O’Keefe Media Group (OMG) and founder James O’Keefe have filed a motion to dismiss a defamation lawsuit brought by former Department of Defense advisor Jamie Mannina, invoking Washington D.C.’s anti-SLAPP statute designed to protect speech on matters of public interest. The filing comes in response to a complaint that alleges OMG defamed Mannina by publishing undercover video footage and related commentary based on his recorded statements.
In the footage at the center of the dispute, Mannina, who described himself as a “bureaucrat” that was “embedded in the Pentagon,” told an undercover journalist that he worked “in the Joint Staff, which is the top military command,” and that “the chairman of the Joint Chiefs” was his boss. The video also captures Mannina stating he was “in conversation with a couple of retired generals to try and explore what we can do,” after being asked what could be done to “protect the American people from stuff that [President Trump] might try to do.”
In his complaint, Mannina alleges that OMG’s description of his remarks, such as claims that he collaborated with senior retired military leaders to devise strategies to counteract Trump’s presidency, is defamatory. O’Keefe’s legal team argues in its motion that these are fair characterizations based directly on Mannina’s own recorded statements and are protected under the First Amendment and D.C.’s anti-SLAPP statute.
The motion challenges Mannina’s claim that the statement alleging he had “plans to utilize irregular strategies to undermine Donald Trump’s presidency” is defamatory. OMG asserts that this is a reasonable interpretation of Mannina’s admission that he was in discussions with retired generals about actions targeting the Trump administration. The motion states: “That statement was an accurate description/opinion made by OMG based on Mr. Mannina’s own recorded comment.”
Another claim cited in the complaint is that Mannina made “critical remarks” about Trump’s Secretary of Defense nominee, Pete Hegseth. In response, OMG contends that the footage clearly captures Mannina making those remarks and that “publishing such comments was in furtherance of the right of advocacy on issues of public interest.”
The motion also addresses Mannina’s objection to being labeled a “Top Pentagon Advisor.” OMG counters that Mannina described himself in those terms, stating in the footage that he was “at this top consulting firm and my client is the Pentagon,” and that he was “embedded in the Pentagon,” with the chairman of the Joint Chiefs as his boss. “None of this is defamatory,” the filing asserts. “We merely quote Mannina’s own words.”
Under D.C. Code § 16-5502, courts are required to dismiss claims arising from advocacy on issues of public interest unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the statements were both false and made with actual malice. OMG argues that Mannina’s recorded comments concern national leadership and military influence on presidential authority, topics that fall squarely within the statute’s definition of “issues of public interest.”
The legal team for O’Keefe argues that the lawsuit is not only meritless but punitive in nature, designed to silence critical reporting. In a statement accompanying the filing, O’Keefe emphasized that the organization is standing firm in the face of legal pressure. “We never give in, and we never back down,” he said.
The case appears to be part of a wider effort by Mannina’s attorney, Mark Zaid, to recruit others to pursue similar legal action. Zaid has taken to social media to solicit potential plaintiffs and sources, writing that “we have other lawsuits planned against James O’Keefe and his ‘undercover operatives,’” and encouraging those who claim to have been harmed or are interested journalists to reach out. In another post, Zaid urged individuals with information about O’Keefe’s organizations or tactics, including from his time at Project Veritas, to contact him directly, stating that he would offer off-the-record protection.
Zaid also publicly promoted a GoFundMe campaign tied to the case, stating, “Help us stop this behavior NOW,” further signaling the public nature of the legal campaign.
As the court reviews the motion to dismiss, the case may serve as an early test of whether the D.C. anti-SLAPP statute will shield OMG’s reporting from litigation tied to the publication of investigative undercover footage. A ruling in O’Keefe’s favor could set precedent in reinforcing First Amendment protections for journalists engaging in advocacy reporting on public officials.
The outcome is pending. O’Keefe Media Group will continue to provide public updates as it progresses.
Help Defend Free Speech and Real Journalism — Support CJF’s Mission at CJFUSA.org
