A federal judge allowed the Pentagon to proceed with firing three Stars and Stripes journalists, ruling their termination did not violate First Amendment rights after they gave interviews to CBS News as part of their official duties.
U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden, a Trump appointee, refused to block the Pentagon’s plan to fire Stars and Stripes publisher Max Lederer, editor-in-chief Erik Slavin, and Middle East reporter Lara Korte, rejecting claims their First Amendment rights were violated.
The Judge’s Ruling and Its Legal Basis
McFadden’s 24-page ruling concluded that Slavin and Korte were legally dismissed for giving pre-approved interviews on their paper’s behalf in which they largely toed the company line,
a move he said did not clearly violate the First Amendment. The judge emphasized that government employees’ free speech protections depend on whether they spoke as private citizens or in their official roles. Plaintiffs’ real complaint seems to be that they were victims of a cruel bait-and-switch,
McFadden wrote, suggesting their termination stemmed from their alignment with the publication’s editorial stance rather than protected dissent.
The journalists’ lawsuit alleged the Pentagon pressured Lederer to fire Slavin and Korte after an August 11 article exposed deteriorating mental health and living conditions aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln. Lederer, who declined to comply, later retired, claiming the Pentagon had installed a new deputy publisher without his consent. However, McFadden found no evidence the article itself influenced the firings, noting the process began more than a month earlier.
CBS News reported that Korte, in her interview, stated, not for the Pentagon, not for any administration, not for any policymaker,
a line the judge cited as evidence she was speaking in her capacity as a journalist. The publication’s former ombudsman, Jacqueline Smith, and Pulitzer-winning reporters Susan Dardarian and William Church had previously sued the Pentagon over similar claims of censorship, but McFadden’s ruling did not address those cases.
Conflicting Accounts from the Parties
Lawyers for the journalists, including Taryn Wilgus Null of the Democracy Defenders Fund, argued that Slavin and Korte were speaking on matters of public concern
outside their official duties. Null told McFadden that the journalists had a choice about whether to be interviewed for CBS News,
and that their comments did not align with the Pentagon’s interests. Government employees do not lose their First Amendment free speech rights,
she asserted, citing precedents where public employees were protected for expressing views unrelated to their jobs.
The Justice Department, represented by Brett Covington, countered that the journalists routinely conducted interviews as part of their roles. Covington highlighted an email from Korte in which she wrote she would rather eat glass
than let the government dictate her writing, arguing this showed her concern for being able to perform her job duties.
He also noted the CBS interview took place at Stars and Stripes’ headquarters, with other employees visible in the background, reinforcing the argument it was part of their official work.
The judge acknowledged both sides had some case law on their side,
but emphasized the need for a fact-driven analysis
tailored to each journalist. He left open the possibility of further proceedings, stating the plaintiffs could still prevail after discovery. Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate a chill here,
McFadden wrote, dismissing claims that the firings would deter free expression at the publication.
Broader Implications for Military Media
The case has reignited debates over the balance between military oversight and press freedom. Stars and Stripes, a military-funded outlet with a history of editorial independence, has faced repeated scrutiny over its relationship with the Pentagon. The publication’s former publisher, Lederer, accused the military of undermining its autonomy, while the Defense Department defended its authority to manage its funded media outlets.
As the litigation continues, the outcome could shape the future of military journalism. For now, the journalists face an uphill battle to prove their termination was legally unjustified, with McFadden’s ruling favoring the Pentagon’s assertion of control over its media partners.
