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.
