FBI Director Kash Patel on Tuesday angrily denied ever being locked out of his government computer system, clashing with a reporter in Washington months after he filed a $250 milliondefamation lawsuitagainstThe Atlanticover that very claim.

Patel's suit targets an article published on 17 April that painted a highly unflattering picture of his conduct and state of mind,alleging he was 'extremely drunk' and that he panickedafter finding himself unable to log in to an internal FBI system. The report said he then called aides and allies to tell them he believed the White House had fired him. Patel insists those claims are false and defamatory, and has asked a court to makeThe Atlanticpay hundreds of millions in damages.

The confrontation at the press conference came when a reporter pressed Patel on the login episode described in bothThe Atlanticpiece and his own lawsuit. The journalist began by asking what Patel had thought 'after he was unable to log in to the system.'

Patel cut him off and suggested taking a quick poll of the room, asking how many people present believed the claim was true. He then launched into a sharp rebuttal.

'The problem with you and your baseless reporting is that is an absolute lie. It was never said. It never happened and I will serve in this administration as long as the President, the Attorney General want me to,' Patel said.

The originalAtlanticarticle, citing 'nine people familiar with his outreach,' reported that on Friday 10 April, as Patel was preparing to leave work for the weekend, 'he struggled to log on to an internal computer system' and 'quickly became convinced that he had been locked out.' According to the piece, he 'panicked, frantically calling aides and allies to announce that he had been fired by the White House.'

Patel's legal filing, however, offers a more mundane version of events that nonetheless appears to acknowledge a login issue. The lawsuit states: 'On April 10, 2026, Director Patel had a routine technical problem logging into a government system, which was quickly fixed.'

That single line has now taken on outsized significance. In court, Patel is not disputing that something went wrong with his access. His argument is that what he describes as a routine glitch was inflated by anonymous sources into a tale of panic and presumed dismissal. On camera, under questioning, he pushed further, insisting that 'it never happened' at all and that 'anybody who says the opposite is lying.'

Lawyers will likely seize on that gap in emphasis. One account concedes a problem, even if minor. The other suggests there was no meaningful incident to speak of. Nothing in the public documents resolves whether Patel is drawing a distinction between a standard IT hiccup and being formally 'locked out,' or retreating from the more careful language of his own complaint. Nothing has been independently confirmed yet, so all sides' claims should be treated with caution.

The exchange grew more testy as Patel tried to steer the briefing back to his chosen subject. The appearance had been billed as an announcement about what he described as the Southern Property Law Center's '$3 million decade-long scheme that fraudulently fleeced Americans'. Midway through, the system-lockout question landed.

Source: International Business Times UK