The FBI's Alleged Probe of a Reporter for 'Stalking' Breaks New Ground in Criminalizing Journalism

In February, The New York Times reported that FBI Director Kash Patel had assigned rotating SWAT teams to guard his girlfriend, country music singer Alexis Wilkins, as she traveled around the country. The article portrayed that use of FBI resources as highly unusual and ethically questionable. “If you want to be a celebrity or a social media star, get your own security,” a former FBI official told the newspaper. “The inappropriateness of this cannot be overstated.”

The story was undeniably embarrassing for Patel and Wilkins. In Wilkins’ view, it also was evidence of “stalking,” a federal felony punishable by up to five years in prison. According to “a person briefed on the matter,” The New York Times reported on Wednesday, that highly dubious claim prompted an FBI investigation of Times reporter Elizabeth Williamson, who wrote the offending story. If that account is accurate, it represents an extraordinary attempt to criminalize standard journalism.

Such an investigation would be consistent with Patel’s attitude toward “the mainstream media,” which he has described as “the most powerful enemy that the United States has ever seen.” It also would be consistent with Patel’s threat to “come after the people in the media” who “helped Joe Biden rig presidential elections.” But it plainly would not be consistent with the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of the press.

According to the anonymous source cited by the Times, FBI agents interviewed Wilkins, “queried databases for information” about Williamson, and “recommended moving forward to determine whether” she had violated “federal stalking laws.” Those steps “prompted concerns among some Justice Department officials who saw the inquiry as retaliation” for an article that Patel and Wilkins “did not like.” The officials “determined there was no legal basis to proceed with the investigation.”

It is not hard to see why. As relevant (or irrelevant) here, federal law defines stalking as placing someone “under surveillance” with “intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate” that person. Nothing Williamson did while researching and writing her story fits the elements of that crime.

“In preparing the article about Mr. Patel and Ms. Wilkins,” the Times says, “Ms. Williamson followed normal procedures for a journalist working on a story, which typically involve reaching out to the subject and seeking a variety of perspectives. In this case, Ms. Williamson contacted numerous people who had worked with or knew Ms. Wilkins.”

Williamson had one off-the-record phone conversation with Wilkins and “exchanged emails with her before publication of the article.” She also “asked Ms. Wilkins to provide a list of people she might speak to for the article, but Ms. Wilkins did not respond.”

None of that remotely resembles the crime that Wilkins perceived, which should have been obvious to the FBI agents who, according to the Times, nevertheless took the allegation seriously enough to recommend further investigation. An FBI spokesman questioned that account, saying it was “false” that the bureau had investigated Williamson. At the same time, he lent credence to the ludicrous notion that Williamson’s conduct might have constituted a crime.

“Ms. Wilkins was interviewed by FBI agents in relation to a death threat in Boston, which specifically referenced an article published by Williamson the previous day,” the spokesman told the Times by email. “During this questioning, the agents inquired about the related reporting. While investigators were concerned about how the aggressive reporting techniques crossed lines of stalking, no further action regarding Williamson or the reporting was ever pursued by the FBI.”

Even as the FBI spokesman denied that Williamson was the subject of a formal FBI investigation, he averred that her “aggressive reporting techniques crossed lines of stalking.” But they plainly did not cross those lines, or even come close to them. If Williamson’s work qualified as stalking, journalists across the country are guilty of the same crime when they interview the subject of a story and other sources with relevant knowledge.

“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,” says New York Times Executive Editor Joseph Kahn. “It’s alarming. It’s unconstitutional. And it’s wrong.”

In his 2023 book Government Gangsters, Patel railed against “the fake news mafia,” which he placed high on his list of “Deep State” enemies. He has threatened to punish journalists for reporting that supposedly helped Biden steal a presidential election. “We’re gonna come after you,” he warned in a podcast interview with Steve Bannon a year before President Donald Trump picked him to run the FBI. “Whether it’s criminally or civilly, we’ll figure that out. But yeah, we’re putting all of you on notice. And Steve, this is why they hate us. This is why we’re tyrannical. This is why we’re dictators. Because we’re actually gonna use the Constitution to prosecute them for crimes they said we have always been guilty of but never have.”

Given Patel’s conflation of unfavorable news coverage with criminal conduct, it would not be surprising if FBI agents under his leadership took a similar view. The man who gave Patel his job sets a similar example by portraying journalism he does not like as defamation, consumer fraud, or a violation of broadcast regulations. Neither Patel nor Trump seems to have any compunction about using the legal system to retaliate against their critics.

In that respect, they are copying the tactics of lower-level tyrants who have long tried to do the same thing. “In 2023, Arizona state Sen. Wendy Rogers sought a restraining order against a reporter who knocked on her door to investigate her compliance with residency requirements,” notes Seth Stern, chief of advocacy at the Freedom of the Press Foundation. “The same year, the mayor of Calumet City, Illinois, had a reporter ticketed for ‘hampering city employees’ [by] asking officials questions.” And in a case that the Supreme Court recently declined to hear, local officials in Laredo, Texas, went further, arresting a journalist for asking a police officer to confirm information about two newsworthy events.

“The federal government is now following the lead of these widely ridiculed local officials,” Stern says. ”It’s outrageous that a sober-minded FBI would even consider a theory that reporting methods like phone calls and emails might constitute stalking….If Kash Patel was looking to disprove Williamson’s reporting about him using government resources for personal matters, siccing his agency on a reporter for retribution is a very strange way of doing it.”

The post The FBI’s Alleged Probe of a Reporter for ‘Stalking’ Breaks New Ground in Criminalizing Journalism appeared first on Reason.com.

Source: https://reason.com/2026/04/23/the-fbis-alleged-probe-of-a-reporter-for-stalking-breaks-new-ground-in-criminalizing-journalism/