Alexis Wilkins, the girlfriend of FBI Director Kash Patel, filed a federal lawsuit in Nashville, Tennessee, accusing MS NOW and two of its reporters of pushing false claims about her, including allegations she abused FBI resources that her attorneys say never existed at the time.
The suit, filed Friday in federal court, names MS NOW, reporter Ken Dilanian, and reporter Carol Leonnig as defendants. Wilkins is seeking a jury trial and more than $75,000 in damages, as NBC News reported.
At the center of the dispute is a Dec. 5 article published on MS NOW's website. Dilanian and Leonnig reported that Patel ordered the security detail protecting Wilkins to escort one of her inebriated friends home after a night of partying in Nashville, on more than one occasion. Wilkins' attorneys say the entire premise was fabricated, built on what the complaint calls "sham" anonymous sources used to "push knowingly or recklessly false allegations."
The lawsuit strikes at the factual foundation of the MS NOW report. Wilkins' legal team, attorneys Kurt Beasley, Jason C. Greaves, and Jared R. Roberts, wrote in the complaint:
"The defendants 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 falsely portrayed Ms. Wilkins as being intoxicated even knowing that she does not drink."
That last claim carries a pointed detail. The suit states that FBI spokesman Ben Williamson told Dilanian before the article was published that Wilkins "doesn't even drink." If accurate, the reporters received a direct, on-the-record denial of a central element of their story from an official FBI source, and published anyway.
The complaint further describes Wilkins as "sober" and someone who "very rarely drinks, if ever." Her attorneys acknowledge that the MS NOW article does not explicitly accuse Wilkins herself of drinking. But they argue the overall impression left by the piece was unmistakable.
As the complaint puts it, "that is precisely the impression Defendants constructed and conveyed, and reasonable readers of MS Now would come to that conclusion."
Wilkins is described in the filing as a country music singer and actor. Her lawyers argue that the MS NOW report struck directly at the professional identity she has built, one that stands apart from what they call "the excess drinking culture and party scene that is typical for musicians."
Her attorneys wrote in the complaint:
"This false portrayal is highly offensive to Ms. Wilkins, and would be to any reasonable person in her situation. 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 suit alleges that the reporting "directly and proximately caused" Wilkins to "suffer humiliation and actual damages to her professional identity, reputation, and standing in the community."
For someone whose career depends on public perception, the allegations in the MS NOW piece painted a picture that, true or not, could follow her indefinitely.
MS NOW President Rebecca Kutler responded with a brief statement: "We stand firmly behind MS NOW's reporting. As a general matter of practice, we don't comment on ongoing legal matters."
That two-sentence reply is the entirety of the network's public defense so far. No elaboration on sourcing. No rebuttal of the complaint's specific claims. No acknowledgment of the FBI spokesman's pre-publication denial.
MS NOW was formerly the cable news network MSNBC, a unit of NBC News' parent company NBCUniversal. In early January, NBCUniversal spun off its cable channels into a separate publicly traded company called Versant Media Group. The rebranding and corporate restructuring mean that MS NOW now operates as a distinct entity, but the reporters and editorial culture carried over.
Wilkins' lawsuit is not the only legal action connected to Patel and media reporting about his personal life. Patel himself filed a separate suit against The Atlantic over an article published in April that alleged he drinks to excess.
Two of Wilkins' attorneys also represent Patel in that case. An unnamed Atlantic spokeswoman responded: "We stand by our reporting on Kash Patel, and we will vigorously defend The Atlantic and our journalists against this meritless lawsuit."
Together, the two lawsuits suggest a coordinated legal strategy aimed at outlets that have published personal allegations against Patel and the people close to him. Whether the claims survive judicial scrutiny remains to be seen. But the filings put reporters and their editors on notice that anonymous-source reporting about public officials' private lives now carries real litigation risk.
Several questions remain open. The complaint does not specify which legal claims or statutes Wilkins is asserting beyond the general framework of defamation. The court has not yet taken any action on the suit. And the full language of the Dec. 5 MS NOW article, beyond what the complaint and NBC News describe, has not been made public in this context.
Whether Wilkins had a security detail at any later point is also unclear from the filing. Her lawyers assert that no such detail existed "at the time" of the events described in the MS NOW piece. That leaves room for ambiguity about subsequent arrangements, an ambiguity the defendants may try to exploit.
Patel was sworn in as FBI director in February 2025. The MS NOW article appeared roughly ten months later. Wilkins was present at his swearing-in ceremony, making her a known public figure associated with the director well before the disputed reporting.
The media's reliance on anonymous sources has always carried risk. When anonymous sourcing is used responsibly, to protect whistleblowers or confirm sensitive government operations, it serves the public interest. When it is used to float personal allegations against public figures without on-the-record corroboration, it looks less like journalism and more like opposition research with a byline.
Wilkins' complaint alleges that MS NOW's reporters were told, by a named FBI official, before publication, that the central premise of their story was wrong. If that allegation holds up, it raises a straightforward question: what exactly were the "sham" anonymous sources offering that outweighed a direct, on-the-record denial from the FBI?
A jury in Nashville may eventually get to answer that question. MS NOW says it stands behind its reporting. Wilkins says the reporting was reckless and false. The federal court filing, available on CourtListener, lays out her side in detail.
Anonymous sources are a tool. Like any tool, they can be used well or used badly. When a news organization hides behind them to publish personal allegations that a named official denied on the record beforehand, readers are right to wonder whose interests that reporting actually served.