Kash Patel's $10 Million Lawsuit Against Blogger Dismissed After Being Called 'Googly-Eyed Kremlin B****'

A federal judge in Nevada has dismissed FBI Director Kash Patel's $10 million (£7.4 million) defamation lawsuit against blogger Jim Stewartson, who had labelled him a 'googly-eyed Kremlin b****' among other insults.

The ruling on 25 July voided an earlier default judgement, citing a lack of personal jurisdiction over the California-based writer. Patel filed the case in 2023 over posts accusing him of sedition and links to the 6 January Capitol events. As of early August 2026 the decision stands without appeal noted.

Background to the Defamation Claim

Patel and his foundation sued Stewartson in June 2023 in the US District Court for the District of Nevada, seeking substantial damages for alleged defamation, injurious falsehood and business disparagement.

The complaint centred on a series of posts on X and Substack from 2021 to 2023 in which Stewartson described Patel as a 'Kremlin asset' who had attempted to overthrow the government and planned the 6 January 2021 attack on the Capitol.

He also called him a 'blatantly incompetent chud'. Stewartson, who publishes the MindWar newsletter, did not respond to the suit initially. In August 2025 Chief Judge Andrew Gordon entered a default judgement awarding Patel $250,000 (£200,000) in total, with parts to him and the foundation.

The judge later noted that Patel's subsequent confirmation as FBI director suggested his reputation had not been significantly damaged by the statements.

Stewartson later challenged the judgement on grounds of improper service and absence of Nevada connections.

Jurisdiction Ruling Ends the Case

On 25 July 2026 Judge Gordon granted Stewartson's motion to dismiss and vacated the default judgement as void under the rules.

He ruled the court lacked personal jurisdiction because Stewartson had insufficient minimum contacts with Nevada. The posts were aimed at the American public at large rather than a Nevada audience specifically, and tagging Patel, a state resident, did not create the necessary link according to the effects test.

Gordon wrote that Nevada was not the focal point of the statements. The decision did not address whether the remarks were true, false or protected opinion under the First Amendment.

Stewartson had argued improper service and no ties to the state after moving to set aside the judgement in September 2025. The judge criticised Stewartson for wasting court time by apparently avoiding service and mocking the proceedings online, though he lacked power to order attorney fees given the jurisdictional void.

Patel had been represented earlier by an attorney now serving as Nevada's US attorney.

Stewartson's Response to the Outcome

Stewartson celebrated the dismissal on X, stating 'PSA: Now that my case is settled, you are free to refer to Kash Patel as a 'chud,' a 'googly-eyed Kremlin b****,' and a 'traitor' without fear of legal repercussions! You're welcome'.

The phrase 'googly-eyed Kremlin b****' had appeared in a footnote of the order. His attorney noted First Amendment protections are strongest for critics of government officials.

Patel's side did not issue an immediate public response to the latest ruling. The blogger had previously told a news publication that proving he was not a chud seemed hysterical.

The dismissal leaves open the possibility of refiling in another venue, though no such step has been reported as of 3 August 2026. The case highlights limits on online speech suits across state lines for public figures.