The lawsuit was filed last year by around 200 American plaintiffs, including families of victims killed in the Oct. 7, 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel. The plaintiffs allege Masri knowingly facilitated Hamas operations through properties and infrastructure linked to companies under his control.

According to court filings, the plaintiffs claim tunnels used by Hamas militants were concealed beneath two Gaza beachfront hotels developed by Masri’s companies, the Ayan Hotel and the Blue Beach Resort. The complaint further alleges that electricity generated by solar panels in an industrial zone operated by Masri’s firms supplied underground Hamas fortifications.

The plaintiffs are seeking damages under the U.S. Anti-Terrorism Act, which allows American victims of terrorism to pursue civil claims in U.S. courts against individuals or entities accused of materially supporting designated militant organizations.

In a motion seeking dismissal of the case, Masri’s lawyers rejected the allegations and condemned the Oct. 7 assault, which triggered Israel’s military campaign in Gaza.“The defendants unequivocally condemn Hamas’ violence and the suffering it inflicted upon innocent civilians,” Masri’s attorneys wrote in the filing, arguing the plaintiffs failed to establish that Masri knowingly engaged in conduct intended to support Hamas operations.

The filing described the complaint as speculative and said the allegations were based on the premise that participating in Gaza’s economy under Hamas rule amounted to aiding the group.Masri declined additional comment. Lawyers representing the plaintiffs did not immediately respond to requests for comment.Before the war, Hamas oversaw governance in Gaza and maintained an extensive tunnel network beneath the territory.

Foreign and Palestinian businesses operating in Gaza frequently navigated commercial and regulatory conditions shaped by Hamas’ control, even as the group remained designated as a terrorist organization by the United States.

Masri is among the most prominent Palestinian business figures in the Middle East and is best known for developing Rawabi, the first master-planned Palestinian city in the occupied West Bank. The $1.4 billion project received international backing and U.S. development assistance grants.His companies also developed major commercial ventures in Gaza, including luxury coastal resorts and the Gaza Industrial Estate near the Israeli border.

Much of the enclave’s infrastructure, including those projects, sustained heavy destruction during Israel’s military offensive following the Oct. 7 attacks.Among the plaintiffs is Israeli technology entrepreneur Eyal Waldman, whose daughter was killed during the attack on the Nova music festival in southern Israel.

Waldman had previously partnered with Masri on technology initiatives employing Palestinian engineers in Rawabi and Gaza, ventures both men had publicly described as examples of economic cooperation between Israelis and Palestinians.Waldman did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The complaint, lodged in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, names reporter Sarah Fitzpatrick and challenges an article published on Friday that cited anonymous sources describing what it called “conspicuous inebriation” and erratic availability during Patel’s tenure.

Patel denied the allegations in comments to Reuters, calling the report “a lie” and accusing the publication of knowingly printing false information despite receiving prior denials. “They were given the truth before they published, and they chose to print falsehoods anyway,” he said.

The article, which was later retitled online, reported that early meetings had been rescheduled due to late-night drinking and that Patel was frequently unreachable, delaying investigative decisions. The report included denials from the White House, the Department of Justice and Patel himself.

In a statement, The Atlantic said it stands by its reporting and would “vigorously defend” against what it described as a meritless lawsuit.The lawsuit alleges the publication acted with “actual malice,” a legal standard requiring public figures to prove that false information was knowingly published or recklessly disregarded.

Patel’s filing argues that editors failed to adequately consider detailed rebuttals provided before publication and did not allow sufficient time for response.Legal experts note that U.S. defamation law sets a high threshold for public officials.

Deanna Shullman said proving actual malice is difficult and that failing to obtain comment alone is generally insufficient to meet the standard.The complaint also references a letter sent by Patel’s attorney, Jesse Binnall, shortly before publication requesting more time to respond to multiple allegations.

The lawsuit claims the article was published without addressing those objections.The case adds to a series of legal actions by figures linked to the administration of Donald Trump against media organizations, though courts have previously dismissed several similar defamation claims.