The Atlantic has escalated its legal opposition to FBI Director Kash Patel, filing a motion in federal court to dismiss his $250 million defamation lawsuit, according to a report from www.thewrap.com, which first reported the story.
In its 42-page filing, the magazine asserted that Patel’s lawsuit constitutes "an assault" on the First Amendment by "a man who swore to uphold it." The Atlantic contended that the FBI director is targeting reporting he found "politically inconvenient." The motion also characterized Patel’s suit as part of a broader pattern, noting that he has initiated multiple defamation lawsuits against media organizations in recent years.
"Merit is not the point," The Atlantic's motion argued. "By filing these suits, Director Patel sends an ominous message to the press: publishing reporting that he does not like comes at a high cost."
Atlantic Editor-in-Chief Jeffrey Goldberg subsequently issued a statement calling Patel’s defamation lawsuit "meritless." Goldberg indicated that The Atlantic is simultaneously requesting the court to permit it to begin factual discovery from the FBI and the Department of Justice, including documents and depositions of key individuals, asserting this is appropriate given the allegations. He added that if Director Patel sought to avoid this process, he should not have filed the suit.
Goldberg reiterated a promise made to staff and readers in May: The Atlantic will defend itself and its staff vigorously, will not be intimidated by politically motivated retaliation, will continue to cover the FBI professionally, fairly, and thoroughly, and will continue to practice journalism in the public interest.
The Atlantic argued in its filing that Patel, as FBI director, is a public official and therefore unable to meet the constitutional standard requiring plausible allegations of actual malice in a defamation claim. According to the filing, Sarah Fitzpatrick’s April article, originally titled "Kash Patel’s Erratic Behavior Could Cost Him His Job," was based on interviews with more than two dozen sources. The reporting also incorporated responses from Patel, the FBI, the Justice Department, and the White House prior to publication. The magazine contended that Patel’s complaint relies on "a laundry list of conclusory allegations and generic complaints" that fail to support a defamation claim.
In a separate motion, The Atlantic requested the court to pause broader discovery while it proceeds with seeking FBI and Justice Department records through Touhy requests. The publication argued these documents could be critical to its defense and would require significant time for federal agencies to process. These filings represent The Atlantic’s first substantive legal response since Patel filed his suit in April over Fitzpatrick’s reporting on his tenure atop the FBI. Beyond seeking dismissal, the motions preview The Atlantic’s broader strategy: framing the case as a fight over press freedom while pursuing government records it believes will bolster its reporting.
