Kash Patel’s Defamation Lawsuits Against the Press Mount

FBI Director Kash Patel has filed at least six defamation lawsuits against news media companies and commentators over the past seven years, employing a legal strategy that closely mirrors President Donald Trump’s own approach to unfavorable press coverage. Legal experts say the suits appear designed to intimidate journalists and drain their resources rather than to win in court, as Patel has yet to secure a settlement or favorable jury verdict in any of his cases.

A Pattern of Litigation

Patel, a prominent Trump ally who was confirmed as FBI Director in February 2025, first turned to defamation law in 2019 when he was a White House aide objecting to coverage of his role in Trump’s dealings with Ukraine. “It’s time that I began fighting back,” Patel said at the time, according to The New York Times. He proceeded to sue Politico, The New York Times, and CNN.

Since then, the lawsuits have accumulated. In 2023, Patel sued blogger Jim Stewartson for $10 million over being called a “chud,” a derogatory term for MAGA followers. In June 2025, he filed suit against former FBI official and MSNBC analyst Frank Figliuzzi over a “nightclub” remark. And in April 2026, Patel filed a $250 million defamation lawsuit against The Atlantic and reporter Sarah Fitzpatrick over an article alleging excessive drinking, erratic behavior, and national security concerns.

Legal Setbacks Mount

Patel’s track record in court is notably poor. His 2019 suit against The New York Times was dropped after he failed to serve court papers. A similar situation unfolded with his initial suit against Politico, which he abandoned after failing to serve documents for over a year. His 2020 lawsuit against CNN was dismissed by a Virginia appeals court, which found his claims “conclusory and not binding” and awarded CNN $150 in damages.

Most recently, on April 21, 2026, U.S. District Judge George C. Hanks Jr. dismissed Patel’s lawsuit against Figliuzzi, ruling that the analyst’s remark about Patel spending “far more” time at nightclubs than at FBI headquarters was “rhetorical hyperbole that cannot constitute defamation,” as USA Today reported. Patel is appealing the decision.

Strategic Intimidation, Experts Say

Legal scholars see a clear pattern. “The goals here appear to be to muddy the narrative, run up opponents’ legal bills, and send a message to journalists that if you cover us critically, it’s going to cost you a lot of time and money,” Sonja R. West, a professor at the University of Georgia School of Law, told the Times.

Patel’s attorney, Jesse R. Binnall, disputes this characterization. “Director Patel pursues these cases to win them — and anyone who thinks he would tolerate anything less than aggressive, expeditious accountability simply doesn’t know the man,” Binnall said in a statement.

Michael Norwick, a lawyer at the Media Law Resource Center, noted the historic shift. “I don’t remember this being a thing, and now it’s a thing,” he told the Times.

The First Amendment Hurdle

As a public official, Patel faces an exceptionally high legal bar. Under the landmark 1964 Supreme Court decision New York Times v. Sullivan, he must prove “actual malice” — that the defendant published false statements knowing they were false or with reckless disregard for the truth. The Freedom Forum notes that Patel must also demonstrate that the statements in question are assertions of verifiable fact, not protected opinion.

RonNell Andersen Jones, a professor at the University of Utah College of Law, said the lawsuits have forced her to remove a line she had used in lectures for her entire career — that top government officials do not sue for libel.

The Atlantic Lawsuit and Broader Controversies

The $250 million lawsuit against The Atlantic, filed on April 20, 2026, targets an article that cited more than two dozen anonymous sources describing concerns about Patel’s alleged drinking and erratic behavior. The Atlantic has vowed to “vigorously defend” its reporting, which Editor-in-Chief Jeffrey Goldberg said the magazine stands by.

Patel’s legal battles are unfolding alongside broader controversies at the FBI. Salon reported that three women journalists — Hannah Natanson of The Washington Post, Elizabeth Williamson of The New York Times, and Sarah Fitzpatrick of The Atlantic — have been targeted by FBI investigative actions under Patel’s leadership. Patel has denied under oath that the FBI is targeting journalists.

What’s Next

Patel’s appeal of the Figliuzzi dismissal will be heard by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Meanwhile, the lawsuit against The Atlantic faces an uphill battle, with legal analysts noting that courts have repeatedly ruled that reliance on anonymous sources does not alone prove actual malice. The case against blogger Jim Stewartson also remains ongoing.

As these cases wind through the courts, they are testing the boundaries of how far a sitting government official can go in using defamation law to challenge critical press coverage — and whether the First Amendment protections established six decades ago will hold.