Israel will pursue a defamation lawsuit against the New York Times over an opinion column by Nicholas Kristof alleging widespread sexual abuse of Palestinians by Israelis, including graphic claims that detainees were raped with objects and even assaulted by attack dogs.
The Israeli Foreign Ministry said Benjamin Netanyahu and Gideon Sa&#8217;ar instructed officials to initiate legal action after Kristof’s column, published Monday, accused Israeli prison guards, soldiers, settlers, and interrogators of carrying out systematic sexual violence against Palestinians. The ministry <a href="https://x.com/IsraelMFA/status/2054896697432519059">called</a> the piece “one of the most hideous and distorted lies ever published against the State of Israel in the modern press.”
The dispute centers on Kristof’s column, which leaned exclusively on interviews with 14 Palestinians and secondary reports from activist-linked human rights groups — many of which themselves relied on anonymous testimony. While the Times framed the piece as <a href="https://x.com/NYTimesPR/status/2054713015107273103">“deeply reported”</a> journalism, the column presented explosive accusations as credible despite offering little independently verifiable evidence beyond the claims of the accusers and organizations already hostile to Israel.
The column included graphic allegations that some detainees were beaten, sexually assaulted with batons and other objects, and in one especially lurid claim, assaulted by a trained dog. The latter allegation in particular drew intense backlash, with critics <a href="https://www.thefp.com/p/nick-kristof-dog-torture-claim-israel-palestine">calling</a> it grotesque propaganda more akin to wartime atrocity rumors than serious journalism.
Israeli officials argued the column relied on deeply compromised sourcing, including <a href="https://ngo-monitor.org/ngos/euro-med-human-rights-monitor/">Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor</a>, an organization whose founder has been accused by Israel of ties to Hamas. Watchdog group NGO Monitor <a href="https://www.jpost.com/international/article-896131#google_vignette">also challenged</a> sources cited in the column, arguing that several had records of amplifying false or unverified allegations against Israel.
The timing of Kristof’s column further inflamed the controversy. It ran just before the release of an Israeli civil commission report documenting sexual violence committed by Hamas during the October 7 massacre, a report built from years of evidence collection, forensic review, and thousands of hours of visual documentation. Israeli officials accused the Times of effectively laundering unverified allegations against Israel at the precise moment documented evidence of Hamas atrocities was being released.
Kristof himself has faced criticism for similar reporting failures before. In 2014, he publicly acknowledged being misled by activist Somaly Mam, whose dramatic claims about child trafficking he had promoted for years before they unraveled. Kristof later wrote that he regretted elevating those allegations and admitted journalists are “less suspicious if someone claims something stigmatizing, like being trafficked into a brothel.”
The same pattern is repeating here: sensational claims, weak corroboration, and an apparent willingness to suspend skepticism when the allegations fit a preferred political narrative. Even former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, whom Kristof cited in the piece, later said the columnist had misrepresented his comments by placing them in a way that suggested he endorsed claims he explicitly said he could not verify.
The Times issued a statement Tuesday defending Kristof and rejecting rumors of a retraction. Spokesman Charlie Stadtlander <a href="https://x.com/NYTimesPR/status/2054257854345888161">wrote</a> there was “no truth” to reports the paper was reconsidering the piece and described Kristof as “one of the world’s best on-the-ground reporters.”
Neither Israeli officials nor the Times have publicly released legal filings as of Thursday, and it remains unclear whether the lawsuit would be filed in Israel, the United States, or another jurisdiction. But the confrontation has already escalated into a broader indictment of a press establishment critics say is increasingly willing to run incendiary anti-Israel allegations on the thinnest possible evidentiary basis — so long as the target is the Jewish state.

Sign at the entrance to the New York Times Headquarters in

Israel Moves To Slap New York Times With Lawsuit Over ‘Blood Libel’ Hit Piece

Israel Will Take NYT To Court Over 'Blood Libel' Piece Ran By The Paper

Lawsuit

New York Times

Two South Florida-based police officers are suing for defamation following the release of Matt Damon and Ben Affleck’s action thriller “The Rip.”
Miami-Dade area sergeants Jason Smith and Jonathan Santana filed a lawsuit against the film’s production company, Artists Equity, earlier this month in Miami federal court, <a href="https://apnews.com/article/rip-lawsuit-ben-affleck-matt-damon-98647a282521fe01ce73d8a7afeb4400">per</a> the Associated Press. Smith and Santana are seeking an undisclosed amount of compensatory damages, along with punitive damages and attorney fees. They are also asking for a retraction and added disclaimers in the film.
“The Rip” was inspired by the true story of two police officers who discovered millions of dollars inside a house. 
“A group of Miami cops discovers a stash of millions in cash, leading to distrust as outsiders learn about the huge seizure, making them question who to rely on,” the IMDb description says.
It was released on Netflix in January and currently has a 78% critic rating and 65% audience score on <a href="https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_rip">Rotten Tomatoes</a>. 
The lawsuit states that people now believe Smith, the real-life supervisor of the investigative team, and Santana, the lead detective on the case, actually committed the criminal acts portrayed in the film, even with the film’s disclaimers stating that it’s not a true story.
&#8220;Third parties have asked Plaintiffs which characters in the Film they were and how many buckets they kept,&#8221; the lawsuit states. &#8220;Family members, colleagues and peers in other entities unknown to the Plaintiffs but aware of the 2016 case, also remarked that Plaintiffs must have used seized funds to build personal property improvements, purchase vehicles and vessels, and afford private schooling for their children.&#8221;
The lawsuit further states that Smith and Santana have &#8220;repeatedly been questioned by third parties regarding the characters and events depicted.&#8221; They claim to have been contacted by a Miami-Dade County State Attorney inquiring about the allegations and threatening an investigation. 
&#8220;The Film and its promotional content imply misconduct, poor judgment, and unethical behavior in connection with a real law-enforcement operation,&#8221; the lawsuit <a href="https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/miami-dade-officers-suing-over-matt-damon-and-ben-affleck-movie-the-rip/3807644/">says</a>. &#8220;As a result, Plaintiffs have suffered damage to their reputations, diminished standing among peers and colleagues, and injury to their credibility in law-enforcement and professional circles.&#8221;
An attorney for Artists Equity said in March that the film already has a disclaimer saying it doesn’t depict real events or people, the outlet noted. The disclaimer text says, &#8220;This program is inspired by real events; however, the characters and events depicted have been fictionalized for dramatic purposes, and any similarity to actual persons is purely coincidental and unintentional.”
Affleck and Damon already stated that the narrative was inspired by the real 2016 incident in Miami and hired Miami-Dade Police Capt. Chris Casiano as a technical advisor on the film.
“We really wanted to kind of understand what those dynamics were like,” Damon told AP during an interview in January. “I mean, these units are very tight because they’re really putting their lives in each other’s hands, and they’re doing something that’s very dangerous.”

