“The statutory language founding Stripes, which says among other things that “The only circumstances under which news or information that is not in the public domain may be directed to be withheld from publication in the Stars and Stripes by a Unified Command CINC are when such publication:

(i) Involves disclosure of classified national security information.

(ii) Would adversely affect national security.

(iii) Clearly endangers the lives of U.S. personnel.

(2) Those circumstances in paragraphs (e)(1)(i) through (e)(1)(iii) may not be construed to permit the calculated withholding of news unfavorable to the Department of Defense, the Military Services, or the U.S. Government. Only the Unified Command CINC may authorize withholding of news or information from the Stars and Stripes.”

“I see nothing in that language that says anything about whether DoD pays the salaries of Stripes reporters or editors or publishers. The language of the statute seems clear to me. It says in effect that Stripes by law has the same First Amendment protection that any other professional news organization has, subject only to the specific statutory exceptions I’ve quoted, which do not seem to apply here.”

So the military, while funding a publication designed to inform and bind together the military community, is obligated to allow its staff to undermine morale and the “general order” because the publication has complete independence? The Pentagon does pay for “Stars and Stripes”, and the publication exists to provide news, not engages in editorializing against the U.S. government and the military as well as its leadership. The Pentagon is not obligated to keep paying for a publication that literally undermines it with jaundiced reporting.

Would “Stars and Stripes,” created to keep the enlisted informed about the armed services they are engaged with, be protected by that statute if it started calling for the Commander in Chief’s removal? A military-funded publication that undermines morale and order in the military in fact does adversely affect national security. The statute never anticipated writers for S&S actively sowing dissension, perhaps because when it was passed, Congress didn’t think of “advocacy journalism” as journalism, which it isn’t.

Just as courts have held that government entities can fire public employees who publicly criticize their supervisors, I have no doubt, none, that the Pentagon does not have to countenance editors and reporters for a publication created to serve the interests of the military community who view their role as “independent” of the Pentagon’s interests. The issue isn’t censoring information, the issue is whether the Pentagon has the right and power to ensure that those who put out a publication designed to inform and benefit the military community meet that mission and not their own political agendas.

Moreover, firing the staff responsible for inappropriate content for a military publication isn’t censorship. It is called “management.”

The Pentagon and Secretary of War Hegseth win this issue, one way or another. As they should.