FBI Investigating Leak About FBI Director's Drinking

The FBI has launched a criminal investigation into leaks to a reporter for The Atlantic who wrote about FBI Director Kash Patel's "excessive drinking," raising press freedom concerns.

Objective Facts

In April 2026, Sarah Fitzpatrick published "The FBI Director Is MIA" in The Atlantic, citing two dozen anonymous sources reporting that Kash Patel has alarmed colleagues with episodes of excessive drinking and unexplained absences. Patel immediately sued The Atlantic, saying the story contained falsehoods and claiming he had been defamed. MS NOW reporters Ken Dilanian and Carol Leonnig reported the FBI had launched a "criminal leak investigation" focusing on Fitzpatrick, conducted by agents in an insider threats unit in Huntsville, Alabama. This "insider threat investigation" was "highly unusual" because it did not stem from a disclosure of classified information and because it is focused on leaks to a reporter. FBI spokesperson Ben Williamson denied there was any investigation, calling the report "completely false." The Atlantic's editor in chief Jeffrey Goldberg stated that if confirmed true, such an investigation "would represent an outrageous attack on the free press and the First Amendment itself" and that the magazine would "defend The Atlantic and its staff vigorously" and not be "intimidated by illegitimate investigations or other acts of politically motivated retaliation."

Left-Leaning Perspective

The Atlantic's editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg said the reported investigation would be "an outrageous, illegal, and dangerous attack on the free press and the First Amendment" and pledged to "defend Sarah and all of our reporters who are subjected to government harassment simply for pursuing the truth." Freedom of the Press Foundation Chief of Advocacy Seth Stern called the FBI's probe "outrageous even if The Atlantic reported classified information, which it didn't," arguing the FBI is "conducting an invasive leak investigation merely to settle a personal vendetta." Poynter Institute contributor David A. Graham wrote that the FBI director and his department are investigating a reporter "not over a national security threat, but simply because Patel was embarrassed by her reporting," calling it "a dangerous step" even for an administration with "an awful record on press freedom." Columbia Journalism Review's Jem Bartholomew noted that Patel's lawsuit takes aim at two core tenets of standard newsgathering to prove "actual malice"—one of which is the use of anonymous sources. Bartholomew argued "The FBI has lined up the core tenets of newsgathering, like glass bottles on a wall, and is taking aim at them for target practice." Tim Richardson, journalism and disinformation program director at PEN America, stated "The head of the FBI should know better than to use his position to go after a journalist investigating his own alleged misconduct" and that "The FBI surely has plenty of real work on its plate without Kash Patel's team reportedly ordering up a sham federal probe." Legal experts argue this situation reflects "a broader shift in the relationship between federal law enforcement and journalists under President Donald Trump's second administration." Left-leaning coverage notes that this is not an isolated incident—the New York Times reported the FBI investigated one of its reporters for her story about an FBI security detail assigned to Patel's girlfriend, and in January the FBI conducted a court-authorized search of Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson's home, seizing multiple devices.

Right-Leaning Perspective

FBI spokesperson Ben Williamson denied the investigation, saying "This is completely false" and arguing that "Every time there's a publication of false claims by anonymous sources that gets called out, the media plays the victim via investigations that do not exist." Top Patel advisor Erica Knight dismissed the MS NOW report. Patel told Fox News Digital that "The Atlantic's story is a lie" and that "They were given the truth before they published, and they chose to print falsehoods anyway." Republicans have largely stood by Patel. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said President Trump "does still have confidence in the FBI director and in our law and order team," and Rep. Rich McCormick (R-GA) stated "I've not heard any rumors or heard any concerns" and that Patel is "executing his job brilliantly up to this point." In response to The Atlantic's bourbon story, FBI spokesman Ben Williamson dismissed it as "dumb" rather than "big," contending "Personalized gifts like this are commonplace across government including the FBI," and cited an FBI division bottle from 2023 prior to Patel's tenure. Fox News coverage noted that Patel "vehemently denies The Atlantic's allegations of excessive drinking and announces a defamation lawsuit, highlighting the FBI's record-breaking crime reduction and efforts over 14 months." A GOP strategist argued that if Patel departs it would not be due to The Atlantic story, which is "a badge of honor in this Administration," but rather because the President views him as "becoming a liability during a time of war." Right-leaning coverage emphasizes Patel's crime reduction achievements and frames the investigation denial as the factual rebuttal to unfounded allegations from anonymous sources.

Deep Dive

The core dispute centers on the existence and propriety of a criminal leak investigation into journalist Sarah Fitzpatrick. MS NOW—citing two sources described as "familiar with the matter"—reported that Huntsville-based FBI agents in an "insider threats unit" have been tasked with investigating leaks behind Fitzpatrick's April reporting on Patel's alleged drinking. The FBI categorically denies this. What makes this unusual is not whether leak investigations exist—they do—but whether one would target a reporter rather than a government official suspected of leaking, and whether it would proceed without a classified information disclosure. Each side has legitimate concerns that the other dismisses. Press freedom advocates contend that even if some leak occurred, investigating the journalist rather than the suspected leaker violates longstanding Justice Department practice and may chill future reporting on sensitive matters. They note the investigation would not target classified disclosures, undermine the traditional legal basis for such probes. The FBI and Patel's defenders argue the investigation denial is straightforward—no such probe exists—and that critics are manufacturing a narrative to avoid accountability for publishing unverified claims based on anonymous sources. They contend that if false allegations get published, the source of those false allegations should be identified. The factual disagreement is genuine: either an investigation exists (contradicting the FBI), or MS NOW's sources were mistaken or fabricating (contradicting the journalists). What happens next depends partly on whether the reported investigation is real and partly on whether courts or Congress examine the matter. The policy landscape shifted in April 2025 when Attorney General Pam Bondi repealed Biden-era protections and lowered standards for seeking journalists' records, making such an investigation legally permissible under current rules. If the investigation exists and proceeds, it could become a significant test case of how aggressively the Trump administration will pursue press sources.

