Alexis Wilkins wants $15 million from three conservative commentators who called her a Mossad agent. The 26-year-old country singer filed separate lawsuits between August and October 2025, each demanding $5 million in damages.
She targeted three people: former FBI agent Kyle Seraphin, failed Utah Senate candidate Sam Parker, and conservative influencer Elijah Schaffer. All three spread claims that Wilkins works as an Israeli intelligence operative sent to compromise FBI Director Kash Patel, her boyfriend of nearly three years.
Table of Contents
When Conspiracy Theories Turn Personal
Millions saw the posts. The impact went beyond online harassment.
“People start harassing you, people start doxxing your family,” Wilkins told journalist Megyn Kelly during a July interview. Beyond the personal threats, her career took hits. As a PragerU spokesperson who hosts political content on Rumble and performs at gatherings organised by conservative groups, the spy allegations undermined her standing within the movement that employs her.
During the Kelly interview, Wilkins described what hurt most. “The fact that I’ve dedicated myself to this movement, to good values, to speaking to children. But also the fact that it’s accusing me of manipulating the person that I’m with, that I love. That’s a horrible accusation.”
Kelly asked whether she worked for a foreign government. Wilkins laughed. “Definitely not. That is a firm no on that front.”
Three Cases, Same Accusation
Kyle Seraphin was first. Wilkins sued him on 27 August 2025 in Texas. Two months later, she added Parker and Schaffer. Seraphin made his comments during a 22 August podcast episode: “He’s got a girlfriend that is half his age, who is apparently both a country music singer, a political commentator on Rumble… and she’s also a former Mossad agent in what is like the equivalent of their NSA.”
The former FBI agent turned podcaster earned revenue through sponsorships, paid memberships, and viewer donations on YouTube, Rumble, and X, according to court filings. Her lawyers accused him of lying to boost his audience.
Parker took a different route. The former banker who unsuccessfully challenged Mitt Romney in Utah’s 2018 Senate race posted on X in February 2025: “Why is a 24 yr devout Christian, hooking up with a Hindu Indian, old enough to be her dad?” He later claimed Wilkins’ “presumed Israeli status” explained why Jeffrey Epstein files remain unreleased.
Schaffer’s case centres on a wordless retweet. He shared a post about Mossad honeypot tactics alongside a photograph of Wilkins and Patel. No caption, no commentary. Her lawyers argue context alone carried defamatory meaning.
The Record Contradicts the Theory
Wilkins was born in Arkansas and identifies as Christian, not Jewish. Court records confirm she never visited Israel and has no intelligence agency connections.
Her career is publicly documented: debut EP “Grit” reached number four on iTunes in April 2023, she performs the national anthem at wrestling matches and political events, her PragerU work and Rumble show exist in plain sight. The relationship with Patel started in January 2023 at a Nashville house party, well before President Trump nominated him as FBI Director.
How the Mossad Conspiracy Theory Spread
Patel’s February 2025 Senate confirmation accelerated the rumours. Social media users fixated on the couple’s age difference (Wilkins is 26, Patel in his mid-40s) and her employment. PragerU became central because its CEO, Marissa Streit, previously served in Israeli military intelligence. From this connection, critics built elaborate theories.
Dr. Simon Goddek has 1.1 million followers on X. His July post stated: “Alexis Wilkins is twenty years younger than Kash and works for an NGO that’s basically Israeli intelligence… Classic honey pot.” Hundreds of thousands saw it.
The theories accelerated after the Justice Department released a July memo stating Jeffrey Epstein died by suicide and no “client list” existed. Some conspiracy theorists sought alternative explanations. By summer 2025, posts about Wilkins accumulated millions of impressions.
The Legal Battle Ahead
Public figures suing for defamation face brutal obstacles. The 1964 Supreme Court decision New York Times v. Sullivan requires Wilkins to prove “actual malice,” meaning defendants either knew their statements were false or demonstrated reckless disregard for truth. Getting facts wrong isn’t enough. She needs proof they knew it was wrong.
This standard exists to protect political debate. Think of it practically: a blogger writes that a council member took bribes. The claim is false. Under ordinary defamation rules, that’s liability. Under actual malice, the council member must prove the blogger knew it was false or published recklessly, not just negligently. Wilkins faces similar requirements across all three cases.
