Skip to main content

Fired Stars and Stripes staff sue Pentagon, alleging First Amendment violations

(CNN) — Three staffers at Stars and Stripes, the military publication, sued the Pentagon and top officials on Thursday. The trio, including the outlet’s editor-in-chief, claimed they were illegally pushed out over personal statements protected under the First Amendment.

The Pentagon last week fired Erik Slavin, the outlet’s editor-in-chief, Max Lederer, its publisher, and Lara Korte, a reporter who covers the Middle East — a blow to press freedoms within the US military. Stars and Stripes has had a decades-long record of editorial independence.

The trio accused the US Department of Defense of charging them with insubordination for publicly supporting that editorial independence in covering the agency, which partly funds the publication.

They alleged the Defense Department also retaliated against a Stars and Stripes story that exposed conditions aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln.

“Defendants are attempting to fire Plaintiffs for speaking up as private citizens in support of the press’s freedom to cover military operations, its need to reach all servicepersons, and in retaliation for their publication of a news report on deteriorating conditions aboard the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln during its extended tour of duty in the Mid-East,” the complaint reads.

The lawsuit also names Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, chief Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell and Principal Deputy Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs Andrew Brey. It seeks a temporary restraining order and permanent relief ahead of the termination of their contracts.

Thursday’s lawsuit follows two other First Amendment complaints filed this year. Jacqueline Smith, the publication’s ombudsman, sued the Department of Defense in June, alleging First Amendment violations after being forced out. Two advisory board members also sued the Pentagon in June over “modernization” efforts, accusing the agency of illegal censorship.

Despite partial funding from the Pentagon, Stars and Stripes operates like a commercial newspaper and independently covers military news.

In January, however, the Pentagon said it would “modernize” the outlet and “refocus its content away from woke distractions.” The same day, the agency moved to repeal the Stripes regulations that protected the publication’s editorial independence.

Notably, the lawsuit also asks that the repeal be declared unlawful.

According to the complaint, the Pentagon’s ire stems from an eight-minute July 5 “CBS Sunday Morning” segment that included statements by Slavin and Korte about changes to Stars and Stripes’ independence.

However, the defendants understood the statements “expressed personal opinions, and therefore took no immediate action, despite their displeasure,” according to the lawsuit.

Then, on August 12, one day after Stars and Stripes broke the news about the Lincoln, the Pentagon directed Lederer to “present Notices of Separation” to Slavin and Korte. The department claimed their statements on CBS amounted to insubordination, the lawsuit says.

Lederer did not fire Slavin and Korte. Instead, a week later, he announced his retirement, effective September 30.

“It has become clear that my philosophy of leadership, and my understanding of the value and mission of Stars and Stripes, differ in fundamental ways from the direction the leadership of the Department of Defense has for the organization,” he said in a memo to staffers.

Three days later, Lederer was pushed out before his retirement date. Slavin and Korte were also fired. The lawsuit says the agency cited “statements to the media as grounds for their termination.”

In their lawsuit, the trio alleges that their departures violate Defense Department regulation: They “committed no misconduct, and even if they had, the notices and proposed terminations do not comport with required procedures,” they say in the court filing.

The Pentagon declined to comment.

The-CNN-Wire
™ & © 2026 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.

Jury begins deliberations in Lindsay Clancy’s murder trial

(CNN) - The jury is now deliberating in the murder trial of Lindsay Clancy, after weeks of testimony wrapped up with closing arguments from both sides this morning. The courtroom was packed with reporters and members of the public. A few women in the gallery were wearing pink, presumably in support of Clancy. Before the closing arguments began, Clancy was seen wiping the corner of her eyes, and her shoulders shook as Judge William Sullivan reviewed the charges against her. The jury that will consider Lindsay Clancy’s fate is made up of nine women and three men. The panel includes a woman who was wiping her eyes during closing arguments, a man who yawned during the commonwealth’s closing, and a woman who nodded when a psychiatrist testified Clancy’s choice to not take a certain medication was reasonable “in her mind.” Many of the empaneled jurors have been diligently taking notes during the testimony. The jury foreperson is a woman with gray hair and glasses. Six alternates — three men and three women — were dismissed and so will not deliberate. After the jury exited the courtroom, Judge William F. Sullivan took a moment to commend all three attorneys for their work on the case. “Unless you’ve tried a difficult murder like this one, you may not be aware how difficult and tough it is to try a case like this,” Sullivan said. “It’s emotionally taxing. It’s intellectually, it’s physically exhausting. So I just wanted to commend all three counsel for their work and their efforts in this case in this trial. I know how challenging it’s been for them.” The jury can consider charges of first-degree murder, second-degree murder, or manslaughter. First-degree murder is punishable by life in prison without the possibility of parole. Second-degree murder is punishable by life in prison with the possibility of parole. Manslaughter is punishable by up to 20 years in prison. If the jury finds Clancy not criminally responsible for the killings of her children, she could spend the rest of her life in a hospital. The court would periodically review Clancy's mental health to determine whether she could be released. In his closing argument, defense attorney Kevin Reddington said evidence shows Clancy was “a darn good mother” and the killings happened “because of the damn medicine and the lousy medical care” Clancy received. Reddington said Clancy “lived for her kids” until doctors began overprescribing her medications. The evidence presented showed Clancy had raised concerns and fears about the medications, he said, and her handwritten notes show how her mental state deteriorated. Clancy is not “criminally responsible” for the crime because of her psychological state, he said, citing the expert opinion of forensic psychiatrist Dr. Phillip Resnick. The psychiatrist examined Clancy and testified she was “frankly psychotic” and not in control of her actions during the killings. Experts for both sides acknowledged during the trial that Clancy made a “serious suicide attempt,” Reddington said. The jury was also presented exhibits that support that, he said. The defense lawyer also accused police of not conducting a thorough investigation. Assistant District Attorney Jennifer Sprague told jurors that “there’s no dispute that Lindsay Clancy was suffering from a mental illness and that she tried to kill herself,” but the issue is if she “knew the difference between right and wrong” when she killed her three kids. Killing them “was a choice,” she said. Sprague argued Clancy interacted with the public and presented “herself as a functioning adult, a functioning mom.” She pointed out Clancy chose not to tell mandated reporters about thoughts of harming her kids and how she took her daughter to the doctor the day of the killings. Sprague also said Clancy did not immediately tell her husband that she heard a voice that directed her to kill the kids. Further, the failure of the suicide attempt shows that there was no voice in her head, Sprague argued, pointing out that the pills she took were not at a lethal level and cut wounds were “superficial.” Clancy had resources, support and access to great medical care but did not follow through on a plan, Sprague said. Medical providers aren’t at fault for Clancy’s depression because she wasn’t always being honest with her doctors about her condition and what medications she took, according to Sprague. Judge William F. Sullivan showed the jury the verdict slips that the panel will use to come to a unanimous decision in Lindsay Clancy’s trial. There are three verdict slips, one for each of Clancy’s three children. Each verdict slip has several options: Not guilty, not guilty by lack of criminal responsibility, guilty of first-degree murder, guilty of second-degree murder and guilty of manslaughter. “Reaching a verdict in this case is not necessarily going to be an easy task,” he said. The-CNN-Wire™ & © 2026 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.
Read Next Story