Candace Owens moves to dismiss Brian Harpole’s defamation lawsuit over explosive Charlie Kirk assassination claims

Candace Owens is asking a federal judge to dismiss Brian Harpole’s defamation lawsuit, arguing that her comments about the former Charlie Kirk security chief were protected speech rather than actionable false statements. The motion puts the focus on free speech, public debate and the legal line between opinion and defamation as the case moves through federal court in Tennessee.Candace Owens challenges Brian Harpole defamation claimsHarpole filed the lawsuit in April against Owens, Candace Owens LLC, GeorgeTom Inc. and Mitchell Snow. The case, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, accuses the defendants of making statements that linked Harpole to an alleged plot surrounding Kirk’s assassination. The court docket confirms the case remains active.Owens now wants all six claims against her and her companies dismissed. Her attorneys argue that several statements cited by Harpole were opinions, rhetorical exaggeration or questions rather than factual allegations that could form the basis of a defamation claim.Among the comments at issue are Owens saying Harpole and members of Kirk’s security team “should be fired.” Her lawyers contend that such language represents a judgment about security performance rather than a factual statement capable of being proven true or false.The filing also challenges Harpole’s allegation that Owens portrayed him as someone who effectively allowed Kirk’s death to happen. Her legal team argues that the lawsuit attempts to turn a collection of individual statements into a broader defamatory meaning that Owens did not directly state.Harpole, meanwhile, disputes the allegations and has maintained that the claims surrounding him are false. His lawsuit says he was in Dallas on Sept. 9, 2025, rather than at Fort Huachuca in Arizona, where Snow allegedly claimed to have seen him. Harpole has also argued that travel records support his account.Fort Huachuca allegation remains central to lawsuitThe dispute over Fort Huachuca is one of the most significant factual issues hanging over the case. Harpole says he never attended the alleged meeting, while Snow has defended his account. Harpole’s later court filing argues that Snow’s description and confidence in the identification helped give the allegation an appearance of certainty.Owens’ current motion does not fully resolve that factual dispute. Instead, her attorneys say the issue can be addressed later if the lawsuit survives the dismissal stage.Another major argument concerns Harpole’s status in the public debate surrounding Kirk’s killing. Owens’ lawyers say Harpole voluntarily entered the controversy before Owens publicly identified him. They argue that this could make him a limited-purpose public figure, potentially requiring him to prove actual malice.Owens is also invoking Tennessee’s Public Participation Act, an anti-SLAPP law designed to protect certain speech concerning matters of public concern. Her lawyers argue that commentary about Kirk’s assassination and the security operation falls within that protection.If Owens succeeds under that law, she is asking the court to award attorneys’ fees and related costs.For now, however, none of the competing allegations has been resolved by the court. The lawsuit remains pending, and the judge has yet to rule on Owens’ request to dismiss the claims.Catch the latest World News and Live updates. Download the TOI app.