Retired Army Col. David “Wil” Riggins discusses his defamation case and the broader implications for military justice on 'TELL IT LIKE IT IS'
A landmark defamation verdict involving a retired U.S. Army officer is reigniting national debate about false accusations, due process, and the powerful consequences of allegations in the digital age.
Retired Army Col. David “Wil” Riggins, a decorated combat veteran who served multiple tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, recently joined the 'TELL IT LIKE IT IS' Talk Show to discuss the legal battle that followed a public accusation made against him decades after his time as a cadet at West Point.
In a Fairfax County, Virginia courtroom, a jury awarded Riggins $8.4 million in damages after determining that statements accusing him of rape—published on a personal blog and social media—were false and defamatory.
The verdict is drawing renewed attention not only for its size but also for what it represents: the growing tension between accountability, public accusations, and due process in the military justice system.
A Career Derailed Overnight
In July 2013, Riggins was serving at the Pentagon and had just been nominated for promotion to brigadier general, a milestone achievement after more than two decades of distinguished service.
But just days after the announcement of his promotion, a blogger who had attended the U.S. Military Academy at West Point with him publicly accused him of raping her in the 1980s.
The allegation triggered an investigation by the Army’s Criminal Investigation Division (CID).
Riggins denied the accusation and cooperated with investigators.
According to investigative findings, the CID ultimately concluded that the claim could neither be proven nor disproven.
Despite the inconclusive findings, the accusation had immediate consequences for Riggins’ career. His promotion to brigadier general was halted, and he ultimately retired from the Army.
Supporters of Riggins argue that the decision came during a time of intense political pressure surrounding the military’s handling of sexual assault cases.
At the time, lawmakers—including Kirsten Gillibrand—were leading a high-profile effort in Congress to overhaul the military justice system in response to criticism that sexual assault allegations were not being aggressively prosecuted.
Gillibrand and several advocacy groups pushed legislation that would have removed the authority to prosecute from military commanders and transferred it to independent military prosecutors.
The reform movement gained widespread attention following several high-profile cases and reports suggesting that victims often faced retaliation or indifference when reporting sexual assault within the ranks.
- Critics of the reforms, however, argued that the political environment created intense pressure on military leadership to demonstrate toughness on sexual assault—even when evidence was inconclusive.
During the 'TELL IT LIKE IT IS' interview, the case was discussed within that broader national debate, with questions raised about how political scrutiny and media pressure may have influenced military leadership decisions during that period.
The Defamation Trial
After retiring from the Army, Riggins filed a defamation lawsuit against the blogger responsible for the accusations.
The case was tried in Fairfax County, Virginia, over six days, with jurors hearing testimony from both Riggins and the woman who accused him.
The jury deliberated for approximately 2.5 hours before returning an overwhelming verdict in favor of Riggins.
The panel awarded:
- $3.4 million in compensatory damages for reputational harm and lost income
- $5 million in punitive damages
Under Virginia law, punitive damages are capped at $350,000, meaning the final judgment will likely be reduced.
Even with the legal cap in place, the case remains one of the most significant defamation rulings involving private individuals.
Legal analysts say the verdict reflects a growing recognition of the value—and vulnerability—of personal reputation in the internet era.
“Today, a blog post or social media claim can circle the world within minutes,” legal experts say. “If those claims are false, the reputational damage can be enormous.”
The case highlights the profound impact that digital platforms can have on reputations.
Unlike traditional journalism, blog posts and social media posts can be published instantly without editorial oversight or fact-checking.
While online platforms have given victims of abuse a powerful voice, critics argue they have also created a system where unverified accusations can permanently damage individuals before evidence is examined.
During the 'TELL IT LIKE IT IS' broadcast, Riggins described how the accusation quickly spread across the internet and media outlets.
“Once something is out there online,” he said, “it’s almost impossible to take it back.”
The defamation ruling, legal experts say, may signal that courts are increasingly willing to hold individuals accountable for statements published online when those statements can be proven false.
A Larger Debate About Military Justice
The case also intersects with a long-running debate over the structure of the U.S. military justice system.
In the early 2010s, Congress held numerous hearings examining how the armed forces handled sexual assault allegations.
Advocates argued reforms were necessary to protect victims and ensure accountability.
Opponents of some proposed reforms warned that removing commanders from the process could undermine military discipline and due process protections.
During the second half of the 'TELL IT LIKE IT IS' program, host James W. Thomas and guest commentator Arvis Owens explored the broader implications of the case.
The discussion focused on the central challenge facing policymakers:
How can institutions ensure victims are protected while also preserving the constitutional principle of due process for the accused?
Experts say the answer may lie in strengthening investigative standards, improving transparency, and ensuring decisions are based on evidence rather than public pressure.
Seeking Vindication
For Riggins, the legal victory represents more than financial compensation.
During the interview, he emphasized that restoring his reputation was the primary motivation for pursuing the lawsuit.
“The money was never the point,” he said. “What mattered was the opportunity to set the record straight.”
The case continues to generate discussion among veterans, legal scholars, and policymakers about how society should handle allegations of misconduct in an era dominated by instant digital communication.
As debates about military justice, due process, and accountability continue, the Riggins case serves as a powerful reminder of the lasting consequences that accusations—true or false—can have on careers, reputations, and lives.
Watch the Full Interview
Colonel Riggins discussed the case and its broader implications for due process, reputation, and military justice during an interview on the “TELL IT LIKE IT IS” Talk Show hosted by James W. Thomas.
The full interview can be viewed online by visiting:
https://talktoalabama.tellitlikeitistalkshow.com/
It is also available on YouTube at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEhfNWpa4xk
About the Show
'TELL IT LIKE IT IS', hosted by James W. Thomas, is a nationally broadcast talk show covering politics, national security, justice, and current affairs.
The program’s guiding message:
“Be Informed — Not Influenced.”
======
-- By James W. Thomas
© Copyright 2026 JWT Communications. All rights reserved. This article cannot be republished, rebroadcast, rewritten, or distributed in any form without written permission.
“If a mistake was made that damaged a service member’s career and reputation, the Department of Defense should step forward and make it right. Correcting the record is not just about one individual—it’s about maintaining trust in the integrity and accountability of our military institutions.”
ReplyDelete