Federal judge allows Pentagon to fire three Stars and Stripes journalists

Press Freedom in Uniform Takes a Sharp Hit as Judge Clears Pentagon to Terminate Three Stars and Stripes Staff

Sandego.net – The military’s oldest continuously published newspaper has lost three key figures in what critics are calling a defining test of editorial autonomy within the armed forces. On Friday, US District Judge Trevor McFadden issued a written decision denying temporary restraining orders sought by Stars and Stripes publisher Max Lederer, editor-in-chief Erik Slavin, and Middle East correspondent Lara Korte. With the injunctions rejected, the Department of Defense is now free to proceed with terminating all three employees — a move that has drawn sharp criticism from press-freedom advocates who see it as the latest escalation in a sustained campaign to reshape how the Pentagon’s own newspaper operates.

The Ruling and Its Immediate Aftermath

McFadden, who was appointed to the federal bench by President Donald Trump in 2017, concluded that the government had likely not infringed the journalists’ First Amendment rights. In his written opinion, he placed the burden squarely on the plaintiffs:

“Plaintiffs ultimately fail to carry their significant burden to show that they are clearly entitled to a preliminary injunction.”

The decision came at the close of a week-long reprieve during which the Pentagon had temporarily stayed the trio’s terminations. A Friday morning hearing preceded the written ruling. An attorney representing Lederer, Slavin, and Korte described the group as “disappointed” with the outcome. The Pentagon did not immediately respond to requests for comment, and it remained unclear whether the agency had already carried out the firings following the judge’s order.

What Triggered the Confrontation

The legal dispute traces back to a July 5 segment on “CBS Sunday Morning,” in which Slavin and Korte discussed changes to Stars and Stripes’ editorial independence. According to the lawsuit filed on August 28 — one week after the three alleged they had been illegally pushed out of their roles — the Pentagon grew displeased with that broadcast. The military newspaper had recently reported on hardships aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, and in the wake of that coverage, the Pentagon directed Lederer to remove Slavin and Korte from their positions. The lawsuit alleges that Lederer did not comply with that directive. He subsequently announced his own retirement.

The three sued the Pentagon, accusing the agency of terminating them over personal statements protected by the First Amendment. Their goal was reinstatement to their former positions.

The Judge’s Reasoning: Official Duty Versus Private Speech

At the heart of McFadden’s analysis was the question of whether the journalists were speaking as employees carrying out official functions or as private citizens exercising free expression. He pointed to the plaintiffs’ own filings and to the CBS broadcast itself:

“Plaintiffs’ own pleadings and the CBS News segment suggest that they spoke as part of their official duties and not as private citizens.”

He noted that Slavin and Korte had “requested and received permission from their superiors for their remarks in advance,” a detail that, in his view, undercut the claim that they were engaged in protected private speech. From that premise, he concluded:

“They are thus unlikely to succeed on the merits of their First Amendment claim and do not demonstrate irreparable harm.”

In addressing Lederer’s separate claim — that he was penalized for refusing to carry out a supervisory directive — McFadden wrote that his “failure to carry out a directive from a supervisor finds no shelter under the First Amendment.”

“A Cruel Bait-and-Switch”

Elsewhere in the opinion, McFadden offered a pointed characterization of what he saw as the plaintiffs’ underlying grievance:

“Perhaps discovery will strengthen Plaintiffs’ case. But at bottom, on the current record, Plaintiffs’ real complaint seems to be that they were victims of a cruel bait-and-switch.”

He elaborated:

“They are being fired for giving pre-approved interviews on their paper’s behalf in which they largely toed the company line. Whatever else such a scheme may violate, it does not clearly offend the First Amendment.”

A Broader Pattern of Pressure on Military Media

Stars and Stripes, which has operated since 1862 and is partially funded by the Department of Defense, has maintained a decades-long tradition of editorial independence. That independence appears to be under systematic challenge. In January, chief Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell posted on X that the Department of War intended to “modernize” the newspaper’s operations and “refocus its content away from woke distractions.” Within the same month, the Pentagon moved to repeal the specific regulations that had safeguarded the outlet’s editorial autonomy.

The lawsuit brought by Lederer, Slavin, and Korte is not the only legal challenge the agency now faces. In early June, two members of Stars and Stripes’ advisory board filed suit over the “modernization” efforts, arguing they constitute illegal censorship. Later that month, the newspaper’s ombudsman brought a separate First Amendment action after being forced out of the position in April.

Why This Matters Beyond One Newspaper

The ruling carries implications well beyond the walls of Stars and Stripes. Military journalists occupy a unique position: they are simultaneously employees of the government and practitioners of a profession whose core function is to scrutinize that same government. When a court determines that pre-approved, employer-sanctioned commentary falls outside First Amendment protection, it narrows the space in which any government-affiliated newsroom can speak candidly about its own institution. Press-freedom organizations have long warned that the military’s partial funding of its own newspaper creates structural conflicts of interest; this decision suggests those conflicts may now be resolved in favor of institutional control rather than editorial independence. Whether the three journalists ultimately prevail on the merits — a question McFadden left open, noting that discovery might alter the calculus — remains to be seen. For now, the Pentagon holds the upper hand, and the question of how much latitude a military newspaper retains to report on its own employer has grown considerably more uncertain.