O’Keefe Media Group has filed a motion asking a federal court to reconsider its decision allowing portions of Mannina v. O’Keefe to proceed, citing a new D.C. Circuit ruling in Democracy Partners v. Project Veritas that OMG argues changes the legal analysis surrounding undercover newsgathering, publication, and alleged fraud.
The dispute stems from OMG’s investigation, “Dating the Deep State,” from Jan. 2025, involving former FBI agent and federal contractor Jamie Mannina. Mannina was secretly recorded claiming he was having conversations with retired generals to “protect people from Trump.”
Mannina, represented by Mark Zaid, subsequently sued O’Keefe Media Group and others, asserting claims including defamation and false light, fraudulent misrepresentation, civil conspiracy, and federal wiretapping.
Federal Judge Allows Mannina Lawsuit to Proceed
In July 2026, U.S. District Judge Amit P. Mehta denied OMG’s motion to dismiss, allowing the lawsuit to move forward.
One dispute centers on OMG’s characterization of Mannina and the use of the term “Deep State.”
OMG argues that “Deep State” is political characterization or rhetorical hyperbole rather than an objectively verifiable statement of fact. According to OMG’s position, treating such terminology as factual risks turning subjective political expressions—including terms such as “the swamp,” “RINO,” or “the establishment”—into potentially actionable statements.
The court’s order also discusses an alleged characterization involving a “coup.” OMG maintains that it never used the word “coup” in its published reporting. Rather, the term appeared in Mannina’s own lawsuit, which alleged that OMG’s reporting created the impression that Mannina was attempting to launch an unlawful coup against President Trump.
OMG disputes that characterization, arguing that its published video showed Mannina making his own statements and that the reporting did not make the claim alleged in his complaint.
Can an Undercover Dating Persona Constitute Fraud?
Another central issue is Mannina’s fraudulent misrepresentation claim.
The undercover journalist allegedly used a fabricated dating persona to meet Mannina. That raises a broader question with potential implications for undercover journalism:
Can a journalist’s concealment of identity or motive while gathering news constitute actionable fraud when the alleged damages ultimately arise from publication?
Undercover journalism frequently involves some form of concealment. Reporters generally do not announce an undercover investigation to their subjects before gathering information.
OMG argues that fraud law should not transform every concealed journalistic motive into a tort—particularly when the alleged injuries stem from the subsequent publication of news rather than the initial newsgathering interaction itself.
That distinction has now become more significant because of a new federal appellate ruling.
The New Democracy Partners Ruling
Judge Mehta’s July order relied in part on Democracy Partners v. Project Veritas, litigation arising from a separate undercover investigation.
But after Judge Mehta issued his decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued a new ruling in Democracy Partners.
OMG has now filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that this new controlling appellate precedent changes the analysis and supports dismissal of several claims against it and its undercover journalists.
According to OMG’s motion, when constitutionally protected publication contributes to an alleged injury, a plaintiff faces a substantial burden to establish that independently unlawful conduct—not the publication—was the force behind those damages.
That distinction goes directly to Mannina’s allegations.
OMG: Mannina Voluntarily Spoke During Public Dates
Although Democracy Partners involved an undercover operative who allegedly entered a private workplace, obtained an employment-like position, gained access to confidential conversations and documents, and created security and confidentiality concerns independent of the eventual publication, its central holding is critical to the current Mannina case.
Here, Mannina met a new acquaintance at public restaurants and voluntarily spoke to her on dates. While the underlying facts are different, the central holding in Democracy Partners established that plaintiffs cannot do an end-run around the First Amendment by merely placing a label on their injuries.
In other words, the alleged dating deception that Mannina is complaining about must be the sole cause of his injuries, not the video that OMG published on social media. If OMG’s published video caused Mannina’s injuries, then he has a very high burden to prove his case according to the new Democracy Partners decisions.
Another Federal Court Has Already Addressed Similar OMG Reporting
OMG is also pointing to another recent federal case in another jurisdiction with notably similar allegations: Fseisi v. O’Keefe Media Group.
That case likewise involved an OMG operative using Bumble, alleged false representations concerning identity and political views, purported romantic dates, a federal security contractor, secret recordings, subsequent publication, and claims involving fraudulent misrepresentation, conspiracy, and wiretapping.
In May 2026, U.S. District Judge Anthony Trenga dismissed the entire case.
The court concluded that although misrepresentations had allegedly occurred, the subsequent publication constituted an intervening cause of the plaintiff’s claimed injuries. The court also concluded that fraud could not be used to obtain publication-related damages without satisfying the applicable First Amendment requirements.
The similarities are now part of the broader legal fight over whether alleged deception used to facilitate undercover reporting can independently support damages that arise after the resulting news is published.
A Larger Fight Over Undercover Journalism
For OMG, the implications extend beyond a single lawsuit.
The fundamental question is whether traditional undercover newsgathering techniques can be repackaged as “fraud”when the claimed reputational, professional, or emotional injury ultimately stems from publication of news.
OMG’s newly filed motion asks Judge Mehta to reconsider his July ruling in light of the D.C. Circuit’s new Democracy Partners precedent.
The outcome could have implications for the distinction between allegedly unlawful conduct during newsgathering and damages arising from constitutionally protected publication.
WATCH the full breakdown of the newly filed motion, the Democracy Partners ruling, the Fseisi decision, and why O’Keefe Media Group argues the new precedent changes the case.
