Court Dismisses ‘Disinformation-for-Hire’ Lawsuit Against George Washington University

Federal Court Dismisses UAE-Linked “Disinformation” Lawsuit Against George Washington University

A federal court in Washington, D.C. has dismissed a lawsuit that alleged George Washington University (GWU), one of its professors, and several foreign entities participated in a “disinformation for hire” campaign reportedly financed by the United Arab Emirates. The ruling concludes a closely watched case that raised significant concerns about foreign government influence within American academic institutions.

Farid Hafez, an Austrian-born political scientist known for his research on Islamophobia and Muslim civil rights in Europe, filed the lawsuit claiming that Lorenzo Vidino, director of GWU’s Program on Extremism, collaborated with Swiss intelligence firm Alp Services and Emirati company Ariaf Studies and Research LLC to damage his professional reputation.

At the core of Hafez’s allegations was the claim that defendants conspired to falsely portray him as a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, an organization the UAE has designated as terrorist. According to Hafez, this campaign was part of a broader UAE-funded initiative to discredit Muslim scholars and activists throughout Western nations.

The case centered around Vidino’s 2017 report titled “The Muslim Brotherhood in Austria,” published through GWU’s Program on Extremism. In this study, Vidino identified Hafez as a prominent Brotherhood figure in Austria. Hafez maintained that Austrian authorities later cited this report during “Operation Luxor,” a 2020 police action that resulted in his detention and a search of his home.

Hafez brought claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and various District of Columbia state laws. His lawsuit alleged that the UAE, through donations and intermediaries, financed defamatory research intended to give official credibility to anti-Brotherhood propaganda campaigns.

On September 30, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the case on multiple grounds. The court ruled it lacked personal jurisdiction over the foreign defendants and determined that Hafez failed to state a valid cause of action under either RICO or local law.

In its decision, the court noted that the alleged misconduct occurred primarily outside the United States and involved predominantly non-U.S. actors, placing the matters beyond the court’s jurisdictional reach. Importantly, the court did not make determinations regarding the accuracy of the specific claims against Vidino or GWU.

This ruling represents a significant setback for Hafez, who has been a prominent critic of what he terms the “Islamophobia industry” – a network he believes systematically promotes anti-Muslim sentiment through academic and policy channels.

The case highlights ongoing tensions regarding foreign influence in U.S. academic institutions, particularly through research centers and programs that may receive international funding. Critics have raised concerns that such arrangements could potentially compromise academic independence and objectivity, especially when research intersects with the political interests of donor nations.

The UAE has invested substantially in American universities and think tanks in recent years, raising questions about potential conflicts of interest in research related to political Islam and Middle Eastern politics. GWU, like many prestigious American universities, has received significant funding from international sources for various academic programs and initiatives.

Free speech advocates and academic freedom experts have watched the case with interest, noting the delicate balance between protecting scholarly independence and ensuring research isn’t influenced by external political agendas. The court’s dismissal on jurisdictional grounds leaves many substantive questions about these relationships unresolved.

Neither side’s legal representatives responded to requests for comment from the publication Focus on Western Islamism, which reported on the case’s conclusion.

As universities continue to navigate global partnerships and funding sources, this case underscores the complex legal and ethical questions surrounding international influence in academic research, particularly on politically sensitive topics involving international relations and religious movements.