House Democrats Demand Kash Patel Submit to Alcohol Test After Atlantic Reporting

On April 17, 2026, The Atlantic published a report by staff writer Sarah Fitzpatrick that threw FBI Director Kash Patel's tenure into crisis. The article, headlined "Kash Patel's Erratic Behavior Could Cost Him His Job," alleged that the director had "alarmed colleagues with episodes of excessive drinking and unexplained absences" [1]. Within days, Patel filed a $250 million defamation lawsuit [2], Senate Democratic leaders demanded the preservation of all related records [5], and a government watchdog group launched a sweeping FOIA investigation [6]. What began as a single magazine story has become a multi-front confrontation over FBI leadership, congressional oversight, and the standards of conduct expected of the nation's top law enforcement official.

What The Atlantic Reported

Fitzpatrick's article drew on interviews with "more than two dozen people, including current and former FBI officials, staff at law enforcement and intelligence agencies, hospitality industry workers, members of Congress, political operatives, lobbyists and former advisers" [1]. The core allegations were specific and detailed:

• Patel "is known to drink to the point of obvious intoxication" at private clubs including Ned's in Washington, D.C., and the Poodle Room in Las Vegas, where he frequently spends parts of his weekends [1][12].
• "Meetings and briefings have had to be rescheduled for later in the day as a result of his alcohol-fueled nights" [1].
• "On multiple occasions, members of his security detail have had difficulty waking Patel because he was seemingly intoxicated" [1][3].
• Patel's "drinking has been a recurring source of concern across the government," according to several unnamed officials [1][12].
• At one point, FBI security personnel reportedly considered using "breaching equipment" to enter a room where Patel was unresponsive [6][3].

The article also noted a prior public incident: video from the February 2026 Winter Olympics in Italy showing Patel celebrating with the U.S. men's hockey team in their locker room and chugging a bottle of beer after their gold medal win [8].

Before publication, The Atlantic contacted Patel's office for comment. According to Patel's subsequent lawsuit, his representatives "expressly warned, hours before publication, that the central allegations were categorically false" [10]. The FBI Director's office issued a denial, and Patel has repeatedly stated: "I've never been intoxicated on the job" [9][4].

The $250 Million Lawsuit

On April 20, Patel filed a defamation lawsuit in federal court against The Atlantic and Fitzpatrick personally, seeking $250 million in damages [2]. The complaint lists 17 specific claims from the article that Patel characterizes as "false and defamatory statements of fact" [3]. These include assertions that he is "a habitual drunk, unable to perform the duties of his office, is a threat to public safety, is vulnerable to foreign coercion, has violated DOJ ethics rules, is unreachable in emergencies," and "behaves erratically in a manner that compromises national security" [3][2].

Patel's legal team argues The Atlantic acted with "actual malice" — the legal standard for defamation of public officials established by the Supreme Court in New York Times v. Sullivan — by publishing despite pre-publication denials and allegedly failing "to take even the most basic investigative steps" that "would have easily refuted their claims" [10]. The complaint also alleges "clear editorial animus" against Patel [10].

The Atlantic responded through its senior vice president of communications: "We stand by our reporting on Kash Patel, and we will vigorously defend The Atlantic and our journalists against this meritless lawsuit" [2][10].

Legal observers have noted that defamation cases brought by public officials face steep odds, given the actual malice standard's requirement to prove the publisher knew statements were false or acted with reckless disregard for their truth. However, the lawsuit may serve a secondary purpose: discovery could compel The Atlantic to reveal its anonymous sources, a prospect that carries its own chilling implications for press freedom.

The Democratic Response: Preservation Demands and Calls for Resignation

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer and Senator Dick Durbin, the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, moved quickly after the article's publication. In a letter to acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, they demanded that the Justice Department and the FBI "preserve all records and materials related to the alleged incidents" described in The Atlantic's report [5]. Schumer went further, stating publicly that Patel "must resign immediately" [5].

The preservation demand carries strategic significance. While Democrats lack the Senate majority to compel subpoenas, a document-preservation letter puts the administration on notice: if records are destroyed and Democrats later gain subpoena power — whether through a midterm electoral shift or a future investigation — the destruction itself could become grounds for an obstruction inquiry [5].

