Tort -Far-right political operative fails to dismiss defamation claims

Where a far-right political operative stated a medical doctor “signed the memo institutionalizing the illegal vax mandate on the DOD,” will be “criminally liable and face consequences for genocide and for mutilation” and is “going to be convicted of genocide and mass mutilation at the very least,” his attempt to dismiss the resulting defamation claims was denied.

Background

Terry Adirim, a medical doctor who served in the CIA’s Center for Global Health Services, filed suit against the CIA; its director (John Ratcliffe) and Ivan Raiklin over alleged constitutional, statutory and common law violations related to her termination from the CIA in 2025. Defendants move to dismiss plaintiff’s remaining claims, while plaintiff seeks leave to amend her complaint once more.

Defamation

Plaintiff alleges that Raiklin defamed her by stating on Roseanne Barr’s podcast that plaintiff had (1) “signed the memo institutionalizing the illegal vax mandate on the DOD,” (2) will be “criminally liable and face consequences for genocide and for mutilation” and (3) is “going to be convicted of genocide and mass mutilation at the very least.”

The court finds that Raiklin’s statements plausibly communicate factual content. The first statement conveys that plaintiff instituted an illegal program while the second and third statements convey that she has committed “genocide” and “mass mutilation.” While the second and third statements predict that plaintiff will be held liable for her actions, they are “laden with [the] factual content” that she has, in fact, committed the underlying crimes.

That Raiklin’s statements predicted plaintiff would face future criminal liability for her actions does not change this outcome. They also communicate the factual assertion that she has committed genocide and mass mutilation in the past through her work at the Department of Defense. Such statements are capable of being proven false and therefore fall outside of the First Amendment’s ambit.

Raiklin’s statements do not constitute nonactionable hyperbole for similar reasons. This is not a case in which any reasonable person would understand Raiklin’s statements as “imaginative” rhetoric not intended to “assert provable facts.”

Further, at this stage, plaintiff has adequately alleged actual malice. Given plaintiff’s allegations that scientific studies have proven the vaccines to be safe, Raiklin should have “entertained serious doubts” as to whether plaintiff caused a genocide and mass mutilation by requiring service members to be vaccinated. The court denies his motion to dismiss her defamation claim.

Conversion

Plaintiff also brings a conversion claim against Raiklin for obtaining copies of her direct messages on X without her permission. However plaintiff has not shown that she has a “clear, definite, undisputed, and obvious property right in a thing to which [she is] entitled to immediate possession.” The conversion claim is dismissed.

Due Process

Under the doctrine developed by the Supreme Court in United States ex rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260 (1954), “an agency’s failure to afford an individual procedural safeguards required under its own regulations may result in the invalidation of the ultimate administrative determination.” The court finds that neither her complaint nor her proposed second amended complaint allege that the CIA failed to follow its regulations in terminating her.

Plaintiff’s due process claim also appears to allege a stigma plus claim against the CIA defendants. However plaintiff has not alleged that the CIA is responsible for making a public stigmatizing statement that can form the basis of a due process claim. Plaintiff also alleges that she was stigmatized when Donald Trump, Jr. tweeted a screenshot of the Breitbart article’s title with the phrase “Bye bye.” But the tweet thus is not a stigmatizing statement made public by plaintiff’s employer and cannot support her due process claim.

Finally, in her proposed second amended complaint, plaintiff alleges a declaration submitted by the CIA in this case, declaration accusing her of workplace harassment, constitutes a false and defamatory statement that violated her right to procedural due process. Having placed the reason for her termination at issue, plaintiff cannot claim that the CIA defamed her by trying to explain the action it took.

Privacy Act

Plaintiff’s Privacy Act falls short in pleading actual damages. Plaintiff does not allege that Raiklin or Loomer saw the screenshot of her employment announcement from the CIA or that the screenshot prompted them to advocate for Plaintiff’s termination.

Section 1983

Plaintiff’s final claim in her proposed second amended complaint is a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against the CIA defendants and others. Because federal officers cannot be held liable under § 1983, plaintiff’s § 1983 claim is futile.

CIA defendants’ motion to dismiss granted. Raiklin’s motion to dismiss granted in part, denied in part. Plaintiff’s motion to file second amended complaint denied.

Adirim v. U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, Case No. 1:25-cv-768, Feb. 25, 2026. EDVA at Alexandria (Nachmanoff). VLW 026-3-090. 25 pp.

Full-Text Opinion

VLW 026-3-077
Virginia Lawyers Weekly