Report on Kash Patel's drinking may have an unexpected consequence: analyst

FBI Director Kash Patel may have saved himself from President Donald Trump's wrath with his lawsuit against The Atlantic, a political analyst has claimed. Patel filed a $250 million defamation lawsuit against The Atlantic and staff writer Sarah Fitzpatrick on April 20, 2026, following a bombshell investigative report detailing his alleged excessive drinking and erratic behavior. Patel's legal team characterized the article as "replete with false and obviously fabricated allegations designed to destroy Director Patel's reputation and drive him from office."Legal experts warned that Patel inadvertently confirmed key details from Fitzpatrick's investigation through his aggressive legal response. The Atlantic's reporting cited multiple current and former FBI officials describing Patel's unexplained absences, panic episodes when locked out of the FBI computer system, and concerning behavior patterns that raised serious questions about his fitness for office.Despite the ongoing embarrassment, Slate reporter Jim Newell suggests that the lawsuit could work out in Patel's favor. He wrote, "While winning that case would be uphill sledding, the report may have ultimately been a useful development for him. "Trump has been in a firing mood of late, with Kristi Noem, Pam Bondi, Lori Chavez-DeRemer—oh, yeah, Trump canned her this week, whatever—all gone, so all eyes were on which controversy-prone appointee he might turn to next. It’s unlikely to be Patel now, because no way he’s going to let the fake news media push him into a personnel change."Patel's lodging of a lawsuit had been noted initially as a huge mistake by legal analysts. Analysis from Lisa Needham in the Public Notice Substack noted that only one outcome of the lawsuit benefits Patel.She wrote, "Much like some of Trump’s media complaints, Patel’s has the flavor of counsel making the grave mistake of letting the client write the thing."Even if Patel were the World’s Greatest FBI Director as far as law enforcement results, and even if The Atlantic shamefully ignored his great stats, none of that has anything to do with whether the allegations in the article about Patel’s drinking, absenteeism, and impulsivity are true. "Nor does Patel’s whining that he only got an 'arbitrary two-hour window' to respond to the story’s allegations before they went to press have anything to do with actual malice.""Patel would be luckiest if The Atlantic succeeds at getting this thing dismissed right away — no, really. Because if this case goes forward, he’s stuck with discovery."