OBJ SPEAKING

Create StoryTimelinesVoter ToolsRegional AnalysisPolicy GuideAll StoriesCommunity PicksUSWorldPoliticsBusinessHealthEntertainmentTechnologyAbout

FBI Investigating Leak About FBI Director's Drinking

The FBI has launched a criminal investigation into leaks to a reporter for The Atlantic who wrote about FBI Director Kash Patel's "excessive drinking," raising press freedom concerns.

May 7, 2026· Updated May 8, 2026
What's Going On

In April 2026, Sarah Fitzpatrick published "The FBI Director Is MIA" in The Atlantic, citing two dozen anonymous sources reporting that Kash Patel has alarmed colleagues with episodes of excessive drinking and unexplained absences. Patel immediately sued The Atlantic, saying the story contained falsehoods and claiming he had been defamed. MS NOW reporters Ken Dilanian and Carol Leonnig reported the FBI had launched a "criminal leak investigation" focusing on Fitzpatrick, conducted by agents in an insider threats unit in Huntsville, Alabama. This "insider threat investigation" was "highly unusual" because it did not stem from a disclosure of classified information and because it is focused on leaks to a reporter. FBI spokesperson Ben Williamson denied there was any investigation, calling the report "completely false." The Atlantic's editor in chief Jeffrey Goldberg stated that if confirmed true, such an investigation "would represent an outrageous attack on the free press and the First Amendment itself" and that the magazine would "defend The Atlantic and its staff vigorously" and not be "intimidated by illegitimate investigations or other acts of politically motivated retaliation."

Left says: The Atlantic's editor-in-chief called the reported investigation "an outrageous, illegal, and dangerous attack on the free press and the First Amendment." Press freedom advocates argue the FBI is "conducting an invasive leak investigation merely to settle a personal vendetta" rather than addressing legitimate national security concerns.
Right says: The FBI argues that media outlets reflexively "play the victim via investigations that do not exist" whenever they publish false claims about government officials. Republicans have largely defended Patel, with the White House and GOP lawmakers affirming confidence in his leadership.
✓ Common Ground
Both sides acknowledge that the investigation is highly unusual because leak investigations typically focus on government officials who may have disclosed classified information, not on journalists who receive and publish information.
Some voices across the ideological spectrum recognize internal FBI tensions over this matter—sources told MS NOW that FBI agents expressed deep concern, with one saying "They know they are not supposed to do this" but "if they don't go forward, they could lose their jobs."
Both left and right acknowledge that Patel immediately sued The Atlantic for defamation after the article's publication, and the magazine and Fitzpatrick stood by her reporting.
Objective Deep Dive

The core dispute centers on the existence and propriety of a criminal leak investigation into journalist Sarah Fitzpatrick. MS NOW—citing two sources described as "familiar with the matter"—reported that Huntsville-based FBI agents in an "insider threats unit" have been tasked with investigating leaks behind Fitzpatrick's April reporting on Patel's alleged drinking. The FBI categorically denies this. What makes this unusual is not whether leak investigations exist—they do—but whether one would target a reporter rather than a government official suspected of leaking, and whether it would proceed without a classified information disclosure.

Each side has legitimate concerns that the other dismisses. Press freedom advocates contend that even if some leak occurred, investigating the journalist rather than the suspected leaker violates longstanding Justice Department practice and may chill future reporting on sensitive matters. They note the investigation would not target classified disclosures, undermine the traditional legal basis for such probes. The FBI and Patel's defenders argue the investigation denial is straightforward—no such probe exists—and that critics are manufacturing a narrative to avoid accountability for publishing unverified claims based on anonymous sources. They contend that if false allegations get published, the source of those false allegations should be identified. The factual disagreement is genuine: either an investigation exists (contradicting the FBI), or MS NOW's sources were mistaken or fabricating (contradicting the journalists).

What happens next depends partly on whether the reported investigation is real and partly on whether courts or Congress examine the matter. The policy landscape shifted in April 2025 when Attorney General Pam Bondi repealed Biden-era protections and lowered standards for seeking journalists' records, making such an investigation legally permissible under current rules. If the investigation exists and proceeds, it could become a significant test case of how aggressively the Trump administration will pursue press sources.

◈ Tone Comparison

Left-leaning outlets use language emphasizing government overreach and constitutional violation—calling the probe "outrageous, illegal, and dangerous"—and frame the story as part of broader Trump-era attacks on press freedom. Right-leaning outlets and the FBI dismiss the investigation report itself as false, describe The Atlantic as using anonymous sources irresponsibly, and emphasize Patel's law enforcement accomplishments to defend his credibility.