Hegseth ‘stacking up the wins’: Judge declines to halt firings of Stars and Stripes staffers

A district court decision found Secretary of War Pete Hegseth “stacking up the wins” after a Washington, D.C. judge ruled in favor of a set of Pentagon-related terminations.

Figures in corporate media have often demonstrated behavior somewhere on a spectrum from disinterest to disregard when it concerns personal biases. Now, an inability to differentiate between acting in a personal capacity and as representatives of a taxpayer-funded military news outlet found three ousted Stars and Stripes employees landing a legal loss over claims of First Amendment violations.

In August, the Department of War terminated editor-in-chief Erik Slavin, publisher Max Lederer and reporter Lara Korte over alleged insubordination for giving interviews to “CBS Sunday Morning” regarding the Pentagon’s influence over the outlet.

Friday, U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden of the District of Columbia ruled the trio were unlikely to succeed with claims of First Amendment violations, writing, “Plaintiffs’s own pleadings and the CBS News segment suggest that they spoke as part of their official duties and not as private citizens.”

“They are thus unlikely to succeed on the merits of their First Amendment claim and do not demonstrate irreparable harm,” added the judge as Eric Daugherty of Florida’s Voice summed up, “SecWar Pete Hegseth wins in court: A DC Judge has just upheld the FIRING of a woke reporter and publisher of the taxpayer funded military outlet Stars and Stripes, saying it’s NOT a 1st Amendment violation … GOOD RIDDANCE … Pete is stacking up the wins.”

As was previously reported, Korte reacted to her termination on X, posting, “Today, I was informed that the Department of Defense is firing me for insubordination after I told a CBS reporter that I work for Stars and Stripes — not the Pentagon, not any administration, and not any policy maker.”

ADVERTISEMENT

On that front, McFadden stated, “Plaintiffs’ comments were not a story, op-ed, or breaking headline that they edited or authored. Indeed, Slavin and Korte’s statements were made to another media agency altogether. They were acting as spokespersons for their paper or as sources for another organization. Either way, they were not made pursuant to ‘core editorial or journalistic functions.'”

In covering McFadden’s ruling, The New York Times detailed that it was Lederer who had given Slavin and Korte the go-ahead to participate in the interview, highlighting how, “The journalist also said their firings were related to their coverage of the worsening conditions on the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln, a Navy aircraft carrier that had been deployed to the Middle East for over nine months,” a point dismissed by the judge based on those involved in the reporting and the timing of the story.

Representing the plaintiffs, Democracy Defenders Fund senior counsel Taryn Wilgus Null told The Hill, “The judge emphasized a plaintiff’s high burden to obtain a preliminary injunction.”

As further options are weighed, Null added, “While we are disappointed in the decision, we fully expect to prevail after we have an opportunity to take discovery and all the facts are revealed.”

The win for the Pentagon comes nearly six months after a Clinton-appointed judge ruled against a press policy restricting unescorted access around the facility and demanding badges be visibly worn while prohibiting reporters from soliciting or obtaining intel without authorization.

ADVERTISEMENT

McFadden further asserted in his ruling, “public employees are (or should be) aware that they are not free to speak as they like when conducting their official duties.”

Kevin Haggerty

Comment

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

Latest Articles