Matt Damon Ben Affleck

Police Officers Slap Matt Damon And Ben Affleck With Defamation Lawsuit

Police Officers Sue Matt Damon And Ben Affleck For Defamation

Ben Affleck

Entertainment

Florida

Hollywood

Matt Damon

Movies

Police

The JPMorgan sex scandal just got a little wilder as the Wall Street Journal reported that plaintiff Chirayu Rana turned down a $1 million settlement offer in March.
According to the outlet, inside sources say Rana’s attorneys countered by asking for $11.75 million. After negotiations failed, the lawsuit was filed against his former employer. 
A JPMorgan spokesman confirmed to WSJ, “We did try to reach an agreement to avoid the time and expense of litigation and to support an employee who was being threatened with the very reputational harm now unfolding. We continue to believe these allegations have no merit and new information raised as a result of the public filing only reinforces that conclusion.”
The company&#8217;s attempt to keep the matter out of the news does not necessarily indicate the harassment occurred, the outlet noted, but rather can be a common tactic used to make these claims go away without the national spectacle. As was previously reported, the company was unable to corroborate Rana’s claims of racial discrimination and sexual harassment. 
The bombshell sexual harassment lawsuit sent shockwaves through the financial world before being deemed a “complete fabrication” by insiders.
Rana, 35, first filed a lawsuit in late April under the pseudonym “John Doe.” The filing leveled a series of lurid and sensational accusations against Lorna Hajdini, 37, an executive director on JPMorgan’s leveraged finance team. 
In the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/viral-jpmorgan-sex-slave-suit-unmasked-as-complete-fabrication">initial complaint</a>, Rana alleged that Hajdini had turned him into her personal “sex slave,” claiming she drugged him with “roofies” and Viagra to facilitate non-consensual encounters. The suit included salacious quotes, alleging Hajdini told him, “If you don’t f*ck me soon, I’m going to ruin you… Never forget, I f*cking own you.”
The original filing said that Hajdini referred to Rana as her “little brown boy toy” and allegedly told him, “I bet your little Asian, fish head, wife doesn’t have these cannons.”
The suit further claimed that she threatened to “slash his bonus” if he didn’t follow her commands. 
Rana’s claims came under intense scrutiny after it was revealed that he did not report to Hajdini, so she would not have had approval over whether his bonuses were awarded or taken away. 
A bank spokesman said at the time, “Following an investigation, we don’t believe there’s any merit to these claims. While numerous employees cooperated with the investigation, the complainant refused to participate and has declined to provide facts that would be central to support his allegations.”
The lawsuit was taken off the docket, but then was refiled on Monday, per the WSJ.
“The original lawsuit was not withdrawn,” Daniel Kaiser, Rana’s lawyer, told the outlet. “After filing, the court clerk informed us that the suit required review and sign-off from the judge before being formally filed under a pseudonym. Upon signature by the judge yesterday, the suit was formally filed under a pseudonym.”
Hajdini’s lawyers said she “continues to categorically deny the allegations. She never dated this individual, never had a sexual or romantic encounter with him of any kind and never gave him any drugs. She maintains that his false claims are entirely fabricated and tarnishing her reputation.”

JP Morgan

The Move The JPMorgan Sexual Harassment Accuser Made Before Filing

Business

News

The Justin Baldoni-Blake Lively legal drama has come to an end without the spectacle of a trial, and legal experts are saying both sides spent “an obscene amount” of money in the process.
The former co-stars settled the matter two weeks before the trial was scheduled to kick off in New York, after filing multiple lawsuits and counter suits against each other. New York-based attorney Richard Schoenstein, who does not represent either party, <a href="https://people.com/how-much-did-blake-lively-and-justin-baldoni-s-it-ends-with-us-dispute-cost-exclusive-11967317">discussed</a> the likely financial fallout with People. 
“The combined legal expense is in the multiple millions. There are around 1,500 docket entries, countless lawyers on both sides, and these are high-priced firms billing well over $1,000 an hour,” Schoenstein said, which fellow NY-based attorney Megan Thomas agreed with. She said the two parties spent “an obscene amount” over the past two years. 
“I can&#8217;t give a number, but both sides had multiple lawyers,” Thomas added.
Schoenstein added that mounting costs likely had a lot to do with Lively and Baldoni reaching a settlement. Plus, with both sides having their claims dismissed or reduced, it ended up not being worth the hassle.
“I think they settled because the case wasn&#8217;t worth it at this point for either of them,” Schoenstein told the outlet. “The case had been reduced — his counterclaims were dismissed, and her claims were substantially narrowed. There wasn&#8217;t enough to gain from going to trial given the cost, which would have been extremely high, in the millions.”
The legal drama between the former costars started in December 2024 when Lively filed a lawsuit against Baldoni, accusing him of sexual harassment, retaliation, and attempting to “destroy” her reputation. This came after she starred opposite Baldoni in “It Ends With Us,” a film he also directed.
Baldoni fervently denied the claims, responding with a countersuit against his co-star and her husband, actor Ryan Reynolds. He also sued The New York Times for $250 million in a defamation claim for an article about the situation, which he says is “rife with inaccuracies, misrepresentations, and omissions.” The countersuit was dismissed by the judge in June 2025.
A federal judge in New York ruled in early April to dismiss 10 of Blake Lively’s 13 claims against Baldoni, including those related to harassment, defamation, and conspiracy. 
As both cases fell apart and attorney fees kept climbing, the former co-stars finally came to a confidential settlement on Monday, May 4. It is rumored that the only ones who got paid in the end were the lawyers. 
&#8220;The end product — the movie ‘It Ends With Us’ — is a source of pride to all of us who worked to bring it to life. Raising awareness, and making a meaningful impact in the lives of domestic violence survivors — and all survivors — is a goal that we stand behind,&#8221; a statement from Baldoni and Lively provided to Fox News Digital <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/blake-lively-justin-baldoni-settlement-reportedly-ends-no-money-expert-calls-complete-disaster">said</a>.
&#8220;We acknowledge the process presented challenges and recognize concerns raised by Ms. Lively deserved to be heard,&#8221; the statement continued. &#8220;We remain firmly committed to workplaces free of improprieties and unproductive environments. It is our sincere hope that this brings closure and allows all involved to move forward constructively and in peace, including a respectful environment online.&#8221;

