FBI looked into New York Times reporter who investigated Kash Patel's use of resources to help his girlfriend: report 90%

By Graig Graziosi63%

4/22/2026, 10:20:53 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 21 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Self-Serving Bias, and Anecdotal, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 28.4% saturation with 224 hits. Analysis detected 1,361 faulty-reasoning hits from 788 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 83.2% and a BS Rank of 90% (2,259 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 89.70% of the article peer group.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation began investigating a New York Times reporter in March after she wrote about FBI Director Kash Patel using bureau personnel to provide his girlfriend with a security detail and transportation, according to a new report. 
The New York Times, citing an individual with knowledge about the situation, reported on Wednesday that the bureau was investigating whether reporter Elizabeth Williamson broke federal stalking laws. 
According to the report, some in the Department of Justice viewed the move as retaliation by Patel against the reporter. 
The FBI told the NYT that “while investigators were concerned about how the aggressive reporting techniques crossed lines of stalking,” the bureau is not pursuing a case against Williamson. 
The paper reports that Williamson only had one phone call with Patel's girlfriend, Alexis Wilkins, and also contacted several people who had formerly worked with or knew Wilkins. 
Williamson was never actually in the presence of Wilkins, the paper reports. 
“The FBI's attempt to criminalize routine reporting is a blatant violation of Elizabeth's First Amendment rights and another attempt by this administration to prevent journalists from scrutinizing its actions,” Joseph Kahn, the NYT's executive editor, said. 
“It's alarming. 
It's unconstitutional. 
And it's wrong.” 
The article in question, published on February 28, delved into a protective detail assigned to Wilkins, a country singer, that included members of a federal Special Weapons and Tactics  SWAT  team pulled from FBI field offices around the country. 
The team followed her to her concerts and even to one of her hair appointments. 
The story was one of many that questioned Patel's use of federal resources. 
Earlier this year, Patel's use of an FBI plane to fly to Milan, Italy, to attend the U.S. 
Men's Hockey team game at the Olympics made headlines. 
Not only was his use of federal assets to attend a hockey game questioned, but his decorum came under scrutiny when photos emerged of him drinking and partying with the team after their victory. 
The FBI maintains that Patel was conducting necessary business in Milan, and his attendance at the hockey game was something he did in his off-time. 
Patel has also been accused of using FBI transportation to take a hunting trip in Texas and to go see Wilkins sing in Pennsylvania. 
Before becoming FBI director, Patel criticized his predecessor, Chris Wray, for using the FBI's jet for what he called a "vacation." 
"I'm just saying Chris Wray doesn't need a government-funded G5 jet to go to vacation. 
Maybe we ground that plane  15,000 every time it takes off. 
Just a thought," Patel told conservative media figure Glenn Beck in 2023. 
Patel's jet-setting only amounts to a portion of the criticism he's received since he's taken over as FBI director. 
A frustrated FBI source reported that he refused to exit his plane in Utah following the Charlie Kirk assassination until another agent gave him an official FBI jacket to wear. 
A 115-page report, compiled in 2025 by a group of active and retired FBI special agents and analysts, determined that Patel was “in over his head” and leading a “chronically underperforming” bureau. 
Most recently, Patel was the subject of a damning report in The Atlantic that alleged he had “alarmed colleagues with episodes of excessive drinking and unexplained absences.” 
The report includes an account of FBI agents allegedly having to seek “SWAT-level breaching equipment” when they couldn't rouse Patel from his room. 
Patel has fiercely denied the accusations and has sued The Atlantic and journalist Sara Fitzpatrick, the article's author, for $250 million and has threatened to sue others repeating her claims. 
“I've never been intoxicated on the job. 
Any one of you that wants to participate, bring it on  I'll see you in court," he told reporters during a contentious press conference on Tuesday. 
He insisted that he is "the first one in, I'm the last one out," 
“I'm like an everyday American who loves his country, loves the sport of hockey, and champions my friends when they raise a gold medal and invite me to celebrate,” he said, referencing his Milan trip. 
The Atlantic has defended its reporting, calling his lawsuit "meritless" and saying it will "vigorously defend The Atlantic and our journalists" in court. 
According to Fitzpatrick, she interviewed "more than two dozen people" about Patel's conduct, which included "current and former FBI officials, staff at law enforcement and intelligence agencies, hospitality-industry workers, members of Congress, political operatives, lobbyists, and former advisers." 
“I stand by every word of this reporting," she told MS NOW on Friday. 
"We have excellent attorneys.” 
