Tammy Bruce Accused of Orchestrating Retaliation Campaign Against Journalist Jalil Afridi in Landmark Federal Case

F.P Report

Washington DC: Veteran journalist Muhammad Jalil Afridi, Managing Editor of The Frontier Post, has filed a comprehensive legal reply in U.S. District Court, alleging that State Department Spokesperson Tammy Bruce led a campaign of retaliation, misrepresentation, and exclusion following his hard-hitting investigative reporting on U.S. foreign policy in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Afridi, a credentialed reporter at the White House, State Department, and Pentagon for over a decade, argues that Bruce weaponized press access procedures to silence him after he questioned U.S. involvement in Pakistani political affairs and the crypto business dealings of Gentry Beach, business partner of Donald Trump Jr. The lawsuit, Afridi v. U.S. State Department, Case No. 1:25-cv-02118-DLF, has grown into a defining case on press freedom and viewpoint discrimination inside one of America’s highest foreign policy platforms.

A. No Removal Order Existed—False DHS Narrative Used to Justify Exclusion

Afridi contends that he had a valid DOJ immigration appeal pending since April 2025, which he attached to his reply as evidence. Nonetheless, the government falsely claimed he was subject to a removal order based on unverified information allegedly received from a “building near the State Department.” Afridi rebuts that no DHS enforcement office even exists near Foggy Bottom, and that the claim is either fabricated or recklessly repeated hearsay. FOIA requests to the FBI, DOJ, and DHS were filed to investigate this claim, all of which are annexed.

AB. Behavior Allegation Refuted by Hallway Camera Footage and Witness Testimony

The State Department cited an incident where Afridi allegedly left his children unattended. In response, Afridi included evidence that his children were under supervision by a staff member named Miss Alison and were seated with him in the State Department media office. Hallway surveillance footage, he asserts, will confirm this. He also reminded the Court that he had attended briefings for over nine years without incident, and that these accusations coincided with a broader pattern of marginalizing his questions under the Biden administration’s changing foreign policy narrative.

B. Misrepresented Emotional Response

Following his exclusion, Afridi sent an email saying, “I love you all and miss you.” Defendants removed the word “all” in court filings to portray it as unprofessional. Afridi clarified that it was a sincere expression of disappointment after missing a briefing for the first time in a decade. He included a full copy of the email in his exhibits, noting the government’s attempt to twist his words was part of a broader effort to defame him.

C. Clean Record and Professional Conduct Over Decades

Afridi, who attended high school and college in the United States and spent over twenty years living peacefully in the country, included documentation proving that he has no criminal record in the U.S. or Pakistan. He also cited prior interactions with officials from both Republican and Democratic administrations, including his permanent White House press badge, to demonstrate his long-standing reputation and professionalism.

D. Symbolic Protest and Suppression of Imran Khan Questions

Afridi details how his long-standing questions about U.S. involvement in the ouster of Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan were ignored until Spokesperson Matthew Miller ultimately acknowledged that the U.S. had delivered warnings to Khan’s government. Frustrated by months of evasion, Afridi posted an image of a horn in symbolic protest—something the Department misconstrued as a threat.

He attached press coverage and a FOX News interview about how he had been silenced, and reiterated his role in amplifying underreported issues like Pakistan’s drone policy, human rights violations, and religious tolerance in tribal regions.

E. Escalation After Bivens Lawsuit Against Tammy Bruce

On June 11, 2025, Afridi filed a separate Bivens action against Tammy Bruce personally for retaliation. The next day, he hand-delivered the lawsuit to a State Department staff member who reportedly told him, “Tammy will be very upset.” That same week, Bruce threatened to call security on him for asking a follow-up question. Afridi argues these events triggered the full-scale exclusion campaign, including the revocation of his press badge without hearing, warning, or due process.

F. Improper Service Claim Was Baseless

The government claimed it had not been properly served, but the Court accepted the service and set a deadline for reply. Afridi attached court orders and service confirmations, showing the State Department’s objection was simply a delay tactic.