Blake Lively Justin Baldoni

Hollywood’s Biggest Legal Feud Collapses After ‘Millions’ Wasted On Lawyers

Blake Lively

Celebrities

Court

New York

A bombshell sexual harassment lawsuit that sent shockwaves through the financial world this week has been branded a &#8220;complete fabrication&#8221; by insiders, as the anonymous accuser was <a href="https://nypost.com/2026/04/30/business/bombshell-jpmorgan-sex-harassment-suit-that-went-viral-branded-complete-fabrication-as-john-doe-accuser-unmasked/">unmasked</a> as former JPMorgan staffer Chirayu Rana.
The 35-year-old Rana, now a principal at investment firm Bregal Sagemount, initially filed the suit on Monday under the pseudonym &#8220;John Doe.&#8221; The filing leveled a series of lurid and sensational accusations against Lorna Hajdini, 37, an executive director on JPMorgan’s leveraged finance team.
The initial complaint, which went viral after being <a href="https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-15776897/JPMorgan-executive-banker-sex-abuse-lawsuit-new-york.html">reported</a> by the Daily Mail, painted a dark picture of corporate debauchery. Rana alleged that Hajdini had turned him into her personal “sex slave,” claiming she drugged him with “roofies” and Viagra to facilitate non-consensual encounters. The suit was peppered with salacious quotes, alleging Hajdini told him, “If you don’t f*ck me soon, I’m going to ruin you… never forget, I f*cking own you.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Bombshell sex harassment suit against Lorna Hajdini, JPMorgan branded &#39;complete fabrication&#39; as John Doe unmasked <a href="https://t.co/Njh9k8GcNe">https://t.co/Njh9k8GcNe</a> <a href="https://t.co/26HxbeeOV8">pic.twitter.com/26HxbeeOV8</a>
&mdash; New York Post (@nypost) <a href="https://twitter.com/nypost/status/2049965116091752895?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 30, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
However, the narrative began to crumble within 48 hours. JPMorgan issued a scathing rebuttal, revealing that a &#8220;thorough internal probe&#8221; involving phone records and emails found no evidence to support the claims. A bank spokesman said, “Following an investigation, we don’t believe there’s any merit to these claims. While numerous employees cooperated with the investigation, the complainant refused to participate and has declined to provide facts that would be central to support his allegations.”
Furthermore, sources revealed a glaring hole in the lawsuit’s logic: Rana did not actually report to Hajdini. While the suit claimed she threatened to “slash his bonus” if he did not comply with her demands, Hajdini had no authority over his compensation or performance reviews.
“He has tarnished her with a complete fabrication,” an associate of Hajdini told the New York Post. While Rana was described by some colleagues as “socially awkward,” Hajdini is regarded as a “top performer” who spends her free time volunteering for educational non-profits.
The original court papers, which included claims that Hajdini referred to Rana as her “little brown boy toy” and allegedly told him, “I bet your little Asian, fish head, wife doesn’t have these cannons,” have since been withdrawn for “corrections.”
Insiders suggest the lawsuit may have been a high-stakes attempt at a shakedown. Sources say that before going public, Rana filed an internal complaint in May 2025 and attempted to negotiate a payout totaling “millions” to leave the company. When the bank refused to settle, the &#8220;John Doe&#8221; lawsuit followed.
Under U.S. law, court filings enjoy &#8220;absolute privilege,&#8221; meaning media outlets can report on the most scandalous allegations—such as Rana’s claim that Hajdini told him to “stop f*cking crying” during an assault—without fear of defamation suits, even if the claims are later proven to be entirely false.
Hajdini remains in her position at JPMorgan, while Rana’s career continues at Bregal Sagemount.

JPMorgan Chase Ahead Of Earnings Figures

Viral JPMorgan ‘Sex Slave’ Suit Unmasked As ‘Complete Fabrication’

Media

U.S.

