Kash Patel Faces Another Defamation Case Defeat

A federal judge recently dismissed Kash Patel’s defamation lawsuit against a national security commentator, ruling that the statements in question were merely “rhetorical hyperbole.” The case was adjudicated by U.S. District Judge George Hanks Jr., an Obama appointee, serving in the Southern District of Texas. The decision came just a day after the FBI director cited the lawsuit as “pending” in his $250 million defamation suit against The Atlantic.

Judge Hanks elaborated in his 10-page decision that when viewed in context, the comments made by Frank Figliuzzi, a former FBI counterintelligence assistant director, could not reasonably be interpreted as factual statements about Patel. This ruling effectively puts an end to the defamation claims Patel had pursued.

The controversy began in May 2025 when Figliuzzi appeared on the cable network formerly known as MSNBC. During a segment on “Morning Joe,” he remarked that “reportedly” Patel had been seen at nightclubs more often than at the FBI’s Hoover Building. This statement was later termed a “misstatement” and unverified by the network.

Despite the retraction, Patel’s attorneys, Jesse Binnall and Jason Greaves, proceeded to file a defamation complaint against Figliuzzi in Texas in June 2025. They argued that the commentator had crossed a legal boundary by inventing a specific falsehood about Director Patel. The situation escalated when Patel’s legal team referenced the Figliuzzi case in another lawsuit against The Atlantic. The new suit challenges claims made about Patel’s purported “excessive drinking,” being “unreachable behind locked doors,” and an alleged “freak-out.”

That did not stop Patel’s attorneys Jesse Binnall and Jason Greaves from filing a complaint in Texas against Figliuzzi in June 2025, writing that the defendant “crossed the legal line by fabricating a specific lie about Director Patel.” And on Monday, the attorneys mentioned the Figliuzzi case while suing The Atlantic over anonymously sourced claims of “excessive drinking,” instances of being “unreachable behind locked doors,” and a “freak-out” on the part of Patel.

The filing claimed that The Atlantic willfully “avoid[ed] receiving information that would refute their narrative” and published “pure fantasy” about Patel that “echoed a similar fabrication previously aired by […] Figliuzzi on Morning Joe—anonymously sourced reporting that was later retracted by MSNBC and that is the subject of pending defamation litigation—yet Defendants published it anyway.”

Unfortunately for the FBI director, the “pending” case that he says The Atlantic ignored has failed.

“A person of reasonable intelligence and learning would not have taken his statement literally: that Dir. Patel has actually spent more hours physically in a nightclub than he has spent physically in his office building. By saying that Patel spent ‘far more’ time at nightclubs than his office, Figliuzzi delivered his answer ‘in an exaggerated, provocative and amusing way,’ employing rhetorical hyperbole,” the judge summarized. “The Court finds that Figliuzzi’s statement is rhetorical hyperbole that cannot constitute defamation.”

Law&Crime has learned that Patel intends to appeal to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

“The court ruled that Mr. Figliuzzi’s statements were rhetorical hyperbole; he was successful because he convinced the judge that he’s not a serious person,” said Binnall, also one of Michael Flynn’s lawyers. “While we disagree with the court and will appeal, that holding effectively eviscerates anyone’s—including The Atlantic’s—ability to treat his statements as reliable facts.”

Law&Crime did not immediately receive a response to a follow-up question asking whether Patel’s lawyers had reason to believe The Atlantic did treat Figliuzzi’s statements as reliable facts. The Atlantic article itself did not mention him.