Federal Judge Dismisses Devin Nunes’ Defamation Lawsuit Against Rachel Maddow

Devin Nunes, currently the CEO of Trump Media & Technology Group—parent company of the social media platform Truth Social—filed a defamation lawsuit against Rachel Maddow in 2021, when he was still serving as a Republican member of Congress from California. The case stemmed from a segment Maddow aired on her MSNBC program, in which she referenced an Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) report and an article from Politico that discussed a package Nunes received from Andrii Derkach, a Ukrainian national later sanctioned by the U.S. as a Russian agent. Maddow stated that Nunes “has refused to hand it over to the FBI, which is what you should do if you get something from somebody who is sanctioned by the U.S. as a Russian agent” .

Nunes claimed that Maddow and her executive producer, Cory Gnazzo, knew he had in fact submitted the package to the FBI and argued that the segment was aired with reckless disregard for the truth—a requirement for a successful defamation claim by a public figure in the United States .

On August 2, 2025, U.S. District Judge Kevin Castel in Manhattan dismissed the lawsuit. In his ruling, Judge Castel found that Maddow’s statements did not rise to the level of “actual malice,” the legal standard that must be met for a public figure to succeed in a defamation suit. The judge concluded that no reasonable jury could find that Maddow or her team knowingly or recklessly disregarded the truth in their reporting .

Judge Castel also noted that Maddow’s commentary was based on existing news reports and official government documents. The court found that while Nunes may have disagreed with Maddow’s interpretation and presentation, her statements were protected under the First Amendment, particularly given the context of covering a matter of public concern .

The decision is being hailed as a reaffirmation of press freedom and the high threshold required for public figures to challenge critical commentary in the media. Legal experts and media advocates note that the ruling underscores the importance of robust public debate on issues of national security and political accountability, especially where powerful figures are involved .

While Nunes’ legal team argued the reporting was false and damaging, the court’s decision highlights the legal protections afforded to journalists, commentators, and news organizations, particularly when reporting on government officials. “This case serves as a reminder that public figures face an extremely high bar to prove defamation,” said a spokesperson for MSNBC, which was NBCUniversal’s news division at the time of the broadcast .

Rachel Maddow, one of the most visible out lesbians in American broadcast journalism, is a prominent figure for many in the LGBTQ+ community. Her victory in this lawsuit is significant not only for press freedom but also for LGBTQ+ representation in media, as it reaffirms the right of LGBTQ+ journalists and public figures to engage in critical reporting without fear of intimidation through legal action .

For LGBTQ+ journalists and advocates, the ruling sends a message that attempts to silence marginalized voices in the media through litigation are unlikely to succeed when reporting is grounded in fact and protected speech. This outcome may encourage more LGBTQ+ individuals to pursue careers in journalism or speak out on issues of public concern, knowing that the courts recognize and protect their rights to free expression .

Nunes has not publicly indicated whether he will appeal the dismissal. Legal observers note, however, that similar lawsuits by public figures against media organizations have rarely succeeded, as federal courts have consistently upheld the First Amendment’s strong protections for speech on matters of public interest .

This case also arrives at a time when LGBTQ+ journalists and media outlets face increased scrutiny and, in some cases, targeted harassment. The court’s ruling may serve as a point of reassurance that the legal system continues to uphold the constitutional rights that are essential to a free and inclusive press.