On the House side, Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA) predicted Patel's downfall, declaring "Kash Patel is next" in reference to other Trump administration personnel shakeups [11]. Multiple House Democrats have publicly called on Patel to resign or seek treatment [11].

The specific demand referenced in some headlines — that Patel submit to an alcohol test "under penalty of perjury" — reflects the broader push from congressional Democrats to force Patel into a position where he either confirms or denies the allegations in a legally binding context. Congress can request testimony under oath; lying under oath constitutes perjury under federal law. However, Congress does not have clear-cut authority to compel a sitting executive branch official to undergo a medical examination. Constitutional scholars have long held that the separation of powers limits Congress's ability to impose medical or physical testing on executive officials, though Congress can subpoena testimony, documents, and records related to an official's fitness for duty [14].

The FOIA Campaign

On April 21, the nonprofit legal organization Democracy Forward filed three separate FOIA requests with the FBI, seeking a broad range of records [6]. The requests specifically targeted:

• Patel's calendars and scheduling records
• Information on personal-day usage
• Communications among FBI officials, including members of Patel's security detail
• Records of incidents in which officials "were unable to reach or wake the Director due to alcohol intoxication"
• Records regarding the reported use of "breaching equipment" by the security detail
• Communications on both official and personal devices, including Signal and WhatsApp [6][15]

In a detail that drew mockery from conservative media, the FOIA requests asked the FBI to provide any records containing terms including "alcohol," "drunk," "drinking," "hungover," and "inebriated" [15][7]. The Washington Examiner characterized the request as a fishing expedition by a "left-wing nonprofit" [15]. Democracy Forward framed it as a legitimate oversight inquiry into "whether those concerns have affected his ability to lead one of the nation's most critical law enforcement agencies" [6]. The FBI faces a 20-business-day deadline to respond [6].

Republican Reactions: Dismissal and Deflection

The Republican response has ranged from silence to active defense of Patel. Rep. Rich McCormick (R-GA) provided the most quotable reaction, telling a reporter: "I've seen plenty of guys drink and have fun. When they are on their spare time, that's their business. As long as it doesn't affect his job in a negative way, I'm cool" [8].

When asked whether Patel's reported drinking constituted a national security concern, McCormick said he didn't "know anything about his drinking" and insisted that what people do "in their spare time" is "their business" [8]. The response drew widespread criticism, with detractors arguing it implicitly confirmed the drinking while dismissing its significance.

No Republican members of Congress have publicly called for an investigation into Patel's conduct. The demand for accountability remains an entirely Democratic initiative, which limits its institutional weight in a Congress where Republicans hold the House majority.

The Press Conference Confrontation

On April 21, Patel appeared alongside acting Attorney General Todd Blanche at a press conference nominally about an indictment against the Southern Poverty Law Center [4][9]. But the event was quickly overtaken by questions about The Atlantic's report.

NBC News reporter Ryan Reilly pressed Patel on a detail from his own lawsuit: the complaint acknowledged that Patel had experienced a login issue with FBI systems, which some interpreted as suggesting he feared he had been fired [16][4]. When Reilly asked whether Patel had discussed with anyone a belief that he was being terminated, Patel snapped: "The simple answer to your question is you are lying" [16].

Blanche intervened, telling Reilly: "Stop, you're being extraordinarily rude. If you ask a question, he can answer it" [4][16]. The exchange reinforced a pattern that critics point to as evidence of the "erratic behavior" described in the Atlantic report, while supporters framed it as a legitimate pushback against hostile media [9][16].

Operational Questions at the FBI

Beyond the personal conduct allegations, the Atlantic report raised questions about FBI operational continuity that have received less attention but may carry greater long-term significance. Current and former FBI officials told Fitzpatrick that Patel has been "an irregular presence at FBI headquarters and in field offices" and that he has "compounded the bureau's existing bureaucratic bottlenecks" [12][1].

The FBI was already under strain before the drinking allegations surfaced. Patel's tenure has been marked by significant personnel upheaval, including the dismissal of acting Director Brian Driscoll and longtime Washington Field Office head Steve Jensen [14]. Multiple career agents have departed or been reassigned. Against that backdrop, allegations that the director is periodically unreachable raise specific concerns about decision-making gaps at the top of an agency responsible for counterterrorism, counterintelligence, and major criminal investigations.

