A former CIA doctor has claimed in a new lawsuit that her dismissal was politically motivated after she was featured on a "Deep State Target List" by a right-wing activist.
This case highlights allegations of political targeting within the Trump administration, where former officials, including Dr. Terry Adirim, say they found themselves in the crosshairs of political campaigns led by figures like Ivan Raiklin and Laura Loomer, as the Washington Examiner reports.
Dr. Terry Adirim, previously the director of the CIA Centers for Global Health Services, has sued for alleged political bias in her recent firing. According to the New York Times, the former CIA doctor believes that her inclusion on a politically charged list substantially contributed to her termination.
Adirim began her role at the CIA late last year but was dismissed earlier in 2025. Her firing was first reported by Breitbart News in April, fueling claims that her removal was politically driven rather than performance related. The doctor previously held a prominent role in the Department of Defense where she implemented the contentious COVID-19 vaccine directive for military members.
The COVID-19 vaccine mandate was pivotal during the pandemic, leading to several military dismissals for non-compliance. Despite the controversy, Adirim's legal complaint maintains that her guidance mitigated fatalities within the armed forces. Her attorney asserts, "Plaintiff's recommendations were instrumental in preventing new COVID-19 deaths among the ranks post-implementation."
Ivan Raiklin, a staunch Trump supporter, has emergedd as a pivotal critic of Adirim in her lawsuit. He describes himself as Trump's "secretary of retribution," a title underscoring his active role in critiquing figures perceived as ideological adversaries. Raiklin listed Adirim on his "Deep State Target List," which the lawsuit claims led to undue defamation and subsequent job loss.
Raiklin has not shied from criticizing Adirim on social media, particularly on X. In a post, he charged that "millions" perceive Adirim as deserving imprisonment. This online campaign against her reportedly amplified pressure leading to her dismissal.
The lawsuit isn't an isolated instance of alleged politically motivated admin changes during the Trump era. Laura Loomer, another noted right-wing activist, reportedly took part in a campaign leading to other officials' removals. She claims responsibility for instigating changes within the National Security Council and influencing the removal of national security adviser Mike Waltz.
Loomer's supposedly direct involvement included accusations against personnel regarding loyalties and foreign links, shaping a legacy of politically charged personnel decisions. She also reportedly counseled Trump at the White House, preceding these administrative shifts.
Reflecting on her ordeal, Adirim's lawyer argues that both her firing and personal threats followed her continued public service. "Her family endured great injustice," the lawsuit contends, targeting the broader narrative of extremist-driven political retribution in public service dismissals.
Adirim's legal narrative is founded not only on personal injustice but on her public health contributions. Her attorney emphasizes the protective effects of her policies in the military, stressing the sharp decline in COVID-19 fatalities following vaccine mandate implementation. This emphasis attempts to position Adirim as a scapegoat of ideological backlash rather than faulted for her administrative capacity.
While these allegations resonate with broader claimed themes of the Trump administration's tenure, they spotlight underlying tensions between professionally driven policies and politically endorsed movements. The outcome of Adirim's lawsuit could set influential precedents regarding the intersection of politics and civil service roles.
The legal filings underscore ongoing discussions about the role of political activism within government structures and its ramifications for public administrators. As the case unfolds, it will be pivotal in elucidating perceived threats against public servants and the impact of activism on their careers. Both Adirim's former role and the similar high-profile dismissals showcase the complex landscape where political advocacy intersects with federal employment, a matter of continued legal fervor and public debate.
