By Brian Stelter, NCS
(NCS) — FBI director Kash Patel has sued The Atlantic and reporter Sarah Fitzpatrick over a narrative that alleged Patel has “alarmed colleagues with episodes of excessive drinking and unexplained absences.”
The defamation go well with, filed Monday morning in US District Court within the District of Columbia, seeks $250 million in damages.
The Atlantic referred to as the go well with “meritless.”
“We stand by our reporting on Kash Patel, and we will vigorously defend The Atlantic and our journalists against this meritless lawsuit,” a spokesperson informed NCS.
The defamation go well with says statements in Fitzpatrick’s article “falsely assert” that Patel “is a habitual drunk, unable to perform the duties of his office, is a threat to public safety, is vulnerable to foreign coercion, has violated DOJ ethics rules, is unreachable in emergencies, has required the deployment of ‘breaching equipment’ to extract him from locked rooms, allows alcohol to influence his public statements about criminal investigations, and behaves erratically in a manner that compromises national security.”
The go well with additionally accuses the journalists of ignoring data that will have countered their “central thesis that Director Patel is a derelict and erratic leader, who abuses alcohol to the point of being unfit for his duties.”
The Atlantic “published these statements with actual malice,” the go well with states.
“Actual malice” is the excessive authorized normal that public figures should meet to prevail in a defamation case. It signifies that the writer both knew a declare was false or displayed “reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.”
Defamation instances typically crumble as a result of the plaintiffs fail to show “actual malice.” In this case, Patel’s legal professionals say The Atlantic ignored pre-publication denials, “failed to take even the most basic investigative steps” that “would have easily refuted their claims” and confirmed “clear editorial animus” against Patel.
The Atlantic, nonetheless, has positioned the article as being totally reported and punctiliously written.
Fitzpatrick wrote that she interviewed “more than two dozen people” about Patel’s conduct, “including current and former FBI officials, staff at law-enforcement and intelligence agencies, hospitality-industry workers, members of Congress, political operatives, lobbyists, and former advisers.”
The sources have been recognized to Fitzpatrick however have been granted anonymity “to discuss sensitive information and private conversations.” She wrote that they “described Patel’s tenure as a management failure and his personal behavior as a national-security vulnerability.”
The lawsuit says The Atlantic despatched the FBI a “request for comment” and requested for a response in lower than two hours, then “refused to honor” a request for extra time. The journal revealed the article on-line later the identical afternoon.
Patel threatened to sue The Atlantic throughout that transient window earlier than publication. He was quoted by the journal as saying, “I’ll see you in court — bring your checkbook.”
Then Patel and his allies repeated these vows to sue after the story appeared on-line. He wrote on X that assembly the precise malice normal “is now what some would call a legal lay up.”
Adam Steinbaugh, a First Amendment lawyer on the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, shared a unique evaluation on Monday.
“Patel said proving actual malice is a ‘lay up’ (no), but the allegations in this complaint don’t even hit the backboard,” Steinbaugh wrote on X. “It will, however, accomplish the primary goal: making media outlets weighing a story think about the cost for attorneys to get a meritless lawsuit tossed.”
If the case does survive these early hurdles, nonetheless, it might open the door to the invention section — when each side alternate proof and take sworn testimony. Patel or others may very well be required to reply questions beneath oath in regards to the alleged conduct.
Defamation lawsuits against media organizations are regularly tossed out earlier than that stage. But if this one is just not, Patel’s legal professionals would search discovery to buttress their claims, authorized specialists informed NCS.
“At the same time, The Atlantic would have the same opportunity to take discovery to confirm the accuracy of its reporting, which would include taking sworn testimony not just of Patel but of others with knowledge of the underlying facts,” stated Lee Levine, a longtime defamation protection legal professional who has represented main information organizations in libel instances.
Fitzpatrick responded to the authorized threats in an interview on MS NOW on Friday evening by saying, “I stand by every word of this reporting. We have excellent attorneys.”
NCS has not independently corroborated the anecdotes reported in The Atlantic’s article.
Devan Cole contributed reporting.
The-NCS-Wire
™ & © 2026 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.