The Defamation Didn’t Stop. It Escalated — and Moved to a New Courtroom.
How an accusation of “profiting from death” was reaffirmed—rather than denied—in federal court
[Screenshot of Imran Ahmed characterizing those who question vaccine safety or advocate for parental rights as profiting from death. The full clip appears at the end of this article.]
When an accusation of lethal harm is repeated in federal court rather than retracted, it stops being rhetoric and becomes evidence.
For years, one accusation — made by the Center for Countering Digital Hate CEO Imran Ahmed — has followed me and others like a scarlet letter:
That we “profit from causing death.”
Not that we were wrong.
Not that we disagreed with public health authorities.
Not even that our speech was reckless.
But that we caused death with deliberately crafted misinformation (aka “disinformation”) — and did it so we could profit from our victims.
It is one of the most extreme accusations you can make against another human being. It alleges lethal harm, intent, and profiteering. It destroys reputations, livelihoods, and trust.
And now, in 2026, it is no longer just a media smear.
It is something worse.
It has been reaffirmed, preserved, and escalated in federal court filings — twice.
What Imran Ahmed Refused to Deny in Federal Court
On January 16, 2026, Imran Ahmed and the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) filed a motion in federal court in Florida titled:
“Defendants Center for Countering Digital Hate, Inc. and Imran Ahmed’s Motion to Dismiss”
(U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida)
The motion spans jurisdiction, statutes of limitation, Florida’s Anti-SLAPP law, and the First Amendment. It asks the court not only to dismiss the case, but to sanction the plaintiffs for daring to bring it.
What it does not do is far more important.
It does not deny that Ahmed accused me of “profiting from causing death.”
It does not argue the statement was false.
It does not claim it was metaphorical or rhetorical.
It does not correct the record.
Instead, the filing treats the accusation as settled speech — protected, permissible, and beyond scrutiny.
That silence is not neutral.
When someone accused of defamation refuses to defend the truth of an allegation — especially one this severe — it is not an oversight. It is strategy.
View and download the entire court document here.
The Defense Was Never “Truth.” It Was Evasion.
Read the Florida motion closely and a pattern emerges.
The defense is not:
“This statement was accurate.”
It is:
“You shouldn’t be allowed to question it.”
The filing leans on:
lack of personal jurisdiction
statute of limitations
Florida’s “single action rule”
Anti-SLAPP sanctions
the idea that plaintiffs are trying to “recast” defamation as other torts
All of this serves one purpose: to keep the court from ever examining whether the accusation is true.
There is no evidence presented that anyone died because of my work.
No causal chain.
No data.
No names.
No proof.
So the defense is procedural insulation, not factual justification.
Then He Filed a Second Federal Case — and Reinjured Us All
A month earlier, on December 24, 2025, Imran Ahmed filed a brand-new lawsuit — this time in New York City — titled:
“Imran Ahmed v. Marco Rubio, et al.”
(U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York)
View and download the entire filing here.
This filing was not defensive. Ahmed was now the plaintiff, claiming that the U.S. government was retaliating against him for his speech and advocacy — and portraying himself as the victim.
But in the course of making that case, he did something that fundamentally changes the legal picture.
He repeated the same defamatory narrative — and pushed it further.
In the SDNY complaint and supporting filings, Ahmed once again treats the Disinformation Dozen report as authoritative. He presents the people he targeted as dangerous. He frames critics of COVID vaccine policy as sources of real-world harm — death, suicide, overdose, violence. He positions himself and CCDH as defenders standing between the public and what he characterizes as lethal actors.
And once again, he never retracts or disclaims the accusation that some of us “caused death” or profited from it. He also conveniently ignores the allegations he laundered in Parliament where we were compared to sexual predators and mass murderers.
This wasn’t background context. It wasn’t color. It was the moral engine of the lawsuit.
Put plainly: even while telling a federal court that he was being persecuted, Ahmed continued to accuse others of lethal harm.
At this point, it’s worth pausing to explain something that almost never gets discussed outside courtrooms. What Ahmed said in the Southern District of New York isn’t just rhetoric. It isn’t political framing. It isn’t storytelling. It’s evidence.
Under basic federal evidentiary rules, statements a party makes in one lawsuit — including complaints, sworn declarations, and arguments adopted by counsel — can be used against that same party in another case. They’re treated as admissions of a party opponent.
In plain English: when Ahmed reaffirmed the same “death-causing” narrative in a new federal complaint, after litigation was already underway in Florida, he didn’t distance himself from the accusation.
He renewed it.
That matters because it goes straight to the heart of what the Florida court is being asked to decide: whether the defamation is ongoing, whether statute-of-limitations defenses fail because of republication, and whether repeating the allegation after notice shows reckless disregard for truth.
This is no longer a dispute about something said years ago on a podcast.
It is a record of what was said again — deliberately, with lawyers, in federal court — after the harm was already known.
This Is Not “Old Speech.” It Is Republication.
There’s a basic principle in defamation law that applies here.
When a defamatory statement is reaffirmed, adopted, or republished in a new context, it can restart liability. Time doesn’t magically sanitize it.
By repeating and escalating the same lethal narrative in a new federal complaint — in a different court, to a different audience, years later — Ahmed didn’t walk anything back.
He doubled down.
He Can’t Have It Both Ways
This is the contradiction now sitting at the center of everything.
In Florida, Ahmed argues that these statements were opinions — part of a public debate, protected speech, legally non-actionable.
In New York, he relies on the very same narrative as serious, dangerous, and consequential enough to explain why the government acted against him.
Both things cannot be true.
If these accusations are merely opinion, they cannot justify sanctions, deportation threats, or emergency constitutional litigation.
If they justify those actions, then they are assertions of fact — and they must be true.
You don’t get to use an accusation as a sword in one court and a shield in another.
This Is What Actual Malice Looks Like
Actual malice isn’t about tone. It isn’t about hostility. And it isn’t about whether someone intended to offend.
It’s about reckless disregard for truth.
By the time the SDNY case was filed, Ahmed knew the accusation had caused real reputational harm. He knew litigation was pending. He knew the statement was contested. He knew the damage was ongoing.
And he repeated it anyway — without evidence, without clarification, without restraint. That isn’t advocacy. That’s continuation.
Why This Matters Beyond Me
This case isn’t about bruised egos.
It’s about whether well-funded NGOs can accuse named individuals of causing death — even likening them to sexual predators or criminal networks, as Ahmed did in Parliament in 2021 — trigger deplatforming, financial harm, and public stigma, then avoid accountability by invoking “public debate,” only to redeploy the same accusations inside court pleadings.
If that model holds, truth becomes optional. All that remains is narrative power.
The Record Is Clear
Imran Ahmed had plenty of opportunities to stop.
He could have retracted.
He could have clarified.
He could have substantiated.
He could have corrected.
He did none of those things. Instead, he escalated — in a second federal courtroom. The defamation didn’t end. It changed venues.
And now it’s no longer just a media issue.
It’s a question of accountability.
More to come.
Please support our federal civil rights case by making a donation here. We are up against the world’s most powerful entities and organizations. Only, together, can we right the wrongs done against American constitutional liberties and prevent them from happening again!
Evidence: The clip below is one of several where Imran Ahmed says I (and others he targets in the Disinformation Dozen report and the NATO Stratcom supported movie he was featured in called “The Dis/informed) and where he alleges I ‘profit from causing death.’
I love how you succinctly describe legal issues - better than a lot of lawyers. I can't stand looking at Ahmed or listening to him. The man is an evil coward. I will continue to pray for you to stay strong.
Evil on full display.