A Southern California city is suing Democratic Attorney General Rob Bonta over the state’s sanctuary policies, arguing they are putting public safety at risk and tying the hands of local police.
Officials in El Cajon say those policies had real-world consequences when federal authorities warned the city that 52 children may have been victims of sex trafficking by illegal immigrants — but the state blocked local officials from acting on that information.
The lawsuit, filed Wednesday in San Diego County, seeks to overturn Senate Bill 54, a 2017 law that limits cooperation between local law enforcement and federal immigration agencies like ICE.
Mayor Bill Wells, a Republican backed by the America First Policy Institute, argues the law forces police into an impossible position — choosing between following state rules or enforcing federal law.
“Our officers are put in a situation every day where they’re breaking either federal law or state law,” Wells told The Daily Wire. “SB 54 is in direct conflict with federal law.”
Wells said the restrictions go even further, preventing officers from coordinating with federal agents or even asking basic questions about immigration status in many cases.
The clash came into sharp focus earlier this year. In February 2025, federal immigration authorities alerted El Cajon officials that dozens of unaccompanied children in the area could be victims of sex trafficking.
A city council member sought permission from the state Attorney General’s office to use that information to conduct welfare checks on the children.
The answer was no.
“Pursuing wellness checks of unaccompanied children alongside or based on information provided by federal immigration authorities may implicate conduct prohibited by SB 54,” Special Assistant Attorney General Jackie Gonzalez wrote in a letter obtained by The Daily Wire, adding that county social services — not local police working with federal agents — should handle such cases.
Wells blasted the response as a “moral failure.”
“I think it’s really important to understand how far this ideology goes,” he said. “They are so wedded to this anti-ICE ideology that when the question is, can we save children who are being sex trafficked, the answer is no. That’s shocking.”
Wells also tied the broader impact of illegal immigration policies to rising crime and drug-related deaths in his city of roughly 100,000 people.
“California used to be the greatest state in the nation,” he said. “Now it’s declined on so many fronts, and a lot of that comes from this idea that the state doesn’t care about enforcing the law.”
SB 54 bars state and local law enforcement agencies from using resources to assist in federal immigration enforcement, including sharing certain information with federal authorities.
The law has already survived a major legal challenge. During President Donald Trump’s first term, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld SB 54, ruling that the federal government cannot force states to participate in immigration enforcement.
“We have no doubt that SB 54 makes the jobs of federal immigration authorities more difficult,” the court wrote, but added that California has the right to decline cooperation.
The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to take up the case, calling SB 54 the “centerpiece” of California’s immigration policy, but the justices declined to hear it.
Wells argues his lawsuit is different and could ultimately give individual cities more authority to decide how much they cooperate with federal agencies.
“I don’t know a law enforcement officer anywhere in California who wouldn’t want more tools to get bad guys off the street,” he said.
State officials have already signaled they will fight the lawsuit.
“El Cajon should prepare for another loss,” Bonta said in a statement. “There have been endless attempts to mislead the public about SB 54, but the truth is that anyone who commits a crime can be held accountable under California law.”
Wells fired back, accusing the attorney general of ignoring the real-world consequences of the policy.
“It’s so obviously clear he’s making things up,” Wells said. “I really lost respect for his ability to be [an] honest actor in this.&#8221;
Wells said the stakes go beyond a single lawsuit.
At its core, he argued, the case is about whether local communities can work with federal authorities to stop crime — or whether state policies will continue to stand in the way.

California Governor Newsom Announces Lawsuit Challenging Trump Tariff Authority

EXCLUSIVE: Democrat Law Blocking Police From Saving Trafficked Kids Is Getting Called Out

