Attorney General Todd Blanche, left, and FBI Director Kash Patel, right, listen to President Donald Trump speak at the David Mack Center for Training and Intelligence, Friday, Aug. 14, 2026, in Garden City, N.Y. (AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson).
A month before The Atlantic published an explosive story claiming that the director of the FBI engages in "excessive drinking," Kash Patel chugged a beer — for the world to see — while celebrating with Team USA Hockey players who brought home the gold.
On Monday, The Atlantic filed court documents again calling on Senior U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan to dismiss the defamation action, taking direct aim at Patel's attempt to use that scene from the Olympics to his advantage.
Most recently, Patel's lawyers with Binnall Law Group argued that the attempt to dismiss the $250 million lawsuit must fail because the defendants were "aware of their fabrications," aware that "their allegations were inherently improbable," and aware that "they had reason to doubt the allegations."
The director claimed that his complaint "plausibly alleges falsity" and a plot to "destroy" him, asserting that The Atlantic and its staff writer Sarah Fitzpatrick willfully "avoid[ed] receiving information that would refute their narrative," "had motives to lie," and "never interviewed Director Patel himself."
Prior to the story's publication, however, Patel did tell the Atlantic, "Print it, all false, I'll see you in court—bring your checkbook."
The plaintiff, in urging Sullivan not to dismiss his case, argued that the "Olympics beer video" from February "does not make it plausible that Director Patel was an alcoholic, regularly intoxicated, or incapacitated at work."
"The leap from drank a beer at the Olympics to cannot perform the duties of FBI Director, and then to a claim that his drinking threatened public safety and national security, is a bad faith inference not protected under the law," Patel's lawyers said.
The Atlantic has responded that the director's reference to the video did nothing to show that the article's claims were "inherently improbable."
"Patel argues that 'a beer at a sporting celebration does not make it plausible that Director Patel was an alcoholic, regularly intoxicated, or incapacitated at work.' But the FBI Director's choice to 'chug' beer on camera in a locker room during an alcohol-soaked celebration, as though it were a fraternity party, is undeniably unusual behavior for the holder of that office—and certainly does not make the reporting about his alcohol consumption 'inherently improbable,'" the magazine responded.
"Director Patel does not challenge any of the publicly reported facts that makes the Article wholly plausible," the filing added.
At the same time, the defendants reiterated demands for discovery of "purported internal DOJ and FBI information" that Patel's complaint "repeatedly relie[d] on […] to attempt to refute the Article's reporting[.]"
"If he cannot, and/or if the relevant agencies decline to produce relevant information, that failure may independently require early dismissal," the reply memo warned.
Patel's team has said the defendants are trying to have it both ways with a request to stay discovery except for the aforementioned demands for internal DOJ and FBI documents.
"Staying this case now would only delay its ultimate resolution, which is not in the interest of this Court, Dir. Patel, or the public," the plaintiff said.