Dismissed, But Not Defeated—Jones’ Fight for Justice Isn’t Over

COVID Whistleblower Rebekah Jones

Rebekah Jones has long been a central figure in the fight for government transparency, particularly in relation to Florida’s handling of COVID-19 data. As a data manager for the Florida Department of Health (DOH), Jones played a key role in maintaining the state’s COVID-19 dashboard, which provided real-time infection and death rates to the public. However, in May 2020, she was abruptly fired after refusing orders to manipulate COVID-19 data to support Governor Ron DeSantis’ push to reopen the state. Her claims have been corroborated by independent reporting, including from the Miami Herald, which detailed how Florida officials sought to downplay case numbers and silence dissenting voices within the DOH.

Jones filed a whistleblower lawsuit against the DOH, arguing that her firing was an act of retaliation for refusing to falsify public health data. She asserted that her First Amendment rights were violated and that Florida officials actively sought to punish her for exposing misleading and potentially dangerous data practices. The DeSantis administration, however, claimed she was dismissed for insubordination, a charge that many see as a cover for suppressing inconvenient truths.

On February 28, 2025, Judge Angela C. Dempsey, who was appointed by former Republican Governor Jeb Bush, dismissed Jones’ lawsuit. The ruling determined that Jones did not qualify for whistleblower protections, essentially accepting the state’s argument that she was involved in publishing the very data she later criticized. This decision raises serious concerns about the barriers whistleblowers face in holding powerful government institutions accountable.

Jones immediately pushed back against the ruling, stating, “We always knew a MAGA judge would do anything to keep me from getting in front of a jury.” Her concerns are not unfounded. Florida’s judiciary has been increasingly stacked with partisan judges, many of whom have demonstrated deference to DeSantis and his administration. The dismissal of her case without allowing it to be heard by a jury suggests a systemic effort to suppress whistleblowers who challenge government corruption.

The reason Jones’ claims should be supported goes beyond her individual case—this is about government accountability, scientific integrity, and the right of the public to access truthful information. During the height of the pandemic, accurate data was a matter of life and death. If Jones had complied with demands to manipulate COVID-19 numbers, Floridians would have been misled about the severity of the crisis, potentially leading to more deaths. The DeSantis administration’s approach to COVID-19 has already been widely criticized for downplaying the virus, discouraging mitigation measures, and prioritizing political narratives over public health.

Furthermore, Jones has faced relentless retaliation for speaking out. After her firing, state police raided her home in a widely condemned action, seizing her computers and pointing guns at her family in an effort to intimidate her. These extreme measures suggest that Florida officials were not merely enforcing policy but actively seeking to silence a high-profile critic.

Despite this latest setback, Jones is not giving up. She has vowed to appeal the decision, ensuring that her case continues to be fought in higher courts. Her determination is not just about her own vindication—it is about setting a precedent for other government employees who may fear coming forward with the truth.

Rebekah Jones’ fight is about more than just one whistleblower—it’s about the public’s right to truth in the face of political suppression. If those in power can manipulate life-and-death data without consequence, public health itself becomes a political tool, and the public pays the price. By appealing this decision, Jones is taking a stand not just for herself, but for every scientist, journalist, and citizen who refuses to let the truth be buried by political interests. This case isn’t just about her—it’s about whether facts and accountability can still stand against corruption. The stakes are too high to back down.