California

Immigration

FBI Director Kash Patel on Monday sued The Atlantic for $250 million over what he calls a “malicious and defamatory hit piece” that accused the federal law enforcement chief of having a serious drinking problem.
Patel is acting on a promise he made over the weekend to sue <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/2026/04/kash-patel-fbi-director-drinking-absences/686839/">The Atlantic over a Friday story</a> whose sub-headline read, “Kash Patel has alarmed colleagues with episodes of excessive drinking and unexplained absences.”
<div class="flex flex-col text-sm pb-25">
<section class="text-token-text-primary w-full focus:outline-none [--shadow-height:45px] has-data-writing-block:pointer-events-none has-data-writing-block:-mt-(--shadow-height) has-data-writing-block:pt-(--shadow-height) [&amp;:has([data-writing-block])&gt;*]:pointer-events-auto scroll-mt-[calc(var(--header-height)+min(200px,max(70px,20svh)))]" dir="auto" data-turn-id="request-WEB:707589a6-9f60-4c4f-8fa9-98f1b04b62f3-6" data-testid="conversation-turn-14" data-scroll-anchor="true" data-turn="assistant">
<div class="text-base my-auto mx-auto pb-10 [--thread-content-margin:var(--thread-content-margin-xs,calc(var(--spacing)*4))] @w-sm/main:[--thread-content-margin:var(--thread-content-margin-sm,calc(var(--spacing)*6))] @w-lg/main:[--thread-content-margin:var(--thread-content-margin-lg,calc(var(--spacing)*16))] px-(--thread-content-margin)">
<div class="[--thread-content-max-width:40rem] @w-lg/main:[--thread-content-max-width:48rem] mx-auto max-w-(--thread-content-max-width) flex-1 group/turn-messages focus-visible:outline-hidden relative flex w-full min-w-0 flex-col agent-turn">
<div class="flex max-w-full flex-col gap-4 grow">
<div class="min-h-8 text-message relative flex w-full flex-col items-end gap-2 text-start break-words whitespace-normal outline-none keyboard-focused:focus-ring [.text-message+&amp;]:mt-1" dir="auto" data-message-author-role="assistant" data-message-id="bff3f5b8-fb4d-49aa-b43c-e0a8192212f0" data-message-model-slug="gpt-5-3-mini" data-turn-start-message="true">
<div class="flex w-full flex-col gap-1 empty:hidden">
<div class="markdown prose dark:prose-invert w-full wrap-break-word light markdown-new-styling">
The story portrayed an absent FBI chief concerned about his job security and allegedly struggling with substance abuse, which is said to be affecting key investigations, including the murder of Charlie Kirk.
Patel has forcefully denied all allegations of misconduct.
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</section>
</div>
&#8220;You wanna attack my character, come at me, bring it on, I&#8217;ll see you in court,&#8221; Patel said in an <a href="https://x.com/FoxNews/status/2045893562026353027?s=20">interview with Fox News</a>. &#8220;We have to fight back against the fake news.&#8221;
The piece, written by reporter Sarah Fitzpatrick, cited more than two dozen anonymous sources alleging Patel engages in “excessive drinking,” as well as “conspicuous inebriation and unexplained absences&#8221; that &#8220;alarmed officials at the FBI  and the Department of Justice,&#8221; <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/fbi-director-kash-patel-sues-atlantic-court-records-show-2026-04-20/">according to Reuters</a>.
&#8220;Memo to the fake news &#8211; the only time I’ll ever actually be concerned about the hit piece lies you write about me will be when you stop,&#8221; Patel posted on April 18. &#8220;Keep talking, it means I’m doing exactly what I should be doing. And no amount of BS you write will ever deter this FBI from making America safe again and taking down the criminals you love.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Memo to the fake news &#8211; the only time I’ll ever actually be concerned about the hit piece lies you write about me will be when you stop. Keep talking, it means I’m doing exactly what I should be doing. And no amount of BS you write will ever deter this FBI from making America…
— FBI Director Kash Patel (@FBIDirectorKash) <a href="https://twitter.com/FBIDirectorKash/status/2045549772044439803?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 18, 2026</a></blockquote>
Patel’s <a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.291527/gov.uscourts.dcd.291527.1.0.pdf">19-page suit</a> was filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., accusing The Atlantic of publishing a &#8220;sweeping, malicious, and defamatory hit piece.&#8221;
&#8220;Defendants are of course free to criticize the leadership of the FBI, but they crossed the legal line by publishing an article replete with false and obviously fabricated allegations designed to destroy Director Patel’s reputation and drive him from office,&#8221; the lawsuit reads. &#8220;Indeed, Fitzpatrick could not get a single person to go on the record in defense of these outrageous allegations, instead relying entirely on anonymous sources she knew to be both highly partisan with an ax to grind and also not in a position to know the facts.&#8221;
The Atlantic provided the FBI a two-hour window to respond to &#8220;nineteen detailed allegations concerning complex issues of national security, personnel files, security-detail logs, internal facilities logs, and personal conduct,&#8221; according to the lawsuit.
On Monday, The Atlantic vowed to fight the lawsuit, which seeks $250 million in punitive damages.
&#8220;We stand by our reporting on Kash Patel, and we will vigorously defend The Atlantic and our journalists against this meritless lawsuit,&#8221; the company said in response to the lawsuit.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Statement from The Atlantic: <a href="https://t.co/ZoIldjSbzl">pic.twitter.com/ZoIldjSbzl</a>
— The Atlantic Communications (@TheAtlanticPR) <a href="https://twitter.com/TheAtlanticPR/status/2046239419422675189?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 20, 2026</a></blockquote>

