so anti‐common sense. And again, they’re not completely wrong about that — that they are so — never met something that was counterintuitive that they didn’t embrace. That they just can’t let these people take power and, therefore, even if there has to — if democracy has to be sacrificed for hanging on to power,” Maher said.

Maher also questioned the GOP’s long‐term commitment to democratic norms after Trump:

“Will they still keep that idea that we cannot let these people take power? These people who just do not have any idea of common sense, they want to reinvent everything. They are revolutionaries in a country that is not asking for [a] revolution — they’re just asking for politicians to fix things. That is my biggest concern.” He noted a hope for a “return to normalcy” after Trump — though he expressed skepticism.

At the same time, Maher acknowledged areas where he believes Trump was right:

He pointed out the border, DEI (diversity, equity, inclusion) initiatives, and NATO contributions. “He showed that you can close the border. It wasn’t something you needed congressional help for. You could just do it, and he did it. He just did it too far. And people don’t like to see people tackled at Home Depot and people they know who have been in this country for a long time.”

He wrapped up by hitting both parties:

“Why can’t either one be normal?” he asked rhetorically.


Why this matters for Republicans

Maher’s comments underscore a key opportunity and challenge for the GOP: there are non‐traditional voices who might vote Republican — but only if the party reaffirms core democratic norms and common‐sense governance rather than radical transformation. If Republicans continue to be associated with election denial, extreme rhetoric, or sweeping change beyond what voters ask for, they risk alienating such swing voices.

For Republican-leaning audiences focused on policy, governance, and institutional credibility, Maher’s remarks are a reminder that expanding the party’s appeal may hinge more on tone and norms than just raw policy wins.

Appeals Court Tosses Out ‘Meritless’ Trump Lawsuit Against CNN

1

A federal appeals court panel has rejected President Donald Trump’s attempt to revive his lawsuit against CNN over the network’s repeated use of the term “Big Lie” to characterize his claims about irregularities in the 2020 election. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday that CNN’s wording—despite its historical connotations and its association with Adolf Hitler—falls under First Amendment-protected opinion rather than a provable factual assertion.

The three-judge panel, which notably included two judges appointed by Trump, concluded that CNN’s choice of language, while controversial, could not sustain a defamation claim.

“Trump’s argument hinges on the fact that his own interpretation of his conduct — i.e., that he was exercising a constitutional right to identify his concerns with the integrity of elections — is true and that CNN’s interpretation — i.e., that Trump was peddling his ‘Big Lie’ — is false,” the unanimous panel wrote. “However, his conduct is susceptible to multiple subjective interpretations, including CNN’s.”

Because statements of opinion cannot be proven true or false, the court determined CNN’s phrasing did not meet the legal threshold for defamation.

“CNN’s subjective assessment of Trump’s conduct is not readily capable of being proven true or False,” wrote Judge Adalberto Jordan, an Obama appointee, joined by Trump appointees Kevin Newsom and Elizabeth Branch.

Trump now has the option to request a rehearing by the full 11th Circuit or appeal to the Supreme Court. A spokesperson for Trump’s legal team indicated he plans to continue challenging the ruling, saying he “will pursue this case against CNN to its just and deserved conclusion.” CNN declined to comment.

The appeals court’s decision affirms a July ruling by U.S. District Judge Raag Singhal—also appointed by Trump—who dismissed Trump’s $475 million lawsuit last year. That lawsuit argued that CNN used the phrase “Big Lie” to intentionally evoke Nazi comparisons, but Singhal found that even harsh or offensive opinions are protected unless they include false statements of fact.

The appellate judges agreed, writing: “Trump’s argument is unpersuasive. Although he concedes that CNN’s use of the term ‘Big Lie’ is, to some extent, ambiguous, he assumes that it is unambiguous enough to constitute a statement of fact. This assumption is untenable.”

This decision represents another setback in Trump’s broader effort to challenge major media outlets he says have misrepresented him. While he has secured some favorable settlements—including from ABC and CBS’s parent company—his lawsuits against the New York Times and CNN have faced significant resistance in court. Most recently, Trump criticized and threatened legal action against the BBC over edits made to his January 6, 2021, speech on the Ellipse.

BBC Officially Apologizes To Trump For Deceptive Edit

0

The British broadcaster BBC has formally apologized to the White House for the way it edited a clip of President Trump’s speech on January 6, 2021 — the day before the Capitol attack. The apology comes just days after President Trump’s legal team threatened the BBC with a $1 billion lawsuit over the segment, which appeared in a documentary.

According to a BBC spokesperson, “Lawyers for the BBC have written to President Trump’s legal team in response to a letter received on Sunday.” The BBC added: “Chair [Samir Shah] has separately sent a personal letter to the White House making clear to President Trump that he and the Corporation are sorry for the edit of the President’s speech on 6 January 2021, which featured in the programme.” The BBC also confirmed that there are no plans to rebroadcast the documentary Trump: A Second Chance? on any of its platforms.

The broadcaster acknowledged that “the way the speech was edited did give the impression of a direct call for violent action,” and referred to it as “an error in judgement.” The BBC nonetheless stated that it strongly disagrees there is a valid defamation claim.

The specific clip in question showed Trump saying to his rally crowd: “We’re going to walk down to the Capitol, and I’ll be there with you. And we fight. We fight like hell.” A fuller official transcript and video, however, show that Trump also told his supporters to march “peacefully and patriotically” to the Capitol.

President Trump’s lawsuit accuses the BBC of defamation, alleging the broadcaster caused “overwhelming financial and reputational harm” with the editing. With this apology, the BBC has taken a step toward mollifying the matter — but the threat of litigation remains.

President Trump has a well-documented history of filing lawsuits (or threatening them) against major media outlets. Here are a few notable examples:

  • Trump’s legal team recently filed a $15 billion defamation and libel lawsuit against The New York Times, four of its journalists, and publisher Penguin Random House. He accuses them of publishing false allegations about his business and political career, saying they harmed his brand and business interests.
  • Earlier in 2025 he filed a $10 billion lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal and its owner (including Rupert Murdoch) over an article about alleged ties between Trump and the financier Jeffrey Epstein.
  • In 2024, a settlement was reached when parent company Paramount Global (of CBS) paid $16 million to resolve a suit Trump brought over purportedly misleading editing of a 2024 interview on 60 Minutes.
  • Legal-watchers note that by mid-2025 Trump was involved in as many new media and defamation lawsuits as he was in all of 2024 — reflecting a significant escalation of his willingness to use litigation in his media disputes