A federal judge ruled the Pentagon can fire three Stars and Stripes journalists who pushed back against military censorship — clearing the way for the Defense Department to silence the very reporters American taxpayers fund to keep the armed forces honest.
U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden denied a temporary restraining order on Friday that would have blocked the terminations of publisher Max Lederer, editor-in-chief Erik Slavin, and Middle East reporter Lara Korte. The three sued the Pentagon on August 28, arguing their firings violated their First Amendment rights. McFadden, a Trump appointee, wasn't buying it.
The whole fight traces back to a Stars and Stripes report on deteriorating conditions and mental health crises aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, which had been deployed for nine months. A day after that story ran, Pentagon officials ordered Lederer to issue separation notices to Slavin and Korte. He refused. Lederer announced his retirement instead — but the Pentagon fired him before he could make it official, according to CBS News. Lederer also said the military installed a new deputy publisher, an active-duty service member, without his knowledge.
The stated pretext for firing Slavin and Korte: insubordination. Their alleged offense was giving interviews to CBS News for a "CBS Sunday Morning" segment that aired in July, in which they defended the paper's editorial independence. Korte told CBS she worked for Stars and Stripes, "not for the Pentagon, not for any administration, not for any policymaker."
Both journalists requested and received permission from their superiors before giving the interviews. But McFadden ruled that because they spoke as part of their official duties — not as private citizens — the First Amendment doesn't protect them. "They are being fired for giving pre-approved interviews on their paper's behalf in which they largely toed the company line," McFadden wrote. "Whatever else such a scheme may violate, it does not clearly offend the First Amendment."
Translation: the Pentagon authorized the interviews, the journalists said nothing their bosses hadn't approved, and then the Pentagon fired them anyway. The judge called it a "cruel bait-and-switch" — and then ruled it constitutional.
CNN framed the ruling as "the latest in a series of blows to press freedoms in the military." The Atlanta Journal-Constitution kept it straight, noting McFadden previously ruled against the Trump administration in the Associated Press Gulf of Mexico naming case. The Guardian highlighted two additional lawsuits against the Pentagon over Stars and Stripes — Pulitzer winners Susan Dardarian and William Church sued in June accusing the military of illegal censorship, and former ombudsman Jacqueline Smith sued the same month claiming retaliation for an opinion column.
What the legacy outlets soft-pedaled: the Pentagon's stated motive. In January, chief Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell posted on X that the Department of War wanted to "modernize" the newspaper and "refocus its content away from woke distractions," according to CNN. That's the same Pentagon now installing active-duty officers in the publisher's office.
Stars and Stripes is partially funded by taxpayers and has operated for decades with editorial independence from military leadership and the White House. The journalists are represented by Democracy Defenders Fund, Lawyers for Good Government, Government Accountability Project, and a Yale Law School clinic. An attorney for the three called the ruling "disappointing."
The Justice Department lawyer arguing for the Pentagon told the court all three journalists routinely did interviews as part of their normal duties. That's the catch: if speaking to the press is your job, the government can fire you for doing it the wrong way.
McFadden noted that "perhaps discovery will strengthen Plaintiffs' case," leaving the door cracked for the broader lawsuit. But for now, the Pentagon has its green light.
The question that hangs: if a taxpayer-funded military newspaper can't report honestly on conditions aboard a U.S. carrier without getting purged, what exactly are the taxpayers paying for?