Kash Patel

We Now Know How Much Kash Patel Is Suing The Atlantic For

Courts

kash patel

Politics

The Atlantic

Trump Administration

FBI Director Kash Patel is preparing for a full-scale legal battle against The Atlantic after the outlet published a bombshell report he says is riddled with falsehoods, and he’s making clear he intends to take it to the mat.
“Print it, all false, I’ll see you in court — bring your checkbook,” Patel <a href="https://x.com/S_Fitzpatrick/status/2045273851764859074">told the magazine</a> ahead of publication, a warning that has now escalated into an imminent lawsuit.
The Friday article by Sarah Fitzpatrick, titled “<a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/2026/04/kash-patel-fbi-director-drinking-absences/686839/">The FBI Director is MIA,</a>” levels a barrage of allegations against Patel, painting a picture of a senior law enforcement official allegedly plagued by instability, heavy drinking, and internal dysfunction. The report claims Patel engaged in “erratic” behavior, suffered bouts of paranoia about his job security, and was frequently absent or unreachable during key moments.
Among the most explosive claims: that Patel is “known to drink to the point of obvious intoxication” in front of colleagues, that members of his security detail have struggled to wake him due to alleged inebriation, and that officials once considered using breaching equipment to access a locked space when he could not be reached. The piece also alleges that meetings had to be delayed due to his condition and suggests his behavior could pose a “national security vulnerability.”
Patel’s legal team has forcefully rejected every one of those claims.
In a <a href="https://x.com/jbinnall/status/2045287437325254768">pre-publication letter</a>, his attorney Jesse Binnall called the allegations “categorically false and defamatory,” emphasizing that most rely on anonymous sources using vague phrasing like “people familiar with the matter.” Binnall argued that such sourcing “could not possibly possess firsthand knowledge” and accused the magazine of reckless disregard for the truth, a key component in proving defamation involving a public figure.
He also pointed to what he described as glaring factual holes, including the alleged “breaching equipment” incident, which he said has “no corroborating public record whatsoever” and appears to be either fabricated or based on a single unreliable source.
Reaction on X was immediate and sharply divided, with Patel allies and critics clashing over the credibility of The Atlantic’s reporting.
FBI media adviser Erica Knight <a href="https://x.com/_EricaKnight/status/2045279436354867267">blasted</a> the article as a recycled collection of rumors that “every real DC reporter chased, couldn&#8217;t verify, and passed on,” while laying out a lengthy defense of Patel’s record. She pointed to internal metrics under his leadership — including tens of thousands of arrests, major increases in violent crime enforcement, and large-scale fentanyl seizures — while dismissing the report’s central claims outright. “The so-called ‘intoxication incidents’ The Atlantic breathlessly reports have happened exactly ZERO times,” Knight wrote, adding bluntly: “Lawsuit is being filed.”
Others with direct ties to Patel echoed that pushback. Clint Brown, who described himself as a “sherpa” during Patel’s transition into the role, <a href="https://x.com/DissidentClint/status/2045310456340840611">said</a> he spent months working closely with him, and never witnessed any of the behavior described in the report. “Your anon sourced story is BS,” Brown wrote, adding that Patel was consistently responsive, detail-oriented, and deeply engaged in his work, often reviewing briefings at all hours.
Patel himself <a href="https://x.com/FBIDirectorKash/status/2045549772044439803">leaned into the fight</a>, framing the controversy as proof he’s doing his job. “Memo to the fake news — the only time I’ll ever actually be concerned about the hit piece lies you write about me will be when you stop,” he posted, adding that criticism would not deter the FBI from “making America safe again.”
On Capitol Hill, the reaction broke along predictable lines. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) seized on the report, <a href="https://x.com/SenSchumer/status/2045524585567723876">saying</a> it confirmed Patel is “completely unfit to serve” and calling for his resignation. But Tom Cotton (R-AR), who works directly with Patel as chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, <a href="https://x.com/TomCottonAR/status/2045517520849773053">dismissed</a> the story as a “dishonest smear” and pointed instead to what he described as tangible results from the bureau. Cotton followed up, <a href="https://x.com/TomCottonAR/status/2045517524926705838">adding</a>, &#8220;Here&#8217;s what&#8217;s really happening: Liberal reporters and disgruntled deep state leakers — who have zero knowledge of what the story alleges — are bitter that the FBI is no longer targeting Catholic parents and pro-lifers.&#8221;
The clash underscores what is quickly becoming more than just a media dispute: a political and legal showdown that is now playing out in real time across both the press and the courts.
Inside the administration, Patel has drawn swift and public backing. “Patel has accomplished more in 14 months than the previous administration did in four years. Anonymously sourced hit pieces do not constitute journalism,” acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said when reached out to by The Atlantic for comment.
FBI Assistant Director of Public Affairs Ben Williamson, who pushed back on the allegations when first contacted by the outlet, didn’t mince words in his response. He dismissed the report as a reheated collection of long-circulating rumors that had never held up under scrutiny, <a href="https://x.com/_WilliamsonBen/status/2045274603455476140">saying</a>: “This article is a compilation of pretty much every obviously fake rumor I’ve heard the last 14 months except the Atlantic is the only one dumb enough to actually print it.”
Patel himself has gone further, <a href="https://x.com/FBIDirectorKash/status/2045327321192599867">publicly accusing</a> the magazine of acting with “actual malice,” the high legal bar required in defamation cases involving public officials. He went further, saying, “See you and your entire entourage of false reporting in court.”
His team is also demanding that The Atlantic preserve all internal communications, drafts, and source materials related to the story, a clear signal that litigation is not just a threat, but imminent.
For her part, Fitzpatrick is standing by her reporting, citing interviews with more than two dozen sources and insisting the story is accurate. 
Neither side is backing down and so the high-stakes collision between a top federal law enforcement official and a major national publication seems imminent. If Patel follows through, the case could become a major test of modern media practices, particularly the reliance on anonymous sourcing in stories involving national security figures, and whether courts are willing to scrutinize those standards more aggressively.
The next round seems likely to play out in court, where both sides will be forced to back up their claims under oath, and where the consequences could be far more serious than a war of words.

Patel Unleashes On The Atlantic Over ‘Categorically False’ Report Including ‘Locked Room’ Claim

Media Bias

A self-admitted shoplifter in Portland is suing a grocery store after an employee stopped him mid-theft, setting up a case that underscores the growing tension between crime, order, and liability in one of America’s most leftist cities.
Joshua Merkel, 45, filed a $10,000 lawsuit against Albertsons and a store employee after attempting to steal a cart full of groceries in March 2024. Merkel openly admitted in court that he had no intention of paying for the items, telling jurors, “I understand I was committing a crime.”
Now, he’s arguing the employee who stopped him went too far.
The incident unfolded at a Southwest Portland Albertsons, where Merkel loaded up a shopping cart with food and walked out of the store without paying, according to court records. The lone employee working the register, Matthew “Deme” Cooper, chased him into the parking lot and confronted him.
What happened next escalated into a physical altercation that left Merkel with a fractured jaw and other injuries. But when prosecutors attempted to charge Cooper with second-degree assault, a charge that carried a potential six-year sentence, a jury took less than two hours to acquit him, rejecting the claim that his actions rose to criminal conduct.
Despite that acquittal, Merkel is now pursuing the case in civil court, claiming the employee used excessive force and seeking damages for medical bills and what he describes as “mental anguish.”
Merkel’s own testimony undercuts much of his claim. He admitted to planning the theft, loading up items in the cart with his girlfriend, and leaving the store without attempting to pay, despite having money on him at the time. 
While Merkel said hunger motivated the theft, during the criminal trial, defense attorneys argued he was selecting higher-value items, including T-bone steaks, with the intent to trade them for drugs. Merkel himself acknowledged that he has used methamphetamine on and off for roughly a decade, though he denied that it was his motive in this case.
The civil lawsuit lands as Portland continues to grapple with soaring retail theft. Monthly shoplifting reports in the city in 2026 have more than doubled since 2023, according to <a href="https://public.tableau.com/shared/SPRMC323F?:display_count=n&amp;:origin=viz_share_link">local police data</a>.
<div id="viz1776444109623" class="tableauPlaceholder" style="position: relative;">
<div style="width: 860px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" style="border: none;" src="https://public.tableau.com/static/images/SP/SPRMC323F/1_rss.png" alt=" " width="850" height="1127" />Reported Crime Trend Report via Portland Police Bureau</div>
</div>
Critics say the civil lawsuit reflects a broader trend in liberal jurisdictions, where criminals increasingly attempt to leverage the legal system against those who stop them — turning victims and bystanders into defendants.
“Crime should not pay,” said O.H. Skinner, executive director of the Alliance For Consumers (AFC). “This lawsuit in Oregon is exactly the kind of situation we have been warning about. A self-admitted shoplifter should not be allowed to sue the Albertsons security guard who stopped him.”
“But this is the exact kind of lawsuit trial lawyers use for a big payday,” Skinner added. “They can then use this payday to enrich Democratic allies through the Shady Trial Lawyer Pipeline and push political agendas outside of the legislative process.” 
The case also raises practical questions for businesses already struggling with theft. The situation has contributed to a wave of store closures across Portland, including the Albertsons location where the incident occurred, which permanently closed in July 2025. Many retailers instruct employees not to physically intervene in shoplifting incidents to avoid legal risk, even if it means allowing merchandise to be stolen. 
Merkel’s lawsuit tests the limits of that approach, raising the question of whether someone caught in the act of committing a crime can successfully claim damages for how they were stopped.
The case is currently pending in Multnomah County, with no court date yet set.

