FBI director Kash Patel has sued The Atlantic and reporter Sarah Fitzpatrick over a story that alleged Patel has “alarmed colleagues with episodes of excessive drinking and unexplained absences.”
The defamation suit, filed Monday morning in US District Court in the District of Columbia, seeks $250 million in damages.
The Atlantic called the suit “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 told CNN.
The defamation suit 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 suit also accuses the journalists of ignoring information that would 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 suit states.
“Actual malice” is the high legal standard that public figures must meet to prevail in a defamation case. It means that the author either knew a claim was false or displayed “reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.”
Defamation cases often fall apart because the plaintiffs fail to prove “actual malice.” In this case, Patel’s lawyers say The Atlantic ignored pre-publication denials, “failed to take even the most basic investigative steps” that “would have easily refuted their claims” and showed “clear editorial animus” against Patel.
The Atlantic, however, has positioned the article as being thoroughly reported and carefully 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 were known to Fitzpatrick but were 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 sent the FBI a “request for comment” and asked for a response in less than two hours, then “refused to honor” a request for more time. The magazine published the article online later the same afternoon.
Patel threatened to sue The Atlantic during that brief window before publication. He was quoted by the magazine as saying, “I’ll see you in court — bring your checkbook.”
Then Patel and his allies repeated those vows to sue after the story appeared online. He wrote on X that meeting the actual malice standard “is now what some would call a legal lay up.”
Adam Steinbaugh, a First Amendment lawyer at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, shared a different assessment 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 those early hurdles, however, it could open the door to the discovery phase — when both sides exchange evidence and take sworn testimony. Patel or others could be required to answer questions under oath about the alleged behavior.
Defamation lawsuits against media organizations are frequently tossed out before that stage. But if this one is not, Patel’s lawyers would seek discovery to buttress their claims, legal experts told CNN.
“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,” said Lee Levine, a longtime defamation defense attorney who has represented major news organizations in libel cases.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
So, Kash is suing the Atlantic for a ridiculous amount on a case with little merit. My guess here is that he hopes the Atlantic will settle out of court quickly. However, I do not think they will cave like CBS did for Trump.
So, what happens? Two things I can see. First, Trump fires Patel .There's been a lot of speculation about that, and this could be the final nail in his coffin. Without Trump's support and possible influence, I see Patel withdrawing the case. Or, it gets dismissed outright, just like Trump's suit against the Wall Street Journal last week.
The second thing is Patel withdraws the suit outright because he will be COOKED during discovery. They will get people on the record under oath, including Patel. The Atlantic story goes beyond the allegations of his alcohol abuse, but talks about his unethical behaviour and abuse of power. This will DESTROY his credibility.
Keep in mind, that as a public figure (and he is certainly in the public eye), there is a significantly higher threshold to win a defamation case. And proving that it was done maliciously is even harder. Then, even if he were to win, the odds of a court awarding him a quarter of a billion dollars is ludicrous. He's be lucky to get one percent of that, because he would have to prove that his reputation was damaged...And, frankly, that ship sailed about two months ago.
So, what's the over/under for Trump firing him: 2.5 weeks?