Seraphin Claims Satire Defence
His lawyers filed a motion to dismiss on 4 November 2025. Edward Loya Jr. of Dorsey & Whitney, a former Department of Justice prosecutor, leads the defence.
The 21-page motion frames Seraphin’s comments as protected political commentary, describing his statements as “humorous, sarcastic, and hyperbolic” expressions that “clearly constituted imaginative expression, satire, humor, and rhetorical hyperbole.” If courts accept the satire argument, the Alexis Wilkins lawsuit could fail because satire and opinion receive First Amendment protection that factual claims don’t. The defence notes others made similar claims before Seraphin’s podcast.
More problematic for Wilkins: she previously called similar allegations “ridiculous” and “ludicrous” during media interviews. Seraphin’s motion emphasises this: “This reading of the statements is bolstered by the fact that, in interviews, Ms. Wilkins has joked about the ‘honeypot’ and ‘Mossad agent’ references made by other commentators. She herself finds them ‘truly hilarious.'”
Someone who publicly laughed at accusations now claims serious reputational harm. Courts will weigh that contradiction.
Schaffer Calls It Absurd
He responded via X. The lawsuit was “the legal equivalent of your romantic partner getting mad at you for cheating on her in her dream.” He called it “totally delusional and paranoid legal behaviour.”
A 14-minute video he posted on 11 November shows Schaffer denying he made defamatory statements. “I never did. I never would. I never felt like suggesting that.” Her lawyers acknowledge his post had no caption but argue context created defamatory meaning. His defence will likely contend that retweeting newsworthy content about public figures falls within protected speech.
Parker hasn’t formally responded and continues posting about Patel and Wilkins on social media. Neither Schaffer nor Parker had filed official answers as of late November 2025.
Patel’s Defence Draws Criticism
The FBI Director defended Wilkins on 2 November via X. He described attacks as “disgustingly baseless” and called her “a true patriot and the woman I’m proud to call my partner in life.” His statement continued: “She is a rock solid conservative and a country music sensation who has done more for this nation than most will in ten lifetimes.”
Podcaster Candace Owens responded: “Kash Patel has to step down. This is excruciatingly embarrassing. He’s a teenager in love representing the Federal government.” 1.5 million people viewed her post. The lawsuits emerged alongside reporting about Patel’s use of FBI resources, including documented trips on government aircraft to watch Wilkins perform and FBI SWAT agents providing her security.
What Happens Next
Three separate cases are proceeding. The Seraphin case (1:25-cv-01375) in Western District of Texas, filed 27 August 2025, awaits Judge David A. Ezra’s ruling on the motion to dismiss. The Parker case in District of Utah was filed 31 October 2025 but Parker has no attorney listed. The Schaffer case in Southern District of Florida was filed 28 October 2025 with no formal response yet. All three demand jury trials.
Most defamation cases involving public figures settle before trial when actual malice creates high proof burdens. The defendants face documented falsehoods since Wilkins provably never worked for Israeli intelligence, but she must prove they knew this when speaking.
Wilkins’ lawyers are Jason Greaves and Jared Roberts of Binnall Law Group in Alexandria, Virginia. The same firm represents Patel in his separate defamation case against former FBI official Frank Figliuzzi over MSNBC comments. A judge awarded Patel $250,000 in another case against blogger Jim Stewartson, who called him a “Kremlin asset.”
Where Free Speech Meets Reputation
First Amendment advocates warn the suits could discourage legitimate criticism. Defence lawyers will argue political commentary about an FBI Director’s relationship falls within protected speech. Defamation specialists counter that false espionage allegations cross acceptable bounds by accusing Wilkins of federal crimes including treason, not merely criticising her politics or relationship choices.
Each lawsuit seeks compensatory, special, and punitive damages totalling $5 million. Whether Wilkins can prove actual malice remains the central question across all three cases. Her public statements finding allegations “hilarious” may undercut claims of serious harm.
Recent reporting suggests all parties remain committed to litigation in these high-profile defamation cases, though settlement discussions may emerge as costs mount. Wilkins continues her music career and conservative media work whilst cases proceed. The woman accused of being an Israeli spy keeps performing at American gatherings, posting political commentary, and appearing alongside the FBI Director.
Whether online conspiracy theories carry legal consequences, or whether the First Amendment shields even baseless espionage claims, will be decided in courtrooms across three states.