Highway and neon sign at night, Portland, Oregon, USA

A Man Who Tried To Steal Groceries Is Now Suing The Employee Who Stopped Him

Crime

Portland

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is launching a formal investigation into Lululemon over concerns the popular activewear brand may be misleading consumers about the safety of its products, particularly regarding the potential presence of so-called “forever chemicals.”
In a press release obtained exclusively by The Daily Wire, Paxton’s office confirmed it has issued a Civil Investigative Demand as part of a broader probe into whether Lululemon has accurately represented the health impacts, safety standards, and material composition of its clothing. The company, which generated more than $11 billion in fiscal year 2025, markets itself heavily around wellness, sustainability, and performance — branding that Paxton suggested may not align with emerging concerns.
“Americans should not have to worry if they are being deceived when trying to make healthy choices for themselves and their families,” Paxton said. “I will not allow any corporation to sell harmful, toxic materials to consumers at a premium price under the guise of wellness and sustainability.”
At the center of the investigation are PFAS, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, a class of synthetic chemicals widely referred to as “forever chemicals” due to their extreme resistance to breaking down in the environment or the human body. According to researchers at <a href="https://sustainability.yale.edu/explainers/yale-experts-explain-pfas-forever-chemicals#:~:text=PFAS%2C%20or%20per%2D%20and%20polyfluoroalkyl%20substances%2C%20are,chips%20*%20Toilet%20paper%20*%20Waterproof%20cosmetics">Yale School of Public Health</a>, PFAS have been used in consumer and industrial products since World War II, often for their water-resistant, stain-resistant, and non-stick properties, qualities commonly associated with performance apparel.
That same durability, however, is what makes PFAS potentially dangerous. Experts warn the chemicals can accumulate over time in the human body, persisting in blood, liver, and kidneys for years. Studies have linked PFAS exposure to a wide range of health risks, including certain cancers, liver toxicity, reduced fertility, immune system suppression, and developmental issues.
“PFAS are often called ‘forever chemicals’ because they contain an exceptionally strong carbon-fluorine bond, which makes them highly resistant to breakdown,” Yale epidemiology chair Vasilis Vasiliou explained. “As a result, they persist in the environment for decades or longer.”
Paxton’s investigation will specifically examine whether Lululemon’s products contain PFAS that consumers would not reasonably expect based on the company’s marketing. It will also scrutinize the company’s internal safety standards, testing protocols, and supply chain practices to determine whether its products comply with its own stated guidelines.
The probe comes amid growing scrutiny of PFAS contamination nationwide. Federal regulators only recently began setting enforceable limits on certain PFAS chemicals in drinking water, though those standards have already faced rollbacks and legal challenges. Meanwhile, consumer awareness has surged, with increasing concern about the presence of these chemicals in everyday products, including clothing.
While the investigation is still in its early stages, it signals a broader shift toward holding companies accountable for how they market “health-conscious” products, particularly when underlying materials may tell a different story.
Worth noting, Paxton is currently locked in a high-profile Republican primary runoff against John Cornyn (R-TX) for a U.S. Senate seat. His investigation also aligns with a broader push inside the Trump administration to crack down on environmental toxins in consumer products. Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has made similar issues a priority at HHS, including a recent <a href="https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-hhs-announce-historic-actions-protect-americans-microplastics-and-safeguard">joint initiative</a> with the EPA targeting microplastics, which regulators have begun categorizing alongside PFAS as emerging public health risks.
For now, the outcome of the investigation remains unclear. But as scrutiny around PFAS intensifies, companies built on wellness branding may increasingly find themselves under the microscope.

Is Lululemon Using Forever Chemicals?

Forever Chemicals

Ken Paxton

Texas

Meta has begun scrubbing ads offering legal help for damages related to social media addiction and the associated harmful behaviors.
According to a <a href="https://www.axios.com/2026/04/09/meta-social-media-addiction-ads">report</a> from Axios on Thursday, Meta has begun pulling ads — from both Facebook and Instagram — that provide users with information about getting legal advice or taking legal action against social media platforms.
Axios quoted an example of one of the ads that was pulled: &#8220;Anxiety. Depression. Withdrawal. Self-harm. These aren&#8217;t just teenage phases — they&#8217;re symptoms linked to social media addiction in children. Platforms knew this and kept targeting kids anyway.&#8221;
Meta has acknowledged that some ads are being removed from the social media platforms, saying that the law firms placing such ads should not be allowed to benefit from the use of Meta&#8217;s platforms while claiming at the same time that Meta was responsible for creating addicts and causing mental health problems.
&#8220;We&#8217;re actively defending ourselves against these lawsuits and are removing ads that attempt to recruit plaintiffs for them. We will not allow trial lawyers to profit from our platforms while simultaneously claiming they are harmful,&#8221; a Meta spokesperson told the outlet.
The report comes just two weeks after a California jury found that both <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/verdict-reached-in-landmark-social-media-media-addiction-trial">Meta</a> and YouTube had contributed to a number of mental health problems — including addiction and related behavior — in a landmark case before the California Superior Court.
A Meta spokesperson protested the verdict, saying at the time, &#8220;We respectfully disagree with the verdict and will appeal. We work hard to keep people safe on our platforms and are clear about the challenges of identifying and removing bad actors or harmful content. We will continue to defend ourselves vigorously, and we remain confident in our record of protecting teens online.&#8221;
As The Daily Wire previously reported, social media platforms — including Meta and YouTube — have often touted online safety features in recent years, such as Instagram’s “Teen Accounts” and YouTube “Kids,” which are meant to create safer and more controlled experiences for children. Critics argue that kids — sometimes with willing parents or other adults helping them — are able to bypass those controls and gain access to the full platforms anyway.