Patel's defenders argue that the operational criticism is overblown and driven by disgruntled career officials who oppose his reform agenda. Patel has described himself as a reformer sent to clean up an FBI he has long criticized, and his supporters view internal resistance as evidence that his changes are working [7].

Historical Precedent: How FBI Directors Have Been Held Accountable

The history of FBI directors facing accountability for personal conduct is thin. Only one FBI director has ever been fired for cause: William Sessions, dismissed by President Bill Clinton on July 19, 1993 [13].

Source: FBI Historical Records

Data as of Apr 22, 2026CSV

Sessions was removed after a Justice Department Office of Professional Responsibility report found he had abused his position — using government aircraft for personal travel, charging taxpayers for a home security fence, and improperly claiming a tax deduction on his personal vehicle by designating it a law enforcement car [13]. Attorney General Janet Reno concluded that Sessions "exhibited a serious deficiency in judgment" and no longer commanded "the respect and confidence needed to lead the bureau" [13].

The Sessions precedent is instructive but limited. His misconduct involved misuse of government resources — clear ethical violations with documented evidence. Alcohol use, even if excessive, occupies murkier territory: it is not illegal, and proving that it impaired job performance requires evidence that anonymous allegations alone cannot provide.

James Comey's firing in 2017 by President Trump was politically motivated, not conduct-related, and was never framed as an accountability action [14]. No FBI director has ever been removed or investigated specifically for substance use.

Is This Oversight or Political Theater?

The central tension in the Democratic response is whether it represents genuine oversight with enforcement teeth or a messaging exercise aimed at generating headlines.

The case for genuine oversight: The FBI director holds one of the most sensitive positions in the federal government, with access to classified intelligence and operational authority over investigations touching national security. If the director is periodically incapacitated or unreachable, that is a legitimate concern regardless of party. The FOIA requests and document-preservation demands create paper trails that could support future action [5][6].

The case for political theater: Democrats lack the votes to subpoena Patel, impeach him, or force his removal. Republican House leadership has shown no interest in investigating the allegations. Patel serves at the pleasure of the President, and President Trump has given no indication he intends to act. In this context, letters and FOIA requests function as political pressure tools — useful for generating coverage and rallying a base, but unlikely to produce immediate consequences [7][8].

There is also a credible argument that demanding alcohol or medical testing of a political opponent sets a troubling precedent. If Congress can pressure executive officials into submitting to sobriety examinations based on anonymous media reports, that tool could be turned against officials of either party. The separation of powers exists in part to prevent one branch from exercising coercive personal authority over officials of another [14]. Conservative commentators have warned that normalizing such demands would open the door to future abuse, pointing to the history of congressional investigations being used as partisan weapons [7].

What Comes Next

The immediate future will be shaped by several concurrent tracks. Patel's $250 million lawsuit will proceed through federal court, where The Atlantic's legal team will almost certainly invoke the actual malice standard and fight any attempts to unmask sources. Democracy Forward's FOIA requests carry a 20-business-day response deadline, though the FBI could invoke exemptions to withhold records [6]. Senate Democrats' preservation demand puts documents on a legal hold but requires future subpoena power to access them [5].

The most consequential variable remains President Trump. FBI directors serve at the president's discretion. If Trump continues to stand by Patel — and nothing in the public record suggests otherwise — the democratic pressure campaign will remain exactly that: pressure without power. If, however, additional reporting corroborates the Atlantic's account, or if the controversy begins to impede Patel's ability to carry out the president's law enforcement agenda, the political calculus could shift.

For the FBI itself, the institutional damage may already be accumulating. An agency whose director is embroiled in a public fight over his personal conduct and credibility faces challenges in recruiting, retaining, and motivating the career workforce that conducts its investigations. Whether the Atlantic's allegations are ultimately proven, disproven, or left in the liminal space of unresolvable dispute, the controversy has added another layer of turbulence to an already unsettled period in the bureau's history [12].

The facts that can be confirmed at this stage are limited: The Atlantic published a detailed report based on dozens of sources; Patel denies the allegations and is suing; Democrats are pressing for records and accountability; Republicans are standing behind Patel; and the FBI continues to operate under a cloud of controversy. What remains unclear — and may remain unclear for some time — is whether the underlying allegations are true, and whether any institutional mechanism exists to resolve that question definitively.