Judge David Alan Ezra of the Western District of Texas issued a ruling today in Wilkins v. Seraphin that addresses a dispute over alleged defamation stemming from statements made by Kyle M. Seraphin on his podcast.
The core issue arises from supposed defamatory remarks spoken by Defendant Kyle M. Seraphin on his program, the Kyle Seraphin Show, about the Plaintiff Alexis Wilkins ….
Plaintiff Alexis Wilkins asserts that she is a patriotic, conservative, Christian artist in country music, as well as a published author, who also works for the conservative advocacy and educational nonprofit PragerU. Since January 2023, Wilkins has been in a long-term romance with Kashyap “Kash” Patel, who serves as the Director of the FBI.
Defendant Kyle M. Seraphin is a United States Air Force veteran and former FBI special agent who specialized in Counterterrorism. He describes himself as a “Podcaster,” “Whistleblower,” and “Recovering FBI agent,” and he hosts the Kyle Seraphin Show, during which he leverages his insider understanding of the FBI and his law-enforcement background to tell his audience what he frames as the “uncomfortable truth.”
The program is broadcast live on YouTube, “Rumble,” and the defendant’s own website, and it reaches a broad audience. According to the Complaint, Seraphin has more than 271,800 followers on X, with his posts often attracting tens of thousands of views and numerous re-posts. The Complaint also alleges that Seraphin earns income from video sponsorships, paid memberships on YouTube, and donations via YouTube.
On August 22, 2025, the Defendant made the following remarks on the Kyle Seraphin Show:
[FBI Director Kash Patel] has been dealing with a little “honeypot” issue lately, so we’re going to address it quite openly. He’s involved with a partner who is notably younger, described as a country music singer and a political commentator on Rumble, who counts as a friend of John Rich through Bongino, and who also reportedly owns a substantial portion of Rumble. She is said to have previously worked for Mossad, in a role akin to their version of the NSA. Yet I’m sure this is simply because she’s seeking a tough, athletic, almost fifty-year-old, Indian-American man to lead her life with.
It’s as if that has nothing to do with the fact that we’re closely connected to the Trump administration. Anyway, I’m sure that’s just love.
That’s what genuine love looks like.
Wilkins contends that, in making these comments, Seraphin falsely and maliciously portrayed her as a “honeypot”—a supposed foreign-government agent who lures someone into a relationship to influence or compromise them—and he accused her of “engaging in espionage to undermine national security” and “committing treason.” …
The court determined that Wilkins had sufficiently alleged that the statements about her were false factual claims (not merely opinions or hyperbole); at this stage, the issue is whether the allegations are legally adequate, not whether they are true or false, which would be decided later in the case:
First, the Defendant contends that his “sarcastic, humorous, and hyperbolic” assertions that Wilkins is a “honeypot” and a “former Mossad agent” are, as a matter of law, not defamatory. He argues that these “tongue-in-cheek” comments occurred within the framework of a political podcast, so a reasonable listener would understand them as not being literal assertions of fact, but rather as a device to make current events more engaging for the audience….
A statement falls within defamation under Texas law if a person of ordinary intelligence would interpret it as something that would damage the subject’s reputation or subject them to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule, or would cause financial harm, or would cast doubt on the subject’s honesty, integrity, or virtue. …
Applying First, the court finds that these statements are not merely taken out of context; rather, they are verifiably false in context and, when viewed as a whole, would reasonably be understood as factual assertions about the plaintiff rather than “opinions dressed up as facts.”
In the episode at issue, Seraphin introduces himself as a genuine whistleblower and former FBI agent who purports to present the “uncomfortable truth” during his program. As Wilkins alleges, the show opens with a voiceover declaring that the program “has no time for comforting lies.”
Moreover, before turning to Wilkins, Seraphin referenced news coverage about undercover and “honeypot” techniques used by the FBI in various investigations. He then discussed Patel’s supposed “honeypot issue” and proceeded to discuss Wilkins. After making these points, Seraphin continued with further commentary about Patel, touching on the Epstein case, the FBI’s New York Field Office, and the “New York Mafia,” in an effort to “explain to viewers who is really running the FBI.”
Viewed in this contextual framework, the court concludes that a reasonable viewer would perceive Seraphin’s remarks as part of the show’s stated goal of offering “uncomfortable truths” and as a continuation of the surrounding factual discourse. Seraphin’s contrary arguments fail to account for this context.
{The Court also rejects Seraphin’s reliance on Patel v. Figliuzzi (S.D. Tex. Apr. 21, 2026) as controlling. In that case, the court described the claim that Director Patel spent “more nights at nightclubs than on the seventh floor of the Hoover Building” as a form of rhetorical hyperbole. The court notes, however, that that statement differs in kind from the one at issue here. Id. (explaining that describing Patel as spending “far more” time in nightclubs was delivered in an exaggerated, provocative, and humorous manner). When evaluated in context, the court does not concur with Seraphin that the present statements amount to mere rhetorical hyperbole.}
The court further held that Wilkins had adequately pleaded “actual malice” on Seraphin’s part:
Wilkins has sufficiently alleged actual malice and, consequently, the court does not decide at this stage whether she is a public or private figure. Actual malice means a statement was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth. … Recklessness is a subjective standard focusing on the defendant’s intent and mental state, and mere negligence is not enough.
In her Complaint, Wilkins asserts that Seraphin published the defamatory statements across multiple outlets, knowing they were false, and that he fabricated the entire narrative to boost video engagement and to express his evident hostility toward Patel and toward Wilkins herself.
She contends that she and Seraphin met in person about two years prior at a political event; she alleges that, given that meeting occurred before Patel became FBI Director, Seraphin knew she was American—not Israeli—was not a Mossad agent, and that her relationship with Patel began well before he assumed the role. She also asserts that Seraphin never contacted her, and that she publicly denied any Israel-related affiliation before his statements were made.
Based on these well-pled allegations, Wilkins argues that Seraphin knew she was not linked to any foreign intelligence outfit and instead “fabricated” the accusation to reap personal profit, inflame viewer outrage, and inflate his audience. The court finds that these allegations, viewed in the light most favorable to Wilkins, are sufficient to support a claim of actual malice.
Jared Joseph Roberts and Jason C. Greaves (Binnall Law Group PLLC) represent Wilkins.