Social Media

Meta Shuts Down Ads From ‘Trial Lawyers’ Targeting Social Platform Over Addiction

Meta Doesn't Want Users To Know They May Be Able To Sue For Social Media Harm

Big Tech

Supreme Court

Escalating his legal battle just weeks before a high-stakes federal trial, Elon Musk has <a href="https://betanews.com/article/musk-openai-lawsuit-damages-to-nonprofit/#:~:text=The%20lawsuit%20originally%20sought%20damages,go%20to%20OpenAI's%20nonprofit%20foundation.">amended his lawsuit</a> against OpenAI, demanding the immediate removal of CEO Sam Altman and President Greg Brockman.
The revised filing, submitted this week, also seeks to force the artificial intelligence giant to abandon its for-profit structure and return to its nonprofit roots.
The case is <a href="https://medium.com/@fahey_james/elon-musks-bold-strike-against-openai-seeking-to-oust-sam-altman-and-greg-brockman-in-a-134-1f586f8f6005">scheduled</a> to go before a jury on April 27, 2026, in Oakland, California. The outcome could derail OpenAI’s planned initial public offering (IPO) and set a major precedent for how transformative technologies are governed.
In a strategic shift likely intended to neutralize claims that the lawsuit is fueled by personal greed, Musk’s amended complaint clarifies that he is not seeking to personally collect damages, estimated between $134 billion and $150 billion. Instead, Musk has requested that any recovered funds be directed to OpenAI’s nonprofit arm.
“He is asking the court to return everything that was taken from a public charity,” said Musk’s attorney, Marc Toberoff. Musk reinforced this stance publicly on X, suggesting his sole intent is to restore the organization&#8217;s founding mission.
Musk has <a href="https://www.peoplematters.in/news/business/elon-musk-moves-to-oust-openai-ceo-sam-altman-as-legal-fight-escalates-49152">alleged</a> that Altman and Brockman &#8220;manipulated and misled&#8221; him into providing roughly $38 million in seed funding between 2015 and 2018, based on assurances that OpenAI would remain a non-profit dedicated to open-source artificial general intelligence for the benefit of humanity.
Instead, Musk argues, the leadership engaged in a &#8220;wealth machine&#8221; scheme, effectively turning OpenAI into a &#8220;closed-source de facto subsidiary&#8221; of Microsoft. The filing accuses the executives of fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and racketeering, claiming they leveraged the reputational and tax benefits of a nonprofit to build a private entity now valued at more than $800 billion.
OpenAI has fired back, describing the lawsuit as a &#8220;frivolous&#8221; campaign driven by &#8220;ego, jealousy, and a desire to slow down a competitor.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Today, at the eleventh hour, Elon lodged a court filing pretending to change his tune about attacking the nonprofit OpenAI Foundation.
The truth is that this case has always been about Elon generating more power and more money for what he wants. Having increasingly realized that…
&mdash; OpenAI Newsroom (@OpenAINewsroom) <a href="https://twitter.com/OpenAINewsroom/status/2041648263078801765?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 7, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&nbsp;
The company recently petitioned the attorneys general of California and Delaware to investigate Musk for alleged &#8220;anti-competitive behavior,&#8221; noting that Musk now operates his own rival AI firm, xAI.
OpenAI’s legal team argues that the pivot to a &#8220;capped-profit&#8221; model was a matter of survival, citing the astronomical costs of developing advanced AI systems, which it says could reach into the hundreds of billions of dollars. The company has also pointed to internal emails from 2017  suggesting Musk himself once supported a for-profit shift, provided he maintained majority control.
The case gained significant momentum in early 2026 following the discovery of the so-called &#8220;Brockman Diaries.&#8221; A handwritten 2017 journal entry by Brockman reportedly characterized the nonprofit structure as &#8220;a lie,&#8221; a piece of evidence U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers cited as critical for the upcoming trial.
The court has already confirmed that high-profile figures, including Altman and Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella, are expected to testify.
The conflict is rooted in OpenAI&#8217;s 2015 founding. Initially a pure research lab, the organization began shifting its structure shortly after Musk’s departure in 2018:
<ul>
<li data-path-to-node="18,0,0">2015: Founded as a nonprofit; Musk provides initial funding.</li>
<li data-path-to-node="18,1,0">2019: Creates a &#8220;capped-profit&#8221; subsidiary to attract investment, leading to a multi-billion dollar partnership with Microsoft.</li>
<li data-path-to-node="18,2,0">2025: Completes a restructuring into a for-profit public benefit corporation.</li>
<li data-path-to-node="18,3,0">Present: Prepares for a potential late-2026 IPO at a valuation exceeding $850 billion.</li>
</ul>
Legal experts suggest the trial&#8217;s implications reach far beyond a personal feud. A victory for Musk could force OpenAI to restructure and raise new questions about nonprofit governance and donor intent. A win for Open AI could affirm the ability of a nonprofit to evolve into profit-generating enterprises despite donor objections.

Elon Musk and OpenAI

Musk Says The AI Shaping Your Life Pulled A $800B Bait-And-Switch

Elon Musk

Open AI

Sam altman

Menu