The CIA maintained that Adirim was not terminated over politics but because of ’multiple complaints’ from CIA staff about her conduct in the workplace.
A federal judge has denied an emergency bid by Dr. Terry Adirim to halt her dismissal from the CIA, rejecting her claims that political activists orchestrated her firing in retaliation for her role in enforcing the military’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate.
In a ruling issued on May 9, U.S. District Judge Michael Nachmanoff found that Adirim had failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of her claim that the CIA violated her constitutional rights. The decision clears the way for the agency to proceed with terminating Adirim’s employment under a contract provision allowing dismissal with 30 days’ notice.
Adirim, a former senior Defense Department official who served as the CIA’s Director of Global Health Services, alleged in court filings that she became the target of a politically motivated campaign led by activist Ivan Raiklin. She claimed in her lawsuit that Raiklin defamed her as a traitor and “architect” of the Pentagon’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate and that he enlisted fellow activist Laura Loomer to persuade President Donald Trump to intervene with the CIA to have her fired.
Her lawsuit named the CIA, Raiklin, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, and the conservative nonprofit America’s Future, Inc., as defendants. It alleged due process violations, defamation, a contract breach, and a Privacy Act violation stemming from alleged leaks about her dismissal to Breitbart News.
In a 25-page opposition brief filed on May 6, Justice Department attorneys called Adirim’s theory “speculative and unsupported,” arguing that her theory relied on loosely drawn connections and unsubstantiated assumptions about political influence.
“Plaintiff pinpoints the blame not on the CIA, but on a non-governmental actor, Ivan Raiklin, whom she accuses of orchestrating her termination through a scheme of defamation and political influence,” the attorneys wrote. “Besides being farfetched—and untrue—Plaintiff’s allegations do not actually amount to any viable claim against the Federal Defendants, let alone any claim that merits an injunction.”
By Tom Ozimek
