NBCUniversal has settled a $30 million defamation lawsuit brought by a Georgia doctor who was falsely accused of performing unnecessary hysterectomies on illegal immigrants held in an ICE facility. The lawsuit, which was set for trial in April, revealed that NBC reporters and executives knowingly pushed a false narrative.
The case originated in 2020 when NBC reporters Julia Ainsley, Jacob Soboroff and Danielle Silva published a story based on allegations from former nurse Dawn Wooten. NBC claimed Dr. Mahendra Amin conducted mass hysterectomies on ICE detainees without proper consent. MSNBC hosts Rachel Maddow, Nicolle Wallace and Chris Hayes further spread these claims, falsely portraying Amin as an abuser.
NBC Universal has agreed to settle a $30m defamation lawsuit after its MSNBC talent lied and said a Georgia doctor was performing Mengele-style “mass hysterectomies” at an ICE facility during the first Trump administration.@chrislhayes, Rachel @maddow, Nicole Wallace, and… pic.twitter.com/zLLNcfmUHU
— Andy Ngo (@MrAndyNgo) February 22, 2025
A Senate subcommittee investigation later debunked the claims, confirming that Amin had only performed two hysterectomies at the facility between 2017 and 2019. Both procedures were medically necessary and approved by ICE, and both patients signed consent forms, contradicting NBC’s reporting.
NBC Settles $30M Defamation Lawsuit After Fake News About Doctor At ICE Facilities https://t.co/gIPZoALLB2
— ConservativeLibrarian (@ConserLibrarian) February 24, 2025
Court documents revealed that NBC executives knew there were credibility issues with Wooten’s story before publishing it. Internal emails showed that Chris Scholl, NBC’s senior deputy head of Standards, initially hesitated to approve the story, noting that Wooten “provides no evidence to back up her claims.” Another NBC reporter admitted that ICE records would likely prove Wooten’s claims false, yet the story was still published.
Judge Lisa Godbet Wood found that NBC had made 39 “verifiably false” statements about Amin and determined that the case met the legal threshold for “actual malice,” which is required for a defamation ruling against a public figure.
While the settlement terms remain confidential, the case underscores growing concerns about media outlets running with politically charged narratives without proper verification.
