FBI Director Kash Patel’s Partner Rips Into Cable News Giant Over Report on a Security Detail That Allegedly Never Existed
Challenging media protections.
FBI Director Kash Patel’s girlfriend, Alexis Wilkins, has taken legal action against MS NOW, accusing the cable news network of defamation over a report that allegedly fabricated details about her personal life. The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Nashville, Tennessee, targets MS NOW along with reporters Ken Dilanian and Carol Leonnig, claiming their December article used “sham” anonymous sources to push “knowingly or recklessly false allegations” that Wilkins abused FBI resources.
Wilkins, a country music singer and actor, is arguing that the article falsely portrayed her as demanding federal agents escort an intoxicated friend home after a night of partying. According to NBC News, her legal team says the security detail in question didn’t even exist at the time.
Her attorneys, Kurt Beasley, Jason C. Greaves, and Jared R. Roberts, wrote that the report “falsely asserted that Ms. Wilkins demanded, and Director Patel ordered, that federal agents assigned to her security detail, which did not even exist at the time, escort an intoxicated friend home after a ‘night of partying.’” They added that the article falsely implied Wilkins was intoxicated, despite her being sober and rarely drinking.
The lawsuit calls out MS NOW for implying Wilkins was part of a drinking culture
“This false portrayal is highly offensive to Ms. Wilkins, and would be to any reasonable person in her situation,” her lawyers wrote. “Ms. Wilkins’ professional identity is of a responsible, sober young woman who does not partake in the excess drinking culture and party scene that is typical for musicians.”
The complaint also notes that an FBI spokesman, Ben Williamson, had previously confirmed to Dilanian that Wilkins “doesn’t even drink,” a detail that apparently didn’t make it into the final article.
MS NOW has stood by its reporting, with President Rebecca Kutler issuing a statement saying, “We stand firmly behind MS NOW’s reporting. As a general matter of practice, we don’t comment on ongoing legal matters.”
The network, which was spun off from NBCUniversal earlier this year into a separate company called Versant Media Group, now faces a jury trial if the case isn’t settled. Wilkins is seeking over $75,000 in damages through the defamation lawsuit, arguing that the false portrayal has caused “humiliation and actual damages to her professional identity, reputation, and standing in the community.”
This isn’t Wilkins and Patel’s first legal battle over media coverage
Two of Wilkins’ attorneys are the same ones representing Patel in a separate lawsuit against The Atlantic, which published an article in April alleging he drinks to excess. That suit calls the piece a “sweeping, malicious and defamatory hit piece.”
An Atlantic spokeswoman responded at the time, saying, “We stand by our reporting on Kash Patel, and we will vigorously defend The Atlantic and our journalists against this meritless lawsuit.” Wilkins has also previously sued a failed U.S. Senate candidate in Utah, accusing the individual of defaming her by suggesting she was a secret Israeli agent assigned to manipulate Patel.
It raises questions about reporting on public figures and their associates
According to MS NOW, Wilkins’ legal team is arguing that she shouldn’t be held to the “actual malice” standard set by the Supreme Court’s 1964 ruling in New York Times v. Sullivan, which requires public figures to prove that defamatory statements were made with knowledge of their falsity or reckless disregard for the truth.
Her attorneys claim she isn’t a public figure and therefore only needs to show negligence. “The fact that she is in a relationship with Director Patel does not promote her to the status of public figure or excuse journalists from exercising ordinary care,” they wrote in the complaint.
The case also highlights the ongoing debate over the Sullivan precedent, which some critics argue allows journalists to hide behind anonymous sources to push damaging narratives. Wilkins’ lawyers wrote that the case “presents a perfect illustration of how modern ‘journalists’ abuse this outdated and judicially contrived standard to smear so-called public figures.”
While Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch have previously expressed interest in revisiting the Sullivan ruling, it would take four justices to grant a review, and so far, that hasn’t happened. For now, the lawsuit against MS NOW will proceed through the courts, with the network given an opportunity to respond before a judge weighs in.
Wilkins’ case also ties into discussions about the use of anonymous sources in journalism
While unnamed sources can be crucial for reporting on sensitive topics, they also open the door to potential abuse, especially when the information they provide can’t be independently verified. In this instance, Wilkins’ legal team is arguing that MS NOW’s reliance on such sources was reckless and damaging, particularly given that the FBI had already confirmed her sobriety to one of the reporters before the article was published.
The outcome of this lawsuit could have implications beyond just Wilkins and Patel. If the court sides with Wilkins, it might encourage other individuals who feel wronged by the media to pursue legal action, especially if they can argue that they aren’t public figures. On the other hand, if MS NOW successfully defends its reporting, it could reinforce the protections that media outlets currently enjoy under the Sullivan precedent, even when their reporting is called into question.
(Featured image: Gage Skidmore)
Have a tip we should know? [email protected]
Follow The Mary Sue:
