FBI Director Kash Patel has filed a defamation lawsuit against The Atlantic and reporter Sarah Fitzpatrick, following a story that alleged he struggled with alcohol-related issues.
The complaint, filed in the US District Court for the District of Columbia, seeks $250 million in damages and accuses the publication of publishing “false and obviously fabricated allegations.”
Article alleged “alcohol-fueled nights” and absences
The disputed report, originally titled “Kash Patel’s Erratic Behavior Could Cost Him His Job,” cited more than two dozen anonymous sources.
It alleged concerns about Patel’s “conspicuous inebriation and unexplained absences” that “alarmed officials at the FBI and the Department of Justice.”
The article further claimed that meetings were rescheduled due to “alcohol-fueled nights” and that Patel was “often away or unreachable, delaying time-sensitive decisions.”
FBI Director denies allegations
Patel strongly rejected the claims, calling the reporting false and damaging.
“The Atlantic’s story is a lie,” Patel told Reuters. “They were given the truth before they published, and they chose to print falsehoods anyway.”
The lawsuit also cites a statement attributed to Patel in the article: “Print it, all false, I’ll see you in court—bring your checkbook.”
White House and DOJ also deny claims
According to the article, both the White House and the Department of Justice denied the allegations made in the report.
The FBI, speaking on Patel’s behalf, also rejected the claims prior to publication, according to the lawsuit.
Atlantic stands by reporting
The Atlantic defended its journalism and said it would fight the lawsuit.
“We stand by our reporting on Kash Patel, and we will vigorously defend the Atlantic and our journalists against this meritless lawsuit,” the magazine said in a statement.
Allegations of ignored rebuttal request
The lawsuit claims Patel’s legal team attempted to delay publication in order to respond to the allegations.
It states that a letter sent by Patel’s lawyer, Jesse Binnall, shortly before publication asked for additional time to refute 19 allegations.
The complaint alleges The Atlantic published the story at 6:20 p.m. despite receiving the letter around 4 p.m. on the same day.
Legal standard: “actual malice”
The filing argues the publication acted with “actual malice,” a high legal threshold required for public figures in defamation cases.
It claims the outlet “ignored the detailed, specific, and substantive refutations” provided before publication, calling this evidence of reckless reporting.
(With Reuters inputs)
