FBI Director Kash Patel has initiated legal action against The Atlantic, claiming $US250 million (approximately A$348 million) over allegations of his excessive drinking affecting his professional conduct. An article recently published by the magazine highlighted instances where Patel’s purported alcohol use was said to impact his work negatively.
In his lawsuit, Patel characterises the article as a "sweeping, malicious and defamatory hit piece," and criticises journalist Sarah Fitzpatrick for using anonymous sources. He argues these sources are biased and lacked credible knowledge of the events reported. Patel asserts that the defendants acted with "actual malice" and had been warned just hours before the article’s release that the allegations were false.
According to The Atlantic, unnamed officials from the Trump administration expressed concerns that Patel’s alleged drinking led him to spread misinformation regarding investigations, notably concerning the alleged murder of Charlie Kirk. Patel had incorrectly claimed that a suspect was in custody shortly after Kirk’s death, and also misidentified a "person of interest" in connection to a shooting at Brown University, who was later released as innocent.
The article further suggested that Patel had difficulties being roused by his security detail due to perceived intoxication on several occasions. When approached for comments, he dismissed the claims as fabrications and stated, "Print it, all false, I’ll see you in court—bring your chequebook."
In response to the ongoing litigation, Patel’s complaint includes references to "historic law enforcement achievements" during his time with the FBI, and raises questions about the nature of his trip to the Olympics, where he was seen celebrating eagerly.
The Atlantic’s revelations come amid a broader trend of lawsuits from various individuals, including former President Trump, who have taken action against media organisations for their portrayals. Patel’s suit remains unresolved as of last week, with a significant interest in witnessing how the court will interpret the balance between public interest and potential defamation in this case.