Listen to the article
FBI Director Kash Patel filed a lawsuit Monday against The Atlantic, seeking $250 million in damages over a story that alleged he drinks excessively and has had unexplained absences from the bureau. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, describes the article as a “sweeping, malicious, and defamatory hit piece.”
The Atlantic report, published Friday and written by Sarah Fitzpatrick, opened with an anecdote claiming Patel was locked out of an FBI computer system on April 10, which allegedly caused him to believe he had been fired by the White House. According to the magazine, this prompted Patel to make frantic calls to aides and allies, citing nine people familiar with his outreach.
In the lawsuit, Patel’s attorneys acknowledged that he did experience a computer lockout that day but described it as a “routine technical problem logging into a government system, which was quickly fixed.” They denied that Patel “panicked” or had a “freak-out” over the incident, and claimed the FBI had informed The Atlantic before publication that talk of his firing was a “made-up rumor.”
The lockout incident quickly generated inquiries from numerous news outlets, including NBC News, about whether Patel had been fired. Administration officials subsequently denied these rumors, though when asked directly about whether the April 10 incident led Patel to believe he had been fired, the FBI declined to comment on Monday.
Patel’s lawsuit further contests several other claims in the article, asserting they are “demonstrably and obviously false.” According to the court filing, the 46-year-old FBI Director is “at FBI headquarters nearly every single day” and when absent is visiting field offices, which the lawsuit claims he has done “more frequently than any of his predecessors.” The suit also emphatically denies that Patel “drinks to excess” at establishments mentioned in the article “or anywhere else.”
The legal filing further rebuts the article’s suggestion that Patel has targeted political or personal adversaries, asserting that “FBI personnel actions are taken only where employees have acted unethically or undermined the mission.” This comes despite the fact that Patel has dismissed FBI employees who were involved in investigations into President Donald Trump, with several former employees currently pursuing legal action over their terminations.
The lawsuit characterizes the anonymous sources cited in The Atlantic’s story as “partisans with axes to grind” who are “not in a position to know the facts.”
During a Sunday interview with Maria Bartiromo on Fox Business, Patel addressed the allegations, saying, “I’m happy to announce on your show that we’re not going to take this laying down. You want to attack my character, come at me. Bring it on. I’ll see you in court.”
Jesse Binnall, Patel’s attorney, stated to NBC News, “Defamatory speech is not free speech, and it is an honor to represent Kash Patel in this lawsuit seeking accountability for The Atlantic article’s malicious falsehoods.” Binnall did not respond to inquiries about whether Patel genuinely believed he had been dismissed during the April 10 computer incident.
In his own statement Monday, Patel called The Atlantic article “a lie,” adding, “They were given the truth before they published, and they chose to print falsehoods anyway.”
The Atlantic is standing firm. Anna Bross, the magazine’s senior vice president of communications, said Monday, “We stand by our reporting on Kash Patel, and we will vigorously defend The Atlantic and our journalists against this meritless lawsuit.”
Patel has served as FBI director since February 2025 after being confirmed by the Senate in a largely party-line vote. His tenure has not been without controversy. In February, he went viral for celebrating in a locker room with the U.S. men’s hockey team after its victory against Canada in the Milan Cortina Winter Olympics. Videos showed Patel drinking beer and speaking with President Trump on speakerphone. NBC News reported afterward that Trump was disappointed in Patel’s behavior and expressed his displeasure directly to him.
Despite these tensions, the White House press secretary reaffirmed on Monday that Patel “remains a critical player on the Administration’s law and order team.”
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
11 Comments
This is a high-profile case with a lot at stake. Patel is a key figure in the mining and energy space, and the allegations against him, if true, could have wide-ranging implications. At the same time, his lawsuit claims defamation, so I’ll be interested to see the evidence on both sides.
As someone who follows the mining and energy sectors closely, I’m curious to see how this lawsuit unfolds. Patel is a high-profile figure, and claims of misconduct at that level can have wide-ranging implications. I hope the truth comes out, whatever it may be.
Lawsuits over media reporting are always tricky territory. I’ll be following this case closely as someone who closely tracks news in the mining and commodities sectors. There seem to be a lot of nuances at play, and I’m curious to see how it all shakes out.
Lawsuits over media reporting are always tricky. On one hand, journalists have a responsibility to report accurately. On the other, public figures have to prove actual malice. I’ll be interested to see if Patel can meet that high bar in this case.
As someone who closely follows news in the mining and commodities space, I have to say this story is quite intriguing. The allegations against Patel are serious, but his lawsuit alleges defamation. I’ll be keeping an eye on how this develops.
This is a tricky situation, no doubt. Patel is a high-profile figure, and the claims against him are quite serious. At the same time, his lawsuit alleges defamation. I’ll be interested to see what evidence comes to light as this case progresses.
This story certainly raises some eyebrows, but I’d caution against drawing conclusions without a full picture. Allegations of excessive drinking and absenteeism are quite serious, but Patel’s lawsuit alleges the reporting was malicious and defamatory. I’ll be following this closely.
I’m torn on this one. On one hand, the reports of Patel’s alleged misconduct are troubling. On the other, his lawsuit claims the coverage was malicious and defamatory. As someone who follows the mining and energy sectors closely, I’ll be watching this closely.
As a follower of news in the mining and energy sectors, I find this story quite intriguing. The claims against Patel are serious, but his lawsuit alleges malicious reporting. I’ll be keeping a close eye on how this develops.
As someone with a keen interest in the mining and energy sectors, I find this story quite concerning. Allegations of misconduct at the highest levels can have major ripple effects. I’ll be following this closely to see how it all plays out.
While I understand the concern about potential misconduct, I believe we should wait for the facts to come to light before rushing to judgment. Lawsuits are serious matters, and I’m interested to see how this plays out in the courts.