G. Pattern of Hostility and Selective Access Under Tammy Bruce

Afridi’s filing cites multiple journalists—Matt Lee of AP, Said Arikat of Al-Quds, and a TRT Turkey reporter—who experienced disrespect or exclusion under Bruce’s management. Afridi asserts that Bruce showed favoritism to certain outlets while ignoring him entirely, especially when he asked about crypto meetings between Gentry Beach and Pakistan’s leadership.

H. No Prior Administration Flagged Afridi as a Threat

Afridi submitted decades of briefing attendance records under spokespersons John Kirby, Heather Nauert, Morgan Ortagus, Vedant Patel, and Matthew Miller, none of whom ever labeled him a threat. The claim that he was “disruptive” only began under Bruce, reinforcing the argument of personal bias.

I. False Statement About Ankle Bracelet Timing Raises Integrity Concerns

The State Department falsely stated that Afridi was wearing an ankle bracelet when he returned to the building on June 25, 2025. In truth, no such bracelet was installed at that time. Afridi questions who within ICE or DHS shared this false information, and whether it was orchestrated to damage his credibility. His reply emphasizes that such inaccurate claims further support the pattern of retaliation and misuse of law enforcement channels.

J. Gentry Beach Crypto Questions Suppressed Despite National Security Implications

Afridi sent six emails to the State Department about Gentry Beach, a known business partner of Donald Trump Jr., regarding his undisclosed meetings with the Prime Minister of Pakistan to discuss cryptocurrency. Afridi warned of potential Logan Act and FARA violations, but his questions were ignored, and the emails were later used to portray him as excessive.

During the same week, Pakistan’s Army Chief met with President Trump, and Secretary Rubio spoke to the Pakistani PM—yet Afridi was refused the opportunity to ask a single question. He called this a deliberate attempt to suppress politically sensitive information.

K. Denial of Due Process in Press Badge Revocation

Afridi argues that his press badge was revoked in violation of Sherrill v. Knight and Goss v. Lopez. He received no hearing, warning, or formal explanation. The revocation letter was signed by Assistant Secretary Michelle Exnet on July 31, 2025—over a month after his badge had already been taken.

L. Raising Voice in Briefing Is Constitutionally Protected

Afridi asserts that raising his voice in a briefing, cited by the government as “disruption,” was protected symbolic speech under Texas v. Johnson and Tinker v. Des Moines. He attached videos showing other journalists raising their voices regularly—none of whom were punished or excluded.

M. Constitutional Violations Confirmed by Precedent

Afridi cites binding legal precedents in Sherrill v. Knight, Associated Press v. Budowich, Rosenberger v. UVA, and Pickering v. Board of Education, all supporting that government cannot discriminate against journalists based on viewpoint or protected activity.

N. Tears Mischaracterized as Instability

In a final emotional moment, Afridi explains that his eyes welled with tears during a briefing when outgoing spokesperson Matthew Miller jokingly said, “I wish everyone felt the same,” after a colleague praised him. Afridi, having been consistently ignored, took it personally. The moment was captured on official video and later misused by the government to suggest emotional instability. Afridi responded with a peaceful email affirming his dedication to American values and journalism.

It is important to mention here that State Department has on record mentioned in court in their reply that Afridi was given hard pass mistaken considering his a U.S. citizen, a mistake which is never heard in the past.

Documented Evidence Submitted for Every Allegation

Afridi’s legal reply is reinforced with a full set of annexed exhibits, including:

• DOJ immigration appeal proving no removal order
• FOIA requests filed with multiple federal agencies
• Full email threads with State Department staff
• Security camera location references
• White House and State Department briefing attendance history
• Photos, video links, and media coverage
• A copy of his Bivens complaint and response timeline
• Six targeted questions about Gentry Beach and Trump Jr.

“This is not hearsay,” Afridi stated. “This is fully documented retaliation.”

What’s Next

The Court will now consider whether to dismiss the case or move it to discovery. If allowed to proceed, Afridi v. U.S. State Department could set a powerful precedent for journalists facing viewpoint discrimination, retaliation by government officials, and the need for transparency in press credentialing.

“Tammy Bruce may have tried to erase my voice,” Afridi said, “but now the record speaks louder than ever.”