OMITTED

What the news leaves out.

← Omitted front page

Judge Declines to Halt Firings of Stars and Stripes Staff

5 sources · updated 2026-09-06
Left 50% Center 50% Right 0%
1 left · 1 center · 0 right

What happened

On Friday, U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden in Washington, D.C., declined to halt the Pentagon’s planned firings of three Stars and Stripes employees: publisher Max Lederer, editor-in-chief Erik Slavin, and Middle East reporter Lara Korte. The three had received August separation notices and been placed on administrative leave over alleged insubordination; they sued seeking reinstatement and an emergency order blocking the terminations. McFadden found they were not likely to succeed on claims that the firings violated the First Amendment, concluding on the current record that Slavin and Korte were dismissed for giving pre-approved interviews to CBS News as part of their official duties. Lederer had refused a Pentagon directive to fire Slavin and Korte and was himself terminated. Stars and Stripes is a military newspaper that is partially taxpayer-funded and has traditionally operated independently of military leadership; the underlying lawsuit continues.
Sourcing check · Fully on the record · 3 articles

3 of 3 articles cite a named source for the story. It was on the record from the first report.

What these terms mean and how they're counted
On the record · names a source 3 of 3
On the record means the article cites a source by name for the story's main claim: a person, or an institution speaking officially, such as a company statement or a named agency's spokesperson. The opposite is an unnamed source. The count is how many of the counted articles cite at least one such source; the names are everyone named across them, each once however the articles spell it. Here: Max Lederer, McFadden, US district judge Trevor McFadden and Stars and Stripes publisher Max Lederer, editor-in-chief Erik Slavin and Middle East reporter Lara Korte
Primary evidence · cites a document or data 2 of 3
Primary evidence means the article cites a record you could check yourself: a court filing or ruling, a dataset or report, a recording or transcript, an official statement or press release, market data. A quote is not a document. The count is how many articles cite one. Here: court ruling, lawsuit, court order
Credits another outlet 0 of 3
The article says the story comes from another outlet's reporting (“first reported by Reuters”). Those articles relay the story; they are not independent confirmation. Here: Each article presents its own reporting.
Unnamed sources 0 of 3
The main claim is attributed to people who are not identified: “people familiar with the matter”, “officials said”. The count is how many articles do this.
How it developed
When the first report landed and whether it named anyone; when the first named source and the first document appeared. Here: First report Sep 5, 01:57 UTC by The Guardian, naming its source. First document in the first report, from The Guardian (court ruling).
Not counted 0
Opinion, analysis and video pieces, and articles too short to assess. Every count above is out of the counted articles. An article republished under a new headline is one article.
This is about who is cited, not whether the story is true. Each source below says what it names. How we count
BLINDSPOT. Only left-leaning outlets are covering this story — the other side's media is silent.
Omitted — what each side leaves out

Unpacked

Left-leaning coverage is currently the only coverage of a federal judge refusing to block the Pentagon from firing Stars and Stripes journalists; right-leaning outlets have not reported the case. The Guardian ties the firings to journalists speaking up for editorial independence and to an article on the USS Abraham Lincoln. Left-leaning coverage does not include the Justice Department's argument that the carrier story was a "red herring" and that termination steps had already begun. A reader of the silent side misses the ruling altogether. Left-leaning coverage splits its lead, with the Guardian stressing journalists punished for speaking out and The Hill stressing alleged insubordination. None of the coverage answers when the Pentagon's termination paperwork actually started relative to the carrier story.
Bottom line

The Guardian and The Hill reported that Judge McFadden refused to stop the Pentagon from firing Stars and Stripes journalists. Neither carried the government's claim that the USS Abraham Lincoln story was unrelated, and right-leaning outlets have not covered the ruling.

The receipts — 6 facts one side's coverage lacks
  • A Justice Department lawyer said the USS Abraham Lincoln story was a red herring and that the firing process started more than a month before it ran official statementin CBS News · absent from right-leaning coverage
  • McFadden issued a 24-page ruling numberin CBS News, NewsNation · absent from right-leaning coverage
  • McFadden found the staffers had failed to demonstrate that a preliminary injunction was warranted legal rulingin NewsNation · absent from right-leaning coverage
  • A Justice Department lawyer cited a Korte email saying she would rather eat glass than allow the federal government to tell her what she could write official statementin CBS News · absent from right-leaning coverage
  • The CBS News interview took place at Stars and Stripes headquarters with other employees visible in the background contextin CBS News · absent from right-leaning coverage
  • Advisory board members Susan Dardarian and William Church sued the Pentagon in June accusing the military of illegal censorship individual casein Guardian · absent from right-leaning coverage
The Left View
Left-leaning outlets framed the ruling as allowing the Pentagon to proceed with the firings and to exert greater editorial control over Stars and Stripes. The Guardian and The Hill reported the journalists’ claim that they were punished for speaking out about editorial independence and for an Aug. 11 article on conditions aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, and they quoted McFadden’s findings that independence “is not at stake here,” that plaintiffs failed to show a chill on speech, and that Slavin and Korte “largely toed the company line” in official interviews. Coverage noted McFadden is a Trump appointee, that an attorney called the ruling disappointing, that Lederer said the lawsuit will continue, and that at least two other suits accuse the Pentagon of interfering with the paper’s integrity—one by advisory board members Susan Dardarian and William Church, another by former ombudsman Jacqueline Smith.
Our Take (balanced)
The story is substantive: a named judge issued a 24-page order after a hearing in a filed lawsuit involving named Pentagon defendants, named journalists, and a specific publication, with checkable court filings. Established is that McFadden denied a preliminary injunction, found the First Amendment claim unlikely to succeed on this record, and treated the CBS interviews as official-duty speech; the Pentagon’s stated ground is insubordination, and a Justice Department lawyer told the court the Lincoln article was unrelated and that the firing process began more than a month earlier. What remains alleged—and was not credited at this stage—is that the firings were retaliation for independent reporting or a bid to seize editorial control. No right-leaning outlet has reported this. Watch the rest of this case, any appeal of the injunction denial, the related censorship and retaliation suits, and further Pentagon or Stars and Stripes personnel or policy moves.

5 sources

More stories

The week's bottom lines, in your inbox

One email a week: the five stories that mattered and what they actually mean. Free.