FBI Director Kash Patel has filed a defamation lawsuit against The Atlantic and reporter Sarah Fitzpatrick following a story that claimed he struggled with alcohol-related problems.
The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, seeks $250 million in damages and accuses the publication of publishing “false and patently fabricated allegations.”
The article reported “nights fueled by alcohol” and absences
The controversial report, originally titled “Kash Patel’s unusual behavior could cost him his job,” cited more than two dozen anonymous sources.
She claimed concerns about Patel’s “conspicuous drunkenness and unexplained absences” that “concerned FBI and Justice Department officials.”
The article further claimed that meetings were rescheduled due to “alcohol-fueled nights” and that Patel was “often away or unavailable, delaying time-sensitive decisions”.
The FBI director denies the allegations
Patel strongly denied the claims and termed the reports as false and malicious.
“The Atlantic story is a lie,” Patel told Reuters. “They were given the truth before publication and yet they chose to print falsehoods.”
The lawsuit also quotes a statement attributed to Patel in the article: “Print it, it’s all fake, I’ll see you in court — bring your checkbook.”
The White House and Justice Department also deny the claims
According to the article, both the White House and the Department of Justice denied the allegations in the report.
The FBI, speaking on Patel’s behalf, also denied the claims before publication, according to the lawsuit.
The Atlantic is behind the report
The Atlantic defended its journalism and said it would fight the lawsuit.
“We stand by our coverage of Kashi Patel and will vigorously defend The Atlantic and our journalists against this baseless lawsuit,” the magazine said in a statement.
Allegation of ignored rebuttal request
The suit alleges that Patel’s legal team attempted to delay publication to respond to the allegations.
It says a letter sent by Patel’s lawyer, Jesse Binnall, shortly before publication asked for additional time to rebut the 19 allegations.
The complaint alleges that The Atlantic published the story at 6:20 p.m., despite receiving the letter around 4:00 p.m. that same day.
Legal standard: “actual malice”
The filing argues that the publication acted with “actual malice,” the high legal threshold required for public figures in defamation cases.
He claims the outlet “ignored detailed, specific and substantial rebuttals” provided before publication, which he calls evidence of reckless reporting.