The Independent has requested comment from Patel. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 9.1%Graig Graziosi: 2.7%The Independent: 2.9%Confirmation Bias9.1%This article: 0.0%Graig Graziosi: 1.3%The Independent: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 1.1%Graig Graziosi: 3.6%The Independent: 3.2%Availability Heuristic1.1%This article: 0.0%Graig Graziosi: 0.6%The Independent: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Graig Graziosi: 0.4%The Independent: 0.6%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 1.9%Graig Graziosi: 1.8%The Independent: 2.3%Overconfidence Bias1.9%This article: 6.1%Graig Graziosi: 8.4%The Independent: 8.2%Framing Effect6.1%This article: 1.5%Graig Graziosi: 1.1%The Independent: 0.5%Loss Aversion1.5%This article: 0.0%Graig Graziosi: 0.5%The Independent: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Graig Graziosi: 0.1%The Independent: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Graig Graziosi: 1.8%The Independent: 2.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Graig Graziosi: 2.2%The Independent: 1.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 28.4%Graig Graziosi: 13.9%The Independent: 12.2%Negativity Bias28.4%This article: 17.0%Graig Graziosi: 2.3%The Independent: 2.5%Self-Serving Bias17.0%This article: 0.0%Graig Graziosi: 0.3%The Independent: 1.2%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Graig Graziosi: 0.3%The Independent: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 4.4%Graig Graziosi: 0.9%The Independent: 1.6%In-Group Bias4.4%This article: 0.0%Graig Graziosi: 0.4%The Independent: 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Graig Graziosi: 3.4%The Independent: 2.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Graig Graziosi: 0.6%The Independent: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Graig Graziosi: 0.0%The Independent: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 7.5%Graig Graziosi: 1.2%The Independent: 1.5%Recency Bias7.5%This article: 0.0%Graig Graziosi: 0.4%The Independent: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Graig Graziosi: 0.0%The Independent: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 3.8%Graig Graziosi: 0.7%The Independent: 2.2%Ad Hominem3.8%This article: 0.0%Graig Graziosi: 0.7%The Independent: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 19.3%Graig Graziosi: 6.0%The Independent: 3.8%Appeal to Authority19.3%This article: 0.0%Graig Graziosi: 0.8%The Independent: 1.4%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Graig Graziosi: 0.8%The Independent: 0.7%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Graig Graziosi: 0.4%The Independent: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 7.7%Graig Graziosi: 4.0%The Independent: 4.1%Hasty Generalization7.7%This article: 5.2%Graig Graziosi: 0.7%The Independent: 0.4%Red Herring5.2%This article: 0.0%Graig Graziosi: 0.8%The Independent: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 12.2%Graig Graziosi: 8.3%The Independent: 6.5%Appeal to Emotion12.2%This article: 7.5%Graig Graziosi: 0.5%The Independent: 0.9%Begging the Question7.5%This article: 0.0%Graig Graziosi: 2.2%The Independent: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 2.7%Graig Graziosi: 0.6%The Independent: 0.3%Tu Quoque2.7%This article: 3.2%Graig Graziosi: 0.5%The Independent: 0.7%Burden of Proof3.2%This article: 3.4%Graig Graziosi: 0.1%The Independent: 0.1%Appeal to Nature3.4%This article: 0.0%Graig Graziosi: 0.3%The Independent: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 14.7%Graig Graziosi: 2.6%The Independent: 2.2%Anecdotal14.7%This article: 0.0%Graig Graziosi: 0.1%The Independent: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 11.3%Graig Graziosi: 1.9%The Independent: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)11.3%This article: 0.0%Graig Graziosi: 0.0%The Independent: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Graig Graziosi: 0.0%The Independent: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Graig Graziosi: 0.0%The Independent: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Graig Graziosi: 0.3%The Independent: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Graig Graziosi: 0.0%The Independent: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Graig Graziosi: 2.6%The Independent: 2.6%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Graig Graziosi: 2.4%The Independent: 2.1%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 4.6%Graig Graziosi: 7.0%The Independent: 7.8%Biased Writer Voice4.6%This article: 0.0%Graig Graziosi: 1.6%The Independent: 1.3%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Graig Graziosi: 0.7%The Independent: 2.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Graig Graziosi: 0.2%The Independent: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Graig Graziosi: 0.3%The Independent: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

788 words analyzed.

Speakers

7speakers42%attributed speech455writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 0.0% coverageNew York Times • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageFBI • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageJoseph Kahn • 36 words • 100.0% coverageJoseph Kahn • 2 words • 0.0% coverageJoseph Kahn • 2 words • 0.0% coverageJoseph Kahn • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageFBI • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageKash Patel • 15 words • 0.0% coverageKash Patel • 12 words • 0.0% coverageKash Patel • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageKash Patel • 7 words • 0.0% coverageKash Patel • 27 words • 0.0% coverageKash Patel • 14 words • 0.0% coverageKash Patel • 35 words • 0.0% coverageThe Atlantic • 23 words • 0.0% coverageSara Fitzpatrick • 38 words • 0.0% coverageSara Fitzpatrick • 14 words • 0.0% coverageSara Fitzpatrick • 4 words • 0.0% coverageThe Independent • 7 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Joseph Kahn

100%flagged-word coverage
43 attributed words13% of attributed speech81% writer coverage
0%42.5%85.0%Biased Writer Voice+83.7 ptsWriter: 0.0%Joseph Kahn: 83.7%